the day is excluded by this word Quousque Crook contra Who said that the Declaration was insufficient for it ought to have been Tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso because here is a contempt to the King But upon full debate of the Case and upon shewing a President to the Court which was Plt. Jacobi Rot. 308. in the Common Pleas between King and Monlenax where the Declaration was for the party onely and all the Prothonotaries did certifie the Court that the greater part of Presidents of such Actions brought in the Common Pleas were for the party only and not Tam pro Domino Rege quam seipso whereupon it was adjudged that it was good either way Judicium and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And note that in this case the Iudgment was Quod Defendans sit in misericordia and not Quod capiatur vide 27. Assise 11. 42. Assise 17. Dyer 238. 40 41. Eliz. New Book of Entries 44 45. Bassett against Jefiock and Johnson IN an Ejectione the Iury gave a speciall Verdict to this effect That Queen Elizabeth was seised in fee in Jure coronae of the Mannor of Watton in the County of York and that King James the 15. Martii 2. Jac. did grant the same to William Brown and Robert Knight and their Heirs who the twenty seventh of April 3. Jac. did bargaine and sell the same to Michael Feilding and his heirs who entred and died seised and after whose death the same descended to Basill Feilding as his Brother who made a Lease to the Plaintiff Bridgman It seemeth to me that the Plaintiff hath made a good Title But it was objected that there was no good Title for that it is not found that the Queen died seised or that the Lands descended to the King But it was answered that when the Queen was seised in Fee in Jure Coronae that shall be intended to continue untill the contrary be shewed for when an Estate of Inheritance is once alledged it shall be intended still to continue till the contrary be shewn Plow Com. 193. 43 1. and 202. Judicium And afterwards viz. 19. Jacobi Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff without any argument at the Bench. Trin. 19. Jac. Samborne against Harilo IN an Action of Trespasse for that the Defendant 10. Octob. 44. Eliz the Plaintiffs free Warren at Mouldford in certain places there called Harecombe Harcombe Coppice and the Down did break and enter and did therein hunt without the license of the Plaintiff and three Hares and three hundred Conies did take and carry away Continuando as to the said Hunting and taking and carrying away the said Hares and Conies from the said tenth day of October to the first of November And further declared that the tenth of April 1. Jac. the Defendant the said Warren in the said places did break and enter and therein without the license of the Plaintiff did hunt and twenty Hares did take and carry away continuing the said hunting untill the first of March next after c. And further declared that the tenth of April 2. Jac. the said Defendant the said Warren in the said places did break and enter and therein without the license of the Plaintiff did hunt and forty Hares and four hundred Conies did take and carry away continuing the said hunting untill the first of March following contra pacem c. ad damnum c. The Defendant as to the Vi armis and to the first Trespasse except the entring and hunting in the said place called the Down and the taking and carrying away the three hundred Conies pleaded not guilty And as to the entry hunting and carrying away the said Conies he saith that the said place called the Down is and hath been time out of mind Communis fundus containing by estimation two hundred acres of Land and Pasture and that before the said tenth day of September and before the said Trespasse and at the said time the Defendant was seised of a Messuage and six Yard Land containing a hundred and sixty acres called the Mannor of Southbery in Mulford aforesaid and that the Defendant and all those whose estate he hath in the premisses time out of mind have had Common of Pasture in the said Down for 200. and 40. Sheep Levant and Couchant upon the said Messuage and six Yard Land and that the Defendant and all those whose Estate c. have used for preservation of the said Common as often as the said Common hath been oppressed and troubled with Conies have used of custome to have liberty to hunt and to take the Conies wherefore the Defendant the aforesaid time of the aforesaid first Trespasse and for preservation of the said Common from such oppression and diminution aforesaid into the said Down did enter and there hunted and the said Conies did take and carry away according to the said custome and continuing the said hunting all the said time And as to the second Trespasse besides the entry and hunting in the said places called Harecombe Harecombe Coppice and the Down and the taking and carrying away two hundred Conies he pleaded not guilty And as to the entry and hunting in the said places c. he saith that the said places called Harecombe and Harecombe Coppice are Woodland containing by estimation ten acres and that he was seised in Fee of the said Messuage and six Yard Land and made the same prescription as aforesaid for all his Horses Cowes Heifers Bullocks and two hundred and forty Sheep levant and couchant upon the said Tenements viz. for the Horses Cowes c. at the Feast of S. George and from that time untill the Corne growing in the Feilds of Moulford were carried away and after the Corne carried away for the Sheep untill the fourth of March next after and made the former prescription for the Sheep in the Down And the same prescription also for hunting and taking away the Conies as abovesaid and so did justifie the taking of the said two hundred Conies And as to the third Trespasse besides the entry and hunting in the said places and the taking and carrying away of the said four hundred Conies he pleaded not guilty and as to this plea he made the same prescription as before upon which plea the Plaintiff demurred in Law And if this matter pleaded in Bar was sufficient to bar the plaintiff of his Action was the question And it seemeth to me that there is nothing in the Defendants plea to hinder the Plaintiff from having Iudgment And the better to argue upon this matter I will first endeavour to shew what interest a Commoner hath in the Soile and what things he may do upon the Soile for preservation of the said Common 2. Whether this be a good usage and custome to enable the Defendant to hunt and kill Conies in the Plaintiffs free Warren And as to the first I conceive that he that hath Common in
Common tâ—â—ne and the Term to another and dies and the Executor payes the Rent or suffers the Devisee of the Common to put in his Cattell this is no assent as to the Term for the Term is one thing and the profit out of it is another thing but there in the principall Case the assent of the Executor of the Devise to occupy the Land was a sufficient assent to the Remainder of the Term because the occupation of the Land and the Land it self is all one and Comment 541. the same agreed and that the first assent doth go to all And it is no assent to the Term neither can it be taken by Implication to be any assent to the Devise of the Rent for every Act that does enure to another Act by Implication ought to be such as of necessity ought to enure to the other Act which cannot be taken to be otherwise and therefore 2 R. 2. Attornment the 8th A Woman grants a Reversion to which a Rent was incident and afterwards marries the Grantee to whom the Tenant payes the Rent this is no Attornment for it is indifferent whether he payes the Rent to him as Grantee or in right of his Wife Dyer 302. Vivors Case que recover Rents of severall Tenants as Bayly and then they be granted to him and after the Grant they be paid to him this is no Attornment for they may be paid to him as he is Baily as well as he is Grantee But if the Lessee do surrender to him in the Reversion then it is a good Attornment for a Surrender cannot be to any but to him that hath the Reversion And so in our Case it is cleer that the assent to the Legacy of the Land it self is not any expresse assent to the Rent nor any implyed assent for there may be an assent to the one and not to the other and where the Wife had assented to the Devise of the Term she hath utterly dismist her self of the Term as Executor notwithstanding the assent to the Rent but having once assented to the Devise of the Term she hath no more to do with it and therefore in such Case the Legatee of the Rent ought to sue in the Court Christian for his remedy against the Executor in the same manner as if a Term were devised to one and the Executor will not assent to it but sells the Term to another And in this case if the Testator were indebted after this assent to the Devisee of the Term the Term cannot be put in execution for this Debt but the assent of the Wife is in her a Devastavit 21 Ed. 4. 21. 37 H. 6. 30 2 H 6. 16. Also here is no Rent devised out of this house for the Devise is Ex omnibus aliis terris suis which word all excludes all the Lands wherof any mention was made before And Coke Rep 1. Mildmayes Case There Sir H.S. did covenant for a Ioynture for his life and for the advancement of his Issue Male if he had any and for advancement of his three Daughters and for continuance of his Land in his blood to be seised to the use of himself for life and then of part to the use of his Wife for her life with other remainders to his Issues Males and Females Proviso that it should be lawfull for him to limit any part to any person for life or years for payment of Debts or Legacies preferment of his Servants or other reasonable considerations And then he did limit the part of one of his Daughters to another for the term of a thousand years and this was adjudged a void limitation and one principall reason was because that the word other cannot comprehend any consideration mentioned in the Indenture before the Proviso and the advancement of his Daughter was mentioned before Object 2 But it may be objected that other Lands shall be understood such as shall be demised after her marriage and so will not relate to the house whereof there was mention made before Answer That this Obligation is against the recited resolution for it may as well be said in this Case that other considerations shall be other then what are mentioned in the said Proviso but it was resolved that other shall exclude all considerations mentioned before the said Indenture and so he excludes in this case all mention before in this Writ And this Case was argued at the Bench Pasch 14. Jac. And all the Iustices did agree that all the exceptions taken by the Counsell of the Defendant as well to the matter as to the pleading to be of no force saving the principall point sc If the Rent shall be determined by the death of the Wife or not and herein the Court was divided viz. Haughton and Crook held that it was determined but Coke and Doderidge on the contrary Et sic pendet c. Hillar 12. Iac. Iohn Harry and Lewis Howell against Grace Harry IN a Writ of Errour brought to reverse a Judgment given in a Writ of Dower brought by the said Grace of the endowment of Richard Harry her Husband And the Error assigned was because the demand amongst other things was De tertia parte de uno Horreo uno pomario and the Tenants pleaded Ne unques accouple in legall matrimony which was certified against them whereupon Judgment was given against them whereupon the Demandant did surmise that her husband died seised and so prayed her Dower with damages Et petit breve tam de habere facias seisinam quam de inquirendo de damnis and the Writ of Error was purchased before the return of the said Writ or any Judgment given thereupon And I conceive that it is Error for the Demand ought to be as certain and formall as a Writ for the Writ of Dower being generall De libero tenemento the Demand ought to make it certain and therefore it is of the same nature as the Writ is 8. Ass 29. 13. Ass 2. 13. Ed. 3. br 265. A Chappell or an Hospitall shall not be named but by the name of a Messuage and 8 H. 6. 3. Praecipe quod reddat does not lye of a Cottage and Cokes 11. Rep. Serbes Case in an Ejectione firmae of a Close called Dumote Close containing three acres adjudged insufficient for the name and quantity will not serve without the quality and certainty ought to be comprised in the Court because the possession is to be recovered And it was adjudged that the Error would not lye Loyde against Bethell HUmphrey Loyde brought a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench against Bechell and others to reverse a Recovery had at Cardiff in the County of Flynt by Nicholas John ap Robert Loyde to whom the Defendants are Heires against John ap De ap Robert Loyde for the now Plaintiff of Land in the County of Flynt which Assise did begin in the time of Queen Mary and did continue untill the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the third year
and Iudgment was given therein whereupon the Tenant to the Assise brought a Writ of Error the 5. Eliz. in Easter Term which did abate by reason of his death and after in the time of King James the new Plaintiff brought a Writ of Error in Recordo quod coram nobis refidet which did also abate by reason of variety between the Record and the second Writ of Error whereupon Mich. 13. Jac. the said Plaintiff did purchase this new Writ of Error And the Defendants did plead in abatement of the said Writ of Error that the now Plaintiff before the purchasing of the said last Writ of Error and since the purchasing of the second Writ of Error viz. the 19th of September the 10. Jacob. did enter into the said Land and the same day and year at the place aforesaid did devise the said Tenements to one Thomas Alport Habendum from the Feast of S. John Baptist then last past for four years next ensuing by vertue of which Demise the said Thomas Alport into the said Tenements did enter and was and yet is possessed Vpon which Plea the Plaintiff demurred and the Defendants joyned And I conceive that the Plea is insufficient Yet I do agree that if he who hath cause to have a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgment of Land does make a good Lease for years he hath suspended his Writ of Error for the Term as he does quite extinguish it by his Feoffment But here it appears that there is no Lease made for it is pleaded only that the Plaintiff did enter into the Land and it appears by the recovery that his entry was taken away by the Iudgment in the Assise whereby he gains nothing by his Entry but the Freehold and possession does remain alwaies to the Defendants being Heirs to the Recovery as appears by Litt. Warrant 158. If one be seised of Land and another who hath no right doth enter into the Land and continues possession yet doth he gain nothing thereby but the possession doth alwaies continue in him that hath right and so in the 3. Ed. 4. 2. Woolocks Case and in the Comment 233. Barkleys Case Execution is taken to be no plea in Bar to an Ejectment because it was shewed that the Lord Barkley did enter as in his Remainder and was seised in Fee untill the Lessor of the Plaintiff did eject him and did demise to the Plaintiff which is not good because it is not alledged that he disseised the Lord Barkley for otherwise he had no Estate to make the Lease and the Entry doth not imply any disseisin or doth gain any possession and 11 Edw. 4. 9. B. 12 H. 6. 43. B. And the Court did agree that the plea was insufficient But then it was moved that the Writ of Error was nought for the Writ was that Quidem Recordum processus Dom. Regina Elizabeth nuper Regina Angliae causa erroris interven venire sec and it appears by the Record that although the Recovery was removed by Writ of Error the 5. Eliz. at the Suit of the Father of the Plaintiff yet the Plaintiff did purchase a new Writ of Error Mich. 9 Jacob. and had a Scire facias against the Heirs of the Recover or who appeared Mich. 10. Jacob. and also the Writs of Habeas Corpus tales Distringas wherefore the Writ is naught for all the Recovery was not in the time of the Queen but part in her time and part in the Kings time But I conceive that it is good enough for first the Recovery and Processe is satisfied by transmitting the body of the Recovery as it is proved by the usuall form of all Writs of Error which is to certifie the Record and Processe and yet they do certifie only the Declaration and the Pleas omitting the Writs Also the Record shall be intended the principall Record and not the Writ and Proces Coke Rep. 11. Metcalfes Case the words of the Writ of Error Si judicium inde redditum sit this shall be taken to be the principall Iudgment 39 Ed. 5. 1. In a Scire facias brought by John Duke of Lancaster and Blanch his Wife to execute a Fine levied to them in the time of Ed. 2. and the Writ did recite the Fine to be levied Tenendum de nobis c. but it was adjudged good by Iudgment of Parliament and 2 R. 3. 4. Bough brought an Action of Debt against Collins who pleaded a forreign Attachment in L. by custome and did mistake the Custome and it was traversed that there was no such Custom and the major certified it so and all this was in the time of King Edw. the first and it was adjourned over to another Term before which time the King died and resumed in the time of King Richard the third and Iudgment given whereupon Collins did bring a Writ of Error which was Rex Dei gratia c. quia in Recordo processu in redditione Judicii loquela quae fuit coram nobis per breve nuper inter B. c. error c. And the question was if it was good And some said that there was no Warrant for such a Writ and some said that the Writ ought to have been speciall reciting how c. But the Masters of the Office said that in a Writ of Error before the Iustices of the Bench there is but a generall form in the Writ And after it was adjudged that the Writ of Error was good John Vandlore Plaintiff Cornelius Dribble Defendant Trinit 14 Jacob. Rot. 1062. IN an Action of Debt on a Bond of two hundred pounds made the eleventh of Febr. the 12th of King James upon condition that the Defendant shall perform the agreement of William Holliday Thomas Moulson Robert de la Bar and Humphrey Burlemacke Arbitrators elected c. to arbitrate of and for all Actions Suits Accounts and Demands had moving or depending in variance between the parties before the date of the said Obligation so that the agreement of the premisses be made and put into writing before the twentieth of March next The Defendant pleaded that there was no such Arbitrement The Plaintiff replyed that the eighteenth of March 12 Jacob. they did make an Arbitrement c. of and concerning the Premisses that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff fifty pounds viz. twenty pounds at April next and twenty five pounds at _____ and the twentieth of July next twenty five pounds in full satisfaction and discharge of all such monies as the Plaintiff did claim or demand of the Defendant by reason of the administration of the Goods c. of John Stadsell or by any other means whatsoever And that each of the parties upon payment of the said fifty pounds shall make generall Acquittances one to the other of all Actions Debts and Demands unto the day of the making of the said Acquittances And alledged breach to be made in the payment of the said twenty five pounds the twentieth of
Also the Bar is not good because the Defendant says he was possessed of five Steers and doth not say of the aforesaid 9 H. 6. 16. In a Quare Impedit brought by the King of a Chantery in the Chappel of St. Thomas in D. and made title to it and the Defendant pleaded that there was a Chantery in the said Chappel and made title to it and traversed the title of the King and adjudged to be no plea because he did not answer to the Chantry whereof the King had declared And Pasch 14 Elizab. Downing against Hayward In a false imprisonment in Suffolk the Defendant did justifie as servant to A. to whom a Commission of Rebellion of Chancery was directed and the Plaintiff pleaded De son tort Demesne and found for the Plaintiff and reversed again by Error in the Star Chamber because that when the matter of justification is upon matter of Record and matter in fact or of matters done in two Counties that cannot joyn the Issue ought to be upon one only And Pasch 15 Jac. Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff by the opinion of Mountague Crook and Doderidge because that all that was done after Sir Thomas Buriets Warrant was illegall but they agreed that the Plaintiff might have an Action for the charging of Felony and for all that was done before the said Warrant But Haughton disagreed who conceived that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff because the Plea of the Defendant was no justification for what was done before the warrant but at last Iudgment was given for the Defendant Judgment Mills against Marshall IN a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgment given for the now Defendâ—nt against the Plaintiff in the Common Pleas upon an Action of Debt on a Bond of twenty pounds Hil. 11 Jac. Ror 1109. And the Bond was made the twentieth of Jan. in the sixth year of King James and it was on Condition to stand to the Award of George Cockrell Edward Sureton and William Wasse to arbitrate of and concerning all matters then depending between â—hem so that the said Award be made and delivered to the parties under the hands and Seals of the said Arbitrators before the twenty ninth of January next The Defendant pleaded that the Arbitrators the twenty fourth of January in the sixth year of King James did make their Award of the Premisses by Indenture under their hands and Seals 1. That all Controversies and Suits between them unto the date of the written Arbitrement should cease and that the Plaintiff should have liberty to drive his Cattell to the River Eâ—ke c. and that the Plaintiff and Defendant should work and maintain at all times from thence forward a sufficient Hedge by the top of the Scar Sicut terrae praedicti Querentis Defendentis extendunt Anglice as their own Ground goes for security of the Cattell and Sheep which said Hill doth extend to the Land of Henry Facherly unto the Pale which then was between the Land of the Defendant and if any Trees or Woods growing in or neer the Woods of either party shall fall in controversie at any time that it shall be arbitrated by the said Arbitrators three or two of them which Arbitrement was delivered to the parties the same day and the Defendant pleaded that he had performed c. The Plaintiff replyed that the Defendant did not make a sufficient Hedge upon the top of the Scarr Prout terra sua extendit the Defendant said that before the Writ purchased viz. the fourth of April 12 Jacob. at Eshdayle in the County aforesaid he did make a sufficient Hedge upon the top of the Hill aforesaid prout terra sua extendit and so they were at Issue and found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given and the Defendant brought this Writ of Error And I conceive Iudgment ought to be affirmed Coke 5 Rep. Slingsbles Case If one let white Acro to I.S. and B. Acre to I. D. and covenant with them Et quemlibet eorum that he is Owner each of them may have an Action and Coke 5. Rep. Hurgots Case Submission to an Award so as it be delivered to either of the parties ought to be delivered to each of them 39 H. 6. 7. And all the Court did agree that each of them ought to inclose against his own Land only and so the breach was well assigned wherefore the Iudgment was well assigned wherefore Iudgment was affirmed Hilar. 13 Jac. Crawley against Marrow IN an Ejectment upon a Lease by Robert Faldoc dated the one and thirtieth day of August the thirteenth year of King James of two Houses two Orchards forty acres of Land ten of Meadow and fifty of Pasture in Bridgenorth Habendum from the tenth day of the said month for three years whereupon the Plaintiff was possessed untill the Defendant the eighth of October in the same year did enter and eject him ad damnum c. Vpon not guilty pleaded The Iury found the Defendant not guilty for all except one House and five acres of Land and found further that before the said time the twentieth day of Decemb. 11 Eliz. Rowland Hayward Knight was seised in Fee of the said one house and five acres of Land and ten of Meadow and being so seised thereof did enfeoff John Day and Robert Marshall in Fee to the use of John Whitbrooke and Margaret his Wife in Taile the remainder to the right Heirs of John Whitbrooke and that the last of January 12 Eliz. John Whitbrooke did enter into a Recognizance of a thousand pounds in the Chancery to Richard Faldoe which money was not paid to Richard in his life time That John Whitbrooke and Margaret had issue John Whitbrooke Knight and after and before the fourteenth of January 8. Jacob. died and before the said day Richard Faldoe made his Will and did make Amphillis his Wife his Executor and died and Amphillis did make Robert Faldoe Esquire and Thomas Shepheard Knight her Executors and died who undertook the Executorship 14. Jan. 8. Jac. Robert Shepeard and Faldoe had a Scire facias to the Sheriff of Middlesex to have execution of the Recognizance whereupon John Whitbrook was returned dead whereupon they had a Scire facias against the Heir and the Ter-tenant whereupon John Whitbrook was returned Heir and Ter-tenant who pleaded that he had no Land that was the Conusors at the time of the Recognizance or ever since by hereditary descent from the Conuzor in Fee and said that he ought not to be charged as Ter-tenant because he hath no Freehold that was the Conusors The Plaintiff replyed that the said John Whitbrook had divers lands by descent from the said Conuzor viz. A house called the Hospitall thirty seven Tenements or Messuages five Cottages one Tost one Dove-house thirty nine Gardens six Barns fifty four acres of Land thirty nine of Meadow and thirty six of Pasture in Bridgnorth and that the said John Whitbrook was Tenant of the Premisses
in Bar to wit the Fine with proclamations pleaded by Mary Taylor and the warranty pleaded by Robert Leigh and 28 others of the Ter-tenants or by any of these pleas or not And as to the first If he in remainder depending upon an estate in Tayl may maintain a Writ of Error to reverse a Recovery against the first Tenant in Tayl after his death without issue And I conceive clearly that he in the remainder shall have a Writ of Error for the Writ of Error doth always pursue the nature of the Land and not the privity of the blood And therefore 5 H. 8. the Writ of Error shall go with the Land and therefore the Heir in special tayl shall have it although there be another Heir at the Common-Law And so in Fitz Herb. N. B. 21 K. He who is Heir to the Land that is lost shall have a Writ of Error and not the Heir at Common-Law as if Land in Borough-English be lost by erroneous Iudgment the younger Son shall have a Writ of Error and 3 H. 4. 19. The Heir in special tail shal have the Writ of Error although there be another Heir at the Common Law And 1 Mariae Dyer 90. Verneys Case The Writ of Error shall be brought by him who had the thing whereon erroneous Iudgment was given And as the especial Heir shall have the Writ of Error so shall he also in remainder or reversion upon an Estate for life after the death of the Tenant for life 4 H. 8. 21 H. 6. 29. But the sole Objection that hath any coulor against this was Object that this Writ of Error ought to be given to him in remainder by the Common-Law for it is not given by the Statâ—te of the 9th of Rich. 2. and then there can be no remainder upon an Estate tail at the Common-Law and therefore he in such remainder cannot have any Writ of Error But this is easily answered for the Common-Law being Answer that when an erroneous Recovery is had against a pâ—rticular Tenant that he in the Reversion or Remainder shall have a Writ of Error after the determination of the particular Estate it follows that when this new particular Estate is made by the Statute of Westm 2. he in the remainder shall have the same remedy And this is proved by the case of the Tenant in Tayl for although that his Estate was not at the Common-Law yet now he shall have all Actions which the Common-Law gives to a Tenant in fee which may stand with his Estate and therefore he shall have a Writ of Escheat a Quod permittat Nat. B. 124. 4 Ed. 5. 48. Nat. B. 212. and so he shall have an Assize and many other Writs which lie for a Tenant in fee at the Common-Law And for Authorities in this point Dyer 188. That he in the remainder after the Estate-tail spent shall have a Writ of Error and so is it in Dyer 40. in Verneys Case And in the 3 Rep. fol. 3. B. if is resolved that he who hath a remainder expectant upon an Estate in Tayl shall have a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given against the Tenant in Tayl although there were no such remainder at the Common-Law for when the Statute de Donis Conditionalibus does enable the Donor to limit a remainder upon the Estate-tail all actions which the Common-Law doth give to the privies in Estate are by the same act as incidents tacitly given also according to the rule of the Common-Law and therefore as he in Reversion or Remainder upon an Estate for life shall have a Writ of Error by the Common-Law upon a Iudgment given against a Tenant for life although that they were not parties by Hyde Pryer Voucher c. so since the Statute de Donis conditionalibus shall he have who hath a Reversion or Remainder expectant upon an Estate in Tayl. And therefore I conceive the Writ of Error is good notwithstanding that Objection But now it is to be considered if this Plea of non-tenure shall avoyd the Writ of Error and I conceive it will not for three Reasons 1. I conceive that it is no plea to abate the Writ for the Plaintiffs might have reversed the Recovery against the Lessors of the Reversion onely without having made the Ter-tenants parties for the Writ of Error being grounded upon the Recovery does always lie against the parties to the Iudgment and their Heirs and may be reversed against them although they have nothing in the Land and this is clear by Nat. Brev. 107. and 26 Assis 12. A Writ of Error does lie against him who recovers and after the Error found a Scire facias shall issue against the Tenant and 42 Assis 22. and 44 Ed. 3. and 10 Ed. 4. 13. Non-tenure is no plea in a Writ of Error for the party to the Iudgment or his Heir And here in this case if those who have pleaded Non-tenure are not Tenants they are at no loss for they can lose nothing but this plea does discharge themselves onely and the Scire facias remains good against the Heirs and the other Ter-tenants 2. If Non-tenure could be a good Plea for the Ter-tenants in a Scire facias yet at the least it ought to be in such a Scire facias wherein the Ter-tenants are named and not in such a general Writ as this is For here the Plaintiffs have pursued their Scire facias in as good a form as may be viz. generally against the Heirs and the Ter-tenants and if there be any default it is in the Sheriff who hath returned those to be Tenants who indeed are not so and it shall be very hard if the Writ should abate for default of the Sheriff 20 Ed. 3. Scir facias 121. In a Scire facias on a Recognizance against the Ter-tenants it was said that one of them that ware warned had but a Lease for years of such a one who had the Freehold Iudgment of the Writ c. And there Birton said That the Sheriff had a general command to warn the Ter-tenants wherefore this is no Plea to the Writ And Hill and Wilby answered that it was otherwise for that the Plaintiffs at their peril should name the Ter-tenants in their Writ whereupon there was a new Writ Whereupon I observe that if the Writ be special naming the Ter-tenants as it was anciently then it ought to be so but of late such course hath been changed as appears by the 8 of H. 4. 18. and the Writ awarded generally and therefore such special Non-tenure shall be a good Plea for it is the default of the Plaintiff to pursue his Writ against one who is not Tenant but when the Writ is general Non-tenure is no Plea to the abatement of the Writ 48 Ed. 3 15. 8 H. 18. 48 Assis 2. and the 2 H. 4. 18. B. In a Writ of Account against the Sheriff of Northumberland of a Receit in Newcastle upon Tine and it was pleaded that Newcastle was
of age or not 29 Assise 67. In an Assise against Husband and Wife the Husband did answer as Tenant and the Wife would not but the Husband said that his Wife was within age and that she was taken away but did not say by whom and he did appear for himself and his Wife as her Guardian and pleaded in Bar and one of the Counsell said that the Wife had made default which is the default of the Husband and because that he answered as Guardian without Warranty by Record in this Court to do the same Iudgment c. And there Thoâ—â— said that he ought to have a Warranty in such case wherefore the Assise was awarded 35 H. 8. 56. In a Writ of Right by the Husband and Wife the wife being within age and she appeared by her next of Kin and was admitted by the Court. New Book of Entries 256. In a writ of Error to reverse a Fine by Maurice Pierce and Joane his wife and John Pierce and Elizab. his wife the three first appeared in person and Elizabeth being within age by one Laurence Gibson her Guardian and admitted by the Court. And so in this Case forasmuch as the Land is the Inheritance of the wife which is demanded which she will lose by this Recovery she ought to appear by her Guardian notwithstanding the full age of the husband who is joyned only for form sake with his wife 30 31 Eli. Morseby against Charnock The husband and wife levied a Fine and after this was reversed by Error because that the wife was within age the husband shall not have the Land for all the Estate passeth from the wife and the husband joyned only for conformity Coke 2. Rep. Cromwels and Beckwiths Case But it may be objected also Object that this Error concerning the nonage of the wife is so appropriated to her person in privity that no stranger can take any advantage thereof I conceive not so Answer for the constituting of an Attorney is utterly void as to the wife and therefore every stranger shall take advantage there as is not like the Case where an Infant makes a Feoffment which is but voidable and therefore the Lord by escheat nor any stranger shall not avoid it 22 H. 6. 31. The Plaintiffs within age did sue by an Attorney and there it was ruled that the Defendants might have a Writ of Error and placit 37. Eliz. Rot. 253. Bartholomew brought a Writ of Error against Dighton for that Dighton recovered against him in an Action of false Imprisonment in which he being within age did sue by an Attorney and adjudged that Iudgment should be reversed And this Case is not to be resembled to the Case of a Fine levied by an Infant which cannot be reversed by any but by the Infant himself and the same Law is of a Recognizance by an Infant and the reason of these Cases is because it is the Act of the Court to admit him to levy a Fine or to acknowledge a Recognizance and therefore this ought to be reformed by the Court and that must be by inspection of the Infant and therefore it ought to be done during nonage But the nonage in this Case ought to be tryed per pais as it was adjudged in the said cases of Bartholomew and Dighton and the case of Hobbs in which case the Infant was brought to the Bar to be inspected but adjudged by the Court that it should not be so because the matter was tryable per pais and 10. Rep Mary Portingtons case A common Recovery against an Infant although he appears by his Guardian shall not bind him for an Infant hath not such a disposing power of his Land as the Husbands wife have but is utterly disabled by the Law to transfer or convey his Inheritance or Freehold to others during his minority And of late daies a common Recovery does appear to be a common conveyance and assurance of Land The third part of the Case is If the two matters pleaded in Bar of Part. 3 the Writ of Error or any of them be sufficient or not I conceive not And first as to the Fine with Proclamations levied before the Recovery had which is the Plea of Mary Taylor one of the Ter-tenants I conceive that it is utterly insufficient as well for the manner as the matter of the Plea for she hath disabled her self to plead this Plea for she sets forth that the twentieth of May 31 Eliz. Thomas Leigh and Katherine his wife did let to the said Mary a Cottage and three acres of Land parcell of the Tenements expressed in the Fine and Recovery for life but doth not shew in what Town the said Cottage and three acres do lye wherefore the Plea is altogether uncertaine and insufficient for the Tenements in the Recovery do lye in two Towns viz. In Alkington and Prestwick and it doth not appear by this Plea in which of these the Cottage and three acres do lye 5 Ed. 4. 116. b. In a Formedon in Discender of a house and forty acres of Land and six of Wood in three Towns and the Issue being to be tryed the Tenant said that the Demandant had entred into the house and thirty acres of Land and three of wood And by the Court the Plea was naught because it did not appear in which Town the Entry was And in Moore and Hoskins case in the Exchequer 8 Jacob. In an Ejectment of Land in Overkiddington and Netherkiddington the Defendant pleaded not guilty and when the Issue came to be tryed by Nisi prius in the County of Oxon the Defendant pleaded an Entry of the Plaintiff in three acres of the Land contained in the Declaration since the last Declaration whereupon the Plaintiff demurred and adjudged that the Plea was insufficient and thereupon the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover Secondly for the matter this Fine being precedent to the Recovery whereby the cause of this Action is given cannot extinguish it for it is a Rule in Law that one cannot give or grant that which one hath not 22 H. 7. Kelway 84. If the eldest Son in the life-time of his Father infeoffs another it is void as to bind the Land and Littleton Releases 106. These words in a Release Quae quo vis modo in futuro habere potero are void in Law for no Right doth passe but only the Right which the Releasor had at the time of the Release as if the Son release to the Disseisor of his Father all the right which he hath or may have and the Father dye the Son may enter because that he had no right in the life of his Father but only a descent to him after the Release by the death of his Father 13 Ed. 1. 10 Ed. 2. and 4 H. 7. cap. 24. It is enacted that Fines with Proclamations shall conclude as well Privies as Strangers saving to the strangers such right claim and interest as they had at the time ingrossed so as they
Sir William the Remainder to the said Elizabeth for life the Remainder to the Plaintiff in Fee as the Defendants alledged and so they were at Issue And the Iury found the Lease and the descent of the Reversion and the Fine 33 Eliz. and the use and the death of John Parsons ut supra And that the one and twentieth of September 5 Jac. Sir William Ligon and Elizabeth his wife did make a Deed of Indenture of the said Tenements in these words This Indenture made c. between them of the one part and the Plaintiff on the other part whereby Sir William for seven hundred pounds before the ensealing and delivery paid to Sir William by the Plaintiff did covenant that he and Sir William before Christmas next should levy to the Plaintiff a Fine with Proclamations of the said Tenements which Fine and all Fines and Assurances to be had within seven years should be to the use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs upon Condition that if Sir William and Elizabeth or any of them or the Heirs or Assigns of Sir William should pay to the Plaintiff or his Assigns nine hundred forty three pounds at the Annunciation 1611. that the Estate of the Plaintiff should cease and that Sir William and Elizabeth and his Heirs should enter and the Fine should be to the use of Sir William and Elizabeth and the heirs of Sir William And Sir William covenanted with the Plaintiff that he and his Heirs untill the nine hundred forty three pounds be to be paid should have and enjoy to their use under the said Condition and according to the meaning of the said Indenture and if default of payment should be made then after such default the Premisses and the Rents and Profits thereof if such default should be shall be taken and enjoyed to their use without any interruption of Sir William and Elizabeth c. and discharged and saved harmlesse of all Incumbrances c. made by Sir William c. except the said Lease and Sir William covenanted that if the nine hundred forty three pounds should be paid to pay to the Plaintiff the charge of the assurance Pasch 5 Jac. The Fine was levied by Sir William and his wife to the Plaintiff and they found that the sixteenth of April 6 Jac. the Conusance of the Fine was made at M. in the County of Wilts and that after the said Conusance and before the said fifth of September Pasch 20. Martii 5 Jac. the said Sir William made another Indenture between him and his wife of the one part and the Plaintiff of the other part whereby Sir William and Elizabeth for seven hundred pounds before paid to them by the Plaintiff Sir William and Elizabeth did bargain sell and grant to the Plaintiff and his heirs the said Tenements upon the like Condition as aforesaid and Sir William did covenant that he and his wife should make a further assurance by Fine c. and that all such assurances should be to the Plaintiff and his Heirs under the said Condition untill default of payment and after such default to the use of the Plaintiff and his heirs absolutely and if payment be made to the use of Sir William and Elizabeth and the heirs of Sir William and the Plaintiff did covenant that Sir William and Elizabeth and their heirs untill the Annunciation 1611. should have all the Rents and Profits of the Premisses without interruption of the Plaintiff or his heirs That the eighth of December 6 Jac. Sir William Ligon died after whose death scil the aforesaid time quo c. the Defendants as Bayliffs to Elizabeth did take the said Oxe in the said place for the said seventy eight pounds six pence of the said Rent for three quarters ending at Christmas 9 Jac. But whether the Distresse was well or not they prayed the advice of the Court c. And upon this Verdict it was adjudged in the Common Pleas after many Arguments that the Plaintiff should recover For all the Iustices did agree that the said Fine was to the use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs whereupon the Defendant brought this Writ of Error and assigned the Error in the point of Iudgment only And it was objected by the Councell of the Plaintiffs in the Writ of Error that that it was apparent upon this assurance that it was made for the assurance of the payment of seven hundred pounds lent by the Plaintiff to Sir William and Sir William was to repay nine hundred forty three pounds which was full Interest according to the rate of ten in the hundred and then by the expresse Covenant in the first Indenture the Defendant in the Writ of Error was to have the Rents and Profits of the Land also whereby Worfeild should have more then ten pounds in the hundred and then the assurance is void by the Statute of Vsury then although by the last Indenture it is provided that Sir William and his wife should have the Rents and Profits untill the day of payment yet this shall not bind the wife for it is found expresly that she did disagree to this Indenture But I conceive that the Distresse was not well taken but that the Fine was to the use of William Worfeild and his heirs and so the Rent belonged to him And first as to the Objection that the assurance is void by reason of the Statute of Vsury that cannot be 1. Because it was not found that there was any lone of mony or usurious Contract and therefore it may be and so it shall be intended that the seven hundred pounds was paid bona fide after the purchase of this conditionall Estate made to William Worfeild 2. The Consideration is for seven hundred pounds paid before the ensealing and delivery of the Indenture so that if it be admitted that the seven hundred pounds was lent as Interest yet it may be that this was tent so long before the making of the Indenture that the nine hundred forty three pounds to be paid with the Profits of the Land does not exceed the principall debt according to the rate of ten pounds in the hundred And that Vsury shall not be intended without it be expresly found by the Iury vide Coke 10. Rep. the Case of the Chancellor of Oxford fol. 56. Covin shall not be intended or presumed in Law unlesse that it be expresly averred and so was it agreed in the Case between Tyrer and Littleton in the Common Pleas for the taking of an Oxe The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and the Iury found that Thomas Tyrer held certain Land of John Littleton by Rent and Herriot and the 42 of Eliz. did enfeoff John Tyrer his Son and heir who made a Lease to Thomas Tyrer for forty years if he should so long live to the intent that Joyce whom he intended to marry should not have her Dower during his life Thomas died possessed of the Oxe and the Defendant took it for a Herriot And they found
173. Judicium And after many arguments in this Case Hillar 20 Jacob. the Court agreed that the Demise was good and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Periman against Pierce and Margaret his Wife TEnant in Socage had issue by his first Wife Joan Elizabeth and Agnes and Alice and Elizabeth by his second Wife Katherine Mary William and Joan by his third Wife and by his Will did Devise his Land to Joan the younger for her life rendering 13 s. 4 d. Rent to William the remainder to William in Tayl the remainder to Elizabeth and Mary for life the remainder propinquo sanguinitatis of the Devisor for ever William dyes without issue Joan the younger dyes without issue Elizabeth had issue William Stokes and dyes Mary had issue William Pierce and dyes Joan the elder dyes having issue John Periman and William Periman Agnes and Alice dye without issue John Periman had issue John Periman the Lessor and dyes Elizabeth and Mary dye Katherine dyes without issue Elizabeth had issue George Dean and John Dean Elizabeth deviseth her Land to John Dean and his Heirs and dyes John Dean hath issue John Dean and dyes the Lessor enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff who enters and is ejected by the Defendants by commandment of the said John Dean the son upon which the Plaintiff brought an Ejectment And it seemeth to me that judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for all the Land or at least for part thereof And therefore in the first place I conceive that when William the son dyed without issue the remainder in fee did vest in John Perriman who was the eldest son of Joan the elder who was the eldest daughter of the Devisor for although the Devisor had many daughters yet his intent appeared in the Will to a single person and not to divers also it appears that he doth not intend that this remainder should vest in William his son for he deviseth to him a Rent during the life of Joan the younger and afterwards an Estate Tail cannot be in Joan the younger or any of her issues because that an express Estate for life is limited to her nor in Elizabeth or Mary for he deviseth a remainder to them for life nor in any other of his daughters for then he would have named them either by their proper names or as his daughters and not by such circumlocution as is pretended in this Case Also the words of Remainder in fee cannot extend to those daughters for they are proximae consanguinitatis which does clearly exclude his own sons and daughters for they cannot properly be termed to be of consanguinity of the blood of the father as it is said in Sir William Herberts Case Cooks Rep. 3. that filius est pars patris and this is proved by the usual pleading of a Descent for if the Plea be by any except son or daughter the form is to say That the Land descends to him as Cosin and Heir and shall shew how but if by the son or daughter then to plead as before And 30 Assis 47. Land was devised to one for life the remainder to another for life the remainder propinquioribus haeredibus de sanguine puerorum of the Devisor there it is agreed that the sons and daughters are excluded by that Devise And so here in this Case neither William the son nor any of the daughters of the Devisor can take any thing by this Devise for they cannot be said de Consanguinitate de sanguine of the Devisor but the Issues of the Children of the Devisor are comprized within these words And then I conceive that the limitation being in the singular number viz. proximo consanguinitat all the issues of those Children shall not take but one onely and that as I conceive shall be the eldest son of the eldest daughter of the Devisor which was John Periman father of the Lessor of the Plaintiff as in the 20 H. 6. 23. In an Account supposing the Defendant to be his Receivor from the Feast of St. Michael it shall be taken to be the principal Feast of St. Michael the Archangel and not the Feast of St. Michael in Monte Teneb And 13 H 4. 4. 21 H. 68. 37 H. 6. 29. If father and son be of one name scil of J. S. If J. S. be named generally in a Writ Recovery or Deed it shall be intended the father for that he is most worthy And so Pladwels Case in this Court Mich. 38 and 39 Eliz. If a woman hath a Bastard and two legal issues and Land be given to one for life the remainder to the eldest issue of the woman the eldest legal issue shall take and not the bastard although he be the eldest issue for general words shall always be taken in the most worthy sence And so here the Devisor did dispose of his Estate to Joan the younger rendering Rent to William his son the remainder to William in Tail the remainder to two of his daughters scil to Elizabeth and Mary for life the remainder proxim consanguin c. in fee By which words it is apparent that the Devisor intended that for the default of the issues of William and after the death of Elizabeth and Mary the Estate should remain to one who was next of blood to him and that is John Periman the eldest son of his eldest daughter But admitting that all the issues of the daughters shall be in equal degree to take by this remainder as well as the eldest son of Joan the eldest daughter yet I conceive that those daughters who had an Estate devised to them by Will are excluded Cooks 8 Rep. 95. B. Always the intention of the Devisor expressed in his Will is the best Expositor and Director of his words and therefore if Land be devised to one in perpetuum this shall pass a fee although it be otherwise in a Grant So if one deviseth Land to another to dispose of or sell at his pleasure this is a fee to the Devisee Litt. 133. 19 H. 8 9. B. And so in our Case the intent of the Devisor appears to dispose of his Land among his Children and their issues as in Trin. 38 Eliz. Ewre and Heydons Case Heydon was seised of a Messuage in D and of three houses and certain Land in Watford did devise his Messuage in D and all his Land in Watford it was judged the houses in Watford did not pass in regard of the express mentioning the houses in D. and this was affirmed in a Writ of Error Edmund Meskin against John Hickford Administrator of Henry Machin IN an Audita Querela because that the 11 Ed. 1. it was Enacted That in regard that Merchants which heretofore had lent their goods to divers persons were fallen into poverty because they had not such speedy remedy provided for them for the Recovery of their Debts Ac ratione inde multi Mercatores desistebant venire in hanc terram cum Merchandizis
any Lands Tenements or Hereditaments parcel of their Bishopricks or any charge or incumbrance out of the same or of any other thing in their disposition to binde their Successors except onely Leases for 21 years or three lives of such Lands Tenements and Hereditaments which have been usually demised or whereupon the usual Rents have been reserved according to the said Act. And although such Lease be made of such Lands usually demised reserving the usual Rent according to the said Statute yet unless all the limitations prescribed by the Statute of the 32 of Hen. 8. be not pursued as if it be not all in possession or that the old Lease be not expired or surrendred within one year which is not prohibited by the first of Eliz. as it was adjudged in Foxes Case then such Lease will not binde the Successor unless it be confirmed by the Dean and Chapter And such construction as aforesaid hath been made to disable a Bishop to make any Estate except Leases for 21 years or for three lives as is aforesaid as concerning the binding of the Successor as the Grant of the next avoydance by a Bishop to another although it be confirmed by the Dean and Chapter is restrained by the said Statute of Elizabeth to binde the Successor as it hath often been judged and the reason is because it is such an Hereditament whereon no Rent may be reserved for all in the Statute that is not permitted in the Exception is restrained as to the Successor by the general purview of the said Act but yet such Grant will binde the Bishop himself although the Statute says that it shall be voyd against all intents and purposes for the makers of the said Act did intend not onely the advancement of Religion but also increase of good Hospitality and avoyding dilapidations and ruine of the Church which the Successor if the Acts of his Predecessor should binde him were not able to remedy and therefore the makers of that Act did rather regard the Successor And these words in the Act viz. Parcel of the possessions of his Archbishoprick or Bishoprick or united belonging or appertaining to the said Archbishoprick or Bishoprick may be very aptly construed That the Gift of this Office and all other such like things that are belonging to the Archbishoprick or Bishoprick for although the Bishop cannot exercise this Office himself yet hath he an inheritance in the gift and disposing thereof and so it is adjudged in Cooks 8 Rep. Earl of Rutlands Case And these words Belonging to the Archbishoprick or Bishoprick shall be expounded for Concerning the Archbishoprick or Bishoprick And therefore if a Writ of Annuity be brought against a Bishop upon a title of prescription or otherwise and Iudgment be given against him upon Verdict or confession this is restrained by this Act because the Bishop is charged with this Annuity in respect of his Bishoprick and therefore the Successor shall be charged with the arrears incurred in the life of the Predecessor 21 H. 7. 4. 48 Ed. 3.26 33 H. 6. 44. and yet is not the Annuity issuing out of the Bishoprick as appears in the 10 H. 6. 10. and 10 Ed. 4. 10. But because this does concern the Bishoprick and does tend to the diminution of the revenues and the impoverishing of the revenues this is restrained by the said Act of the first of Eliz. And therefore to answer to the Objection Wherefore such an Office should be granted to one solely I answer and it was also agreed to by all the Court That if the Office be ancient and necessary the Grant thereof with the ancient fee is no diminution of the Revenue or dispoverishing the Successor and therefore of necessity such Grants are exempted out of the general restraint of the said Act of Elizabeth For as Bracton saith Illud quod alias licitum non est necessitas facit licitum necessitas inducit privilegium quod jure privatur And if Bishops have not power to grant such Offices of service and necessity for the life of the Grantees but that their estates shall depend on incertainties as on the death or transmutation of the Bishop then no able or sufficient persons will be willing to serve them in such Offices or at least will not discharge their Office with any cheerfulness or alacrity if they may not have such estate in certain for the term of their lives as their Predecessors had but when an ancient Office is granted to one it is not of necessity to grant the same to two and therefore such Grant is not exempted out of the general restraint of the Statute no more then if the Bishop should grant an Office with the ancient fee to one and then he grants the Reversion to another this is restrained by the Statute because it is not of necessity and if the Bishop may grant such Offices to two he may grant them without any limitation of lives and by consequence ad infinitum and so if he may grant a Reversion to one so he may to others also without any limitation and by the same reason he may grant them in Tail or in Fee which is quite contrary to the intention of the said Act. And of such opinion was Popham Chief Iustice Michaelm 44 45 Eliz. in Stumblers Case and Dyer 23 Eliz. 370. where Horn Bishop of Winchester did grant to Dr. Dale during his life a Rent out of the Mannor of Waltham pro concilio impendendo the Bishop dyed and because the Rent was arrear Dr. Dale brought an Action of Debt for the arrears incurred in his life against the Executors In which two points are to be observed 1. That the Grant was not voyd against the Bishop himself The other That although the Rent was issuing out of the possessions and not parcel this was voyd by his death And Trin. 30 Eliz. Rot. 346. in this Court The Bishop of Chester after the Statute of 1 Eliz. did grant to George Boulton an Annuity of five marks per annum pro concilio impenso impendendo which was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter and then the Bishop dyed and Boulton brought a Writ of Annuity against the Successor and in his Count did aver that the Predecessors of the said Bishop had granted reasonable Fees but did not aver that this Fee had been granted before and did aver that he was homo consiliarius in lege peritus and the Opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff But there it was resolved that although the said Bishoprick was founded but of late times to wit in the time of Hen. the eight yet a Grant of an Office of necessity to one in possession with reasonable fees the reasonableness whereof is to be decided by the Court of Iustice wherein the same doth depend is good and is restrained out of the general words of the said Act. And in our Case the avowant hath averred this Office to be an ancient Office and which hath
conceive that the request is made in good time enough Answer for two Reasons The Estate here is to be made by the Defendant and although he be not bound to do it without request yet may he do it or at least he may offer to do it without any request and therefore if there be any loss in the not doing of it it is his own fault because he did not offer to make the Estate and is not the Plaintiffs fault and if he had offered to make the Estate and the Plaintiff had refused he had been excused And therefore the rule is given in the Lord Cromwels Case aforesaid that when a woman or a Grantee upon condition is to make an Estate to the Grantor and no time is limited he hath time for his life unless the party who is to have the Estate do hasten it by request but if an advowson be granted on such condition the Regrant ought to to be before the Church becomes voyd so if the condition be to grant Rent payable at certain days the Grant ought to be before any day of payment for otherwise he shall lose the Presentation and the Rent which will incur before the Grant made And in the 14 Ed. 3. Debt 138. In a Debt upon a Bond the Defendant pleaded the Condition viz. That if he granted twelve marks Rent the Bond should be voyd and demanded Iudgment c. because no time was limited so that he might do it when he would and said that he was always ready to grant the twelve marks Rent and because he demurred not issue was joyned c. If this not making request shall be any damage to the Plaintiff it must be because the Defendant suffers loss by it as in the cases above cited but in this case the Defendant hath the same remedy for the 20 l. although no Estate be made as he should have had if the Estate had been made for by the fourth Article it is agreed that if there be no Estate made of the Land the Plaintiff shall enter at the Anunciation 1612. And I conceive that this payment ought to be made at the time limited for the entry for it is a mutual agreement that doth binde both parties and therefore it lies not in the power of the Plaintiff for his want of entry to defeat the Defendant of his 20 l. agreed to be payd to him but when he enters it shall be intended that he entered when it was agreed he should enter viz. at the Anunciation 1612. And if he payd it not then the Defendant might have had his Action of Covenant whether any Lease were made or not And in Sir Andrew Corbets Case Cook Rep. 4. 81. certain Land is devised to A. B. until 800 l. pound be levyed that is until it may be levyed and so in case of a Lease or limitation of a use for otherwise it should be in their power to hold out the Lessor for ever and so in case of an Elegit upon the Statute of Westm the 2d. cap. 18. and of Retinue for the double value of a Marriage by the Statute of Merton cap. 6. Opinion of the Court. And the whole Court was of Opinion that the request came too late whereupon they were of Opinion to give Iudgment against the Plaintiff but I prayed that the Plaintiff might discontinue his Suit which was granted Rot. 609. Michaelmas 13 Jacob. Smalman Plaintiff against John Agborrow and Edmund Agborrow Defendants IN an Action of Trespass for that the Defendants the 13 Maii 13 Iacob six Heifers of the Plaintiff of the price of 20 l. at Dodenham in a place called Well-Marsh did take chase and drive away to the damage of 10 l. c. The Defendants to all except the chasing did plead Not guilty And as to the chasing they said that the place where c. is and at the time wherein c. was the Freehold of one Francis Agborrow and so did justifie as his servants for damage feasant c. Replication The Plaintiff replyed that before the said Francis Agborrow had any thing c. the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral of St. Mary the Virgin in Worcester were seised in fee of the Mannor of Aukerden and Dodenham whereof the place where c. is and at the time whereof c. was parcel c. And that the 25 of November 10 Elizab. the said Dean and Chapter by their Indenture did Demise the said Mannor to William Agborrow and Jane his Wife and to the said Francis Agborrow for their lives And that the 20 Febru 39 Elizab. William Agborrow dyed seised and that the 21. of Decemb. 39. Eliz. Jane did marry with Robert Hawkins And that the 25. Febr. 40. Eliz. Robert Hawkins and the said Jane by their Indenture did demise the said Mannor to William Hawkins and William Heaven for sixty years from the date c. if the said Jane and Francis Agborrow or either of them should so long live rendring twenty pounds rent and that the 25. of Mar. 13. Jac. William Hawkins and William Heaven did grant their Estate to the Plaintiff whereby he was possessed and put in his Cattel there to grase which were there untill the Defendant took them away c. And did aver the life of Francis Agborrow The Defendants rejoyn and say that the said Jane did die the 14. Rejoynder of Mar. 12. Jac. and that Francis Agborrow did hold himself in c. Per jus accresendi Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law A man and a woman are Ioynt-tenants for life the woman marries The Case the Husband and Wife by Indenture do let their moyety for years rendring Rent and after the woman dies And the question was whether the surviving Ioynt-tenant could avoid this Lease And I conceive he cannot And for the Argument of this Case I shall observe these two things thereof That if the woman who made this Lease had been sole at the time of the making this Lease had been good during her life and the life of her Companion the other Ioynt-tenant That this Lease being made by the Husband and Wife is not void but voidable And as to the first Point Littleton fol. 63. and 64. saies that if two Part. 1 Ioynt-tenants in Fee be and one grants a Rent-charge and dies the Survivor shall hold the Land discharged but if one makes a Lease for years and dies the Lease is good against the Survivor and in Hales Case in the Comment If two Ioynt-tenants be for years and one of them does grant to I.S. that if he payes twenty pounds at Michaelmas he shall have his moyety and the Grantor dies and I. S. does pay the money yet shall not he have the Land because the Condition precedes the Estate but if he make a Lease for yeares to commence at a day to come and dies before the day yet is the Lease good against the Survivor and so in Trin. 37. Eli. Harbury and
Taverners Case The Lord is but an instrument to make admittance and he that is admitted shall not be subject to the charge of the Lord. And 4 Rep. Buntings Case who surrendered out of Court and dyed before the surrender was presented yet it was resolved and adjudged that the surrender was good and that it may be presented after his death but if it be not presented according to the custom then it becomes voyd And so in Kite and Queintons Case If he to whom the surrender was made dyes before the admittance yet his Heirs shall be admitted And Periams Case The Feoffment is not good unless it be presented in Court according to the custom yet if the Feoffor or Feoffee dye and after it is presented this is good as in case of a Deed delivered as an Escroul upon condition The second is that the two Tenants to whom the surrender was Object 2 made are dead also But this will not avoyd it for nothing at all does pass from them Answer for they are but only witnesses of the surrender and therefore it may as well be presented after their deaths as in their life-time as in 1 H. 7. 9. If a Iustice takes a note of a fine although he dyes before it be certified yet may it be certified by his Executors and the Fine shall be good and it is also resolved in Buntings Case that thâ—ir death shall not hurt the surrender but upon good proof it may be surrendered after their deaths as in 27 H. 6. 7. If a Feme sole does make an Obligation and delivers it as an Escroul to a stranger to be delivered upon condition and she marries or dyes and then the Condition is performed and the Bond delivered it is a good Bond and so it is resolved in Brags Case and Butlers Case also and it is not like to a Feoffment with warranty of Attorney to make Livery or the Grant of a Reversion and the Feoffor dyes or takes husband before Livery or Attornment for there nothing passeth until the Livery or Attornment according to Littleton and the Feoffee if he enter is but Tenant at will and it lies in the power of the Grantor to countermand it but so cannot he that makes a surrender out of Court Note Perimans Case was here objected That if the Tenant would not present the Feoffment the Feoffee should have his Action on the Case and the same Law if the Lord will not hold his Court within the time but there is no such matter in the Book But in our Case no Action can be against the two Tenants to whom the surrender was made having done no wrong for they can make no presentment before a Court be held neither can any Action be brought against the Lord for the not holding his Court because he is not limited to a certain time to hold his Court neither does the custom refer the presentment to any time but onely to the next Court and admitting he may have an Action on the Case yet is not that any reason that he should lose his customary Inheritance and be contented onely with a personal Action wherein he shall onely receive damages and it may be also that the party is insufficient or may dye whereby the Action will become fruitless And it shall be a very great inconvenience if the not keeping of a Court by the Lord shall hinder the surrender when no time is limited when the surrender shall be but onely at the next Court for then those who argue against this surrender ought to limit another time then the custom doth limit to make this presentment and what time will he limit peradventure he that made the surrender will say that the next Court ought to be holden the next day or within a month but this lies not in his power for when the Custom which is the very being and life of a Copyholder hath limited the next Court no man can shorten that time and the length of time cannot be material and no time is material until the time be past that is limited by the Custom And although it hath been said that Customs shall be taken strictly yet not so strictly but they shall have a reasonable time of exposition according to the reason of the Common-Law as in the 9 Rep. Sir Richard Lerchfords Case where the custom was that if the Heir of the Copyholder did not come to any of the three Courts upon proclamation to claim his Copy it should be forfeit And Thomas Copley did dye the 27 of Elizabeth William his son being then beyond the Seas and the three Courts were holden and the proclamations made and he came not into England until the first of King James But in our case we are within the Custom and although the surrender here is not perfect until the presentment made in Court yet the Plaintiff being Heir to him who made the surrender is bound as his Ancestor was for he cannot countermand or avoyd the surrender and therefore his entry was illegal And therefore Iudgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff And upon the Argument of this Case Michaelm 14 Jacob. Crook Doderidge and Haughton did agree that the Estate did remain in him who made the surrender until he to whose use the surrender was made be admitted by the Lord and this they agreed the Lord might do out of Court and Haughton said that the acceptance of the Rent by the Lord that was found by the Iury does amount to an admittance but the other on the contrary Judgment Wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Rot. 832. Trinit 12 Jacob. John Gouge Plaintiff Nicholas Hayward and Jane his wife Defendants IN an Action of Trespass wherein the Plaintiff declared that Stephen Bishop of Winchester the 13 of March 24 H. 8. did demise to Thomas Windham two houses one now in the tenure of the Plaintiff and the other in the tenure of the Defendant in the parish of St. Saviours in Southwark Habendum from Michaelmas last pâ—st for the term of 99 years And that the 16 of March the 24 H. 8. the Prior and Chapter of the Cathedral Church of St. Swithin in Winchester in the life of the Bishop did confirm the said Lease that the 10 of May 10 Eliz. Thomas Windley assigned over to Francis Westby who assigned to William Fryth who assigned to John Butler who the last of September the first of King James by his Will did Devise to Ellinor his Wife all his Lands and Tenements in the said Parish and all Rents arising out of the premisses to come from the day of the date of the said Will for 28 years if she shall so long live unmarryed and after devised it to Thomas Butler his Nephew to have to him and his Children from the day of the death of the said Ellinor during the whole term And further devised that in case his Wife Ellinor should marry then during the residue of the said 28
April And whereupon the Defendant demurred in Law And I conceive that the Action will not lie for the Arbitrement is bond because the Arbitrators have exceeded their authority First because they have no power to discharge any action or duty accrued to any of the parties as Administrators Secondly because that by the Release the Obligation it self to stand to the Arbitrement is discharged Cook 10 Rep. 131. where Moor brought an Action against Bedell upon a promise to stand to the Arbitrement of A. and B. concerning all matters then in difference between them and that was the last day of Novemb. 24 Elizab. And the 10 of Decemb. the 24 of Eliz. they did agree that Moor should pay to Bedell certain monies and that Bedell should release all demands until the 15 of June 24 Eliz. and the Defendant in consideration of this submission did assume that he would not sue any Execution upon a Iudgment And the Plaintiff there assigned two Breaches one that he did not Release the other that he sued Execution And this was found for the Plaintiff upon a non assumpsit and entire damages given and then after it was reverst by Error because that the agreement as to the Release was voyd and therefore the damages being entire the Iudgment was erroneous And Michaelm 11 Jacob. Rot. 155. Staires against Wilde wherein an Action of Debt upon an Obligation to perform an award of and concerning all matters c. And they made an Award that one should pay to the other 3 l. and that each should release all Actions and Demands and the breach was assigned in not paying the 3 l. adjudged to be a voyd Arbitrement in all because it was to release all Actions at the time of the Release which is not within the submission And Pasch 42 Eliz. Rot. 211. Knap against Mâ—w where the condition was to perform an Award of certain things c. who did award that one should pay 20 l. to the other and that each should release all Actions and Demands and the breach was assigned in non-payment of the mony and it was adjudged that the Award was voyd And at last all the Court agreed that the Award was good as to all that was submitted to and voyd for the others and that the breach being assigned in a matter submitted to does give a sufficient cause of Action to the Plaintiff Wherefore it was adjudged that the Plaintiff should recover c. Hillar 13 Jacob. Smith against Whitbrook IN an Action on the Case for words viz. for saying to the Plaintiff the 4 Septemb. 12 Jacob. Thou meaning the Plaintiff art a Traytor and an Arch-traytor and I meaning the Defendant will hang thee or be hang'd for thee and after the 15 Septemb. 12 Jac. the Defendant did procure the Plaintiff to be brought before Sir Robert Cotton Knight and Robert Castle Esq two Iustices of Peace of the said County for Oyer and Terminer c. and did complain to the said Iustices that the Plaintiff had said and published divers Traytorous words of the King by reason whereof the Plaintiff was committed to the Goal of the said County by the said Iustices and there was imprisoned and did so remain until the next Sessions of Peace of the said County holden the 4 of Octob. 12 Jacob. before Robert Bell Knight Robert Payn Knight and other Iustices c. and the Plaintiff was compelled to finde Sureties for his appearance against the next Sessions to answer to such things as should be objected against him on the behalf of the King and in the mean time to be of good behavior c. At which next Sessions holden the 10 Janu. 12 Jac. before the said Iustices and other Iustices the Plaintiff did appear upon which the Defendant the same day and year in the publique Sessions did say of the Plaintiff I meaning the Defendant do accuse Robert Smith meanining the Plaintiff absolutely whereupon the Plaintiff was committed to the Gaol by the said Iustices and there remained in prison for the space of a month whereas the Plaintiff did never speak and Traytorous words against the King nor had committed any Treason against the King and this he layd to his damage of 1000 l. The Defendant pleaded that before the time wherein the said words are supposed to be spoken viz. the third of Septemb. the 12 Jacob. the Plaintiff having speech of the King did speak of him these Traytorous words The King meaning our Lord the King is a scupry King and so justified the several words and also the procurement of the Plaintiff to be brought before the said Iustices The Plaintiff by Protestation saith that he did not speak the said words of the King and for plea did demur in Law and the Defendant joyned Judicium And after Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff without reading the Record or having any argument because that the justification was insufficient and the Record was not read because it imported Scandal to the King Cooper against Smith IN an Action on the Case for words scil Thou and Waterman did kill thy Masters Cook meaning one Yarnton late Servant of Francis Dingley Esq and thou wast never tryed for it and I will bring thee to thy Tryal for it The Defendant pleaded Nor guilty and it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that it was not averred that the Plaintiff had a Master and that Francis Dingley was his Master but resolved that it need not be aveâ—â—â—d for if he had no Master yet it is a Scandal as if one should say Thou hast stoln the Horse of I. S. there is no need to aver that I. S. had a Horse and if everment be necessary it is averred here when he said Thy Masters Cook and there it is averred that the Cook was servant to Francis Dingley and it follows also that Francis Dingley was Master to the Plaintiff Judgment Wherefore Judgment was given for the Plaintiff Trinit 14 Jacob. Weal against Wells IN an Action on the Case for that the Defendant the 22 of Novemb. the 13 of King James crimen Felonie querenti false malitiose imposuit and did cause him to be arrested and taken for the Felonious taking and stealing of five Heifers of the Defendant and caused him to be brought before Sir Thomas Bennet one of the Iustices of Peace c. and out of malice also at the Sessions of Peace at the Guild-hall London before the Major and other the Iustices of Peace c. did cause him to be indicted maliciously and falsly for the Felony of stealing of five Steers the 23 Octob. 13 Jacob. and did cause him to be detained in the Gaol of Newgate until he was legally acquitted at the Gaol delivery the first of December the 13 Jacob. to his damage c. 100 l. and did aver the matter in the indictment to be false The Defendant said that the 18 Novemb. 13 Jacob. he was possessed
immediately to the King Judgment And for these Reasons the Defendant was outed of his ayd by Iudgment of the Court. Michaelm 14 Jacob. Lightfoot against Lerret and others IN an Action of Trespass for that the Defendants 20 Novemb. 13 Jacob. two Heifers of the Plaintiff of price 6 l. at Bentley and Sprodburgh did take chase and drive away c. Richard Lerret did plead not guilty and the other Defendants viz. William Lerret and Edward Taylor as to one of the Steers did plead Not guilty and for the other that the King was seised in Fee of the Mannors of Doncaster Arkse and Sprodburgh whereof the Bridges called Wilcomb-Bridg and St. Mary-Bridg are and time out of mind c. were within the said Mannors That the 14 of January 13 Jacob. the King did grant to Edmund Duffield and John Babington and their Heirs Tolnetum omnium singulorum pecudum that did pass and repass upon the Water and River of Dun in the County aforesaid at and by the said Bridges to have and receive for the same as there the Kings of this Realm were used for such Toll or passage rendering 10 s. Rent to the King And they said that before and at the time of the making of the Grant the Toll was used to be taken at a Bridg called Burrow-Bridg in the County aforesaid for every twenty Cattel that past by that Bridg 6 d. That the 28 Junii 13 Jacob. Duffield and Babington by Deed enrolled and for a sum of mony did bargain and sell the said Toll to John Richardson and his Heirs That the third of June in the said year John Richardson did bargain and sell the Toll to the said William Lerret and his Heirs And the Plaintiff before the Trespass was possest as well of the said Steer as of thirty nine others and that the said Plaintiff at the time aforesaid did drive the said Cattel by the said Willow-Bridg and St. Mary-Bridg whereupon the said William Lerret did demand of the Plaintiff 12 d. for Toll of the said fourty Cattel which the Plaintiff did refuse whereupon the said William in his own right and the other as his servant did take the said Steer by distress for the said 12 d. And prayed ayd of the King c. The Plaintiff replyed that the said Willow-Bridg and St. Mary-Bridg were common Bridges for passage for all the Kings Subjects of the City of York and other Cities and Towns in the North parts to Doncaster and from thence to London and to the Cities and Towns in the South parts at their pleasure with Carts c. and that neither at the making of the Letters Patents nor at any time before any Toll was taken or received for any passages over the Bridges aforesaid Whereupon the Defendants demurred in Law and the Plaintiffs joyned And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff The Grant is of Toll for Cattel passing and repassing upon the River of Dun by the said Bridges and it is not alledged that the Cattel did pass over the said River It is alledged that the two hedges are within the Mannor but it is not aledged that they are parcel of the Mannor so that it may be upon the Land of a Freeholder and if so the King cannot grant the Toll No certainty is granted but onely to take and receive c. and it is not alledged that at any Bridges any Toll was taken but onely at Burrowbridg No Town is alledged in which Burrow-Bridg is And Pasch 15 Jacob. It was agreed by all the Court that the Grant was utterly voyd for the â—ncertainty viz. to take such toll as was taken there and otherwhere within the Realm of England c. And also that the Plea of the Defendant was utterly insufficient for the other causes aforesaid wherefore it was adjudged that the Defendants should be outed of their ayd and that they should plead in chief c. Pasch 14 Jacob. Parker against Sanders IN an Information upon the Statute of 39 Eliz. cap. the 2d. as well for the King as for himself for that one hundred acres of Land in Nether-Winchenden in the County of Bucks 17 Novemb. 1 Eliz. and before the 24 of Octob. 29 Eliz. were converted from tillage to sheep-pasture and grasing of Cattel which 100 acres were arable Land such as were used in tillage for twelve years together next before the said conversion according to the nature of the soyl and course of tillage in that part of the Country and that the said 100 acres were not restored to tillage nor layd for tillage before the first of May 1599. nor ever since And that the Defendant the 26 of March the 13 of King James was occupier of the said hundred acres and did so continue until the 27 Martii 14 Jacob. and that the Defendant the 27 of March did not restore nor lay to tillage the said hundred acres but for the said time converted them into pasture contrary to the form of the Statute c. The Defendant pleaded Not guilty And the Iury for the fifty acres of Land did finde the conversion after the 17 of November 1 Elizab. and before the 24 of October the 39 of Elizabeth and that they were used in tillage for twelve years together before the said conversion and that they were not restored to tillage before the first of May 1599. nor ever since and that the Defendant the 26 Martii 13 Jacob. was occupier of the said fifty acres from that time unto the 27 Martii 14 Jacob. continuing his occupation thereof and was not occupier thereof before the 26 Martii 13 of King James And that the Defendant nor any other before the 27 Martii 14 Jacob. restored or layd the said fifty acres to tillage but continued them in Pasture during the said time And prayed the advice of the Court. And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given for the King and the Informer for 50 l. viz. twenty shillings for every one of the said fifty acres And to this purpose the Statute hath two clauses the first is a commandment and this doth consist of two parts 1. That all Land converted from tillage to pasture since the 7 of Novemb. and before the 24 of Octob. 39 Eliz. being before used in tillage for twelve years together shall be restored to tillage before 1599. so as the whole according to the nature of that soyl and course of husbandry uses within that part of the Country be within three years at the least turned to tillage by the occupiers and possessors therof 2. And so shall be continued for ever The second clause doth contain the forfeiture viz. That if any shall offend against the premisses every such person shall forfeit for every acre not restored or not continued as is aforesaid 20 s. for every year that he so offends And Iudgment Judgment was given for the King and the Informer for otherwise the Statute shall be utterly
profits thereof as in Colliers Case 6 Rep. where one devised Land to his Wife and with the profits that she should bring up his Daughter and that after her death the Estate should remain to his Brother paying to other persons 40 s. and the value of the Land was 3 l. per annum and agreed there that the Brother had a Fee-simple and this diversity was resolved in that case That if the Devise had been to the Brother to the intent that he should maintain his Daughter with the profits or pay out of the profits thereof so much to one and so much to another that this is but an Estate for life for he is sure to have no loss so is it if it be to pay certain sums yearly under the value of the Land for he may pay it out of the profits and is sure to be no loser And this is in effect our very case For first the Charge is imposed for Dower which cannot be intended to exceed the annual value of the Land Secondly it is to be payd out of the Land and therefore there is no charge imposed upon the person of the Devisee but onely upon the Land devised to him so that he takes the Land with this charge and when his Estate determines in the Land yet the charge does always remain upon the Land and the Devisee is discharged thereof and therefore this charge may as well be if he have an Estate for life as if he have a Fee-simple And as to that in Borastons Case 3 Rep. fo 20. b. between W. Allock and Hammond where a Copyholder devised his Land paying to his Daughter and to each of his younger Sons 40 s. within two years after his death and surrendered accordingly and dyed and agreed that the Devisee had an Estate in Fee although the annual profits exceeded the mony that was to be payd and the Reason is plain for it is not limited to be payd out of â—â—e Land or profits but is a payment in gross and it may happen that the Devisee may dye before he can receive so much of the profits And afterwards viz. Trinit 17 Jacob. All the Barons scil Tanfield Bromley and Denham delivered their Opinions severally That Henry and Michael Lock had an Estate onely for their lives because there is no express words in the Devise to make any greater Estate to pass and the condition or clause of the charge imposed by the Wtill does not necessarily imply that they should have a greater Estae then for life for such Estate may satisfie both these clauses as well as an Estate in Fee and the condition is more proper to be annext to an Estate for life then in Fee Judgment Wherefore they resolved That Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiffs but because Sir Thomas Muschamp one of the Plaintiffs dyed hanging the Action no Iudgment could be enter'd Trinit 16 Jacob. Wood against Searl and Jeo IN an Action of Trespass for that the Defendants the 16 of December 15 Jacob. ten Hides of Leather of the Plaintiffs amounting to the value of 10 l. at Tiverton did take and carry away ad damnum 20 l. c. The Defendants as to the force and arms pleaded Not guilty and as to the residue they said that the City of Exeter is and time out of minde was an ancient City and that within the said City there is and for all the said time was a Society of the Art of Cordwainers incorporate by the name of The Master Assistants Wardens and Commonalty of Cordwainers of the City of Exeter and that the said Master Assistants and Wardens have used for all the said time to make By-laws for the government and profit of the said Society and to impose reasonable Fines and punishments upon the breakers thereof And that the 24 of July 44 Elizab. the Master Assistants and Wardens did ordain That no person Burgess or Foreigner not being a Brother of the said Society should make sell or offer to sell or procure to be sold within the aforesaid City of Exon the County or liberty thereof any Boots Shooes Pantofles Pumps or Startops or any other wares belonging to the said Art under pain of forfeiting to the said Master and Wardens for the time being for every offence such sum not exceeding 40 s. as shall be assessed by the Master Wardens and Assistants or the greater part of them and that if any person of the said Society or any other exercising the said Art or any thing concerning the same inhabiting within the said City or the County or liberty of the same who shall break the said Order shall refuse to pay such sum as shall be assessed upon true proof first thereof had of the breach of the said Order that it shall be lawful for the said Master Assistants and Wardens or any three of them taking with them a Constable Bayliff or Serjeant of the Mace or other fit Officer of the Kings to enter into the House Booth Shop Warehouse or Cellar of such person so refusing and there by the discretion of the said Master Assistants and Wardens or the greater part of them to distrain any of their goods then being within the said Houses c. for the said sums forfeited so that it doth not exceed the treble value of the sums forfeited and to detain the same Yet nevertheless if the owner within thirty days shall satisfie the penalty then they shall redeliver the goods And if he doth not satisfie that then the said Master Wardens and Assistants or the greater part of them have power to appraise the goods taken by the oath of six persons and thereupon to sell them and to restore the surplussage to the owner And the Defendants said That at the said time in which c. and time out of minde there was and ought to be a Master two Wardens and twelve Assistants of the said Society within the said City and no more and that the said Edward the sixth of December and before and ever since was Master and the said William and Thomas Payn were Wardens That the 29 of July 15 Jacob. the Plaintiff at the said City then being an Inhabitant within the said City and no Brother of the said Society did make divers Shooes and them there to sale did expose and that the said Master and Wardens and one J. G. T. K. R. J. W. T. K. T. C.G. and J. G. being seven and the major part of the said Assistants the thirtieth of July the 15 Jacob. did impose upon the Plaintiff 33 s. 4. d. for the said offence And they said further that the Plaintiff committed the like offence the seventh of October 15 Jacob. and 33 s. 4 d. imposed by the Master Wardens and Assistants and the like offence the 20 of Novemb. 15 Jacob. and 33 s. 4 d. imposed by the Master Wardens and eight of the Assistants and the like offence the second of December 15 Jacob. and 33 s. 4