Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
B23873
|
The King against Reginald Tucker. The case of William Hall Esq upon a writ of error to reverse the judgment of the Court of King's-Bench for the reversing the attainder of the defendant Tucker.
|
Hall, William, 1675-1748.
|
1694
(1694)
|
Wing H445B
|
2,185
|
2
|
The KING Against Tucker The CASE of William Hall Esq The KING Against Reginald Tucker The Case of William Hall Esq Upon a Writ of Error to Reverse the Judgment of the Court of King's-Bench for the Reversing the Attainder of the Defendant Tucker JOHN TVCKER Deceased had two Sons Andrew a Lunatick and the now Defendant Reginald after the Father's Decease Reginald got a Commission for the Custody of his Elder Brother and his Estate and for divers years concealed him in a Mad-House and acted as Owner and Proprietor of the whole Estate in his own Right part whereof was Lease-Hold for Lives and part Inheritance 1681. The Defendant surrendred the Lease-Hold Estate and took a New Lease thereof in his own Name and then Mortgaged the same to Alice Hinton of Hackney Widow for One Thousand Pounds she not knowing of Andrew Tucker's Title 1683. The Defendant though Younger Brother and his Elder Brother alive made a Mortgage of the Estate of Inheritance by the Name of Son and Heir of his Father to Mr. Kett and others for Five Hundred Pounds 1685. Mrs. Hinton being by Age and Sickness unable to manage the Estate lying in Somerset-shire importuned Mr. Hall being her Relation to take an Assignment of her Mortgage and she on payment of her Money assigned to him and Mr. Hall entred on the Lease-Hold-Estate and Sowed the Land having never heard of Andrew Tucker after which one Grove a Kinsman of the Defendant getting a new Commission of Lunacy and the Custody of Andrew Tucker entred upon Mr. Hall and reaped and carried away the Crop of Corn which he had sown to the value of Eighty Five Pounds but soon after the Lunatick dyed March 21. 1686. The Defendant Reginald Brother and Heir of Andrew was Attainted of High Treason April 23. 1687. Sir Theophilus Oglethorpe got a Grant from the Crown of the Defendant's Estate having procured his Reprieve and paid Ten Pounds to carry it to Wells 1688. Mr. Hall having been at great loss by Andrew Tucker's Title and being brought into danger of losing most of his Money and put to great trouble and expence by the King's Title and by several Suits both in Law and Equity his Debt and Interest being near the value of the Lease-Hold and finding that Mr. Kett had spent above two Hundred Pounds in defence of his Mortgage against the Title of the King and the Lunatick for his better security and to save further expence and prevent an account for the mean profits was necessitated to buy Sir Theophilus-Oglethorp's Title to both the Estates and paid him for the same six hundred Guineas and paid Mr. Kett Eight Hundred Pounds and paid sixty four pounds for changing the Life of the Defendant's Wife in the Lease-Hold-Estate she having before the Purchase committed Felony by Marrying a second Husband and thereby her Life in the Estate in danger to be lost all which several summs were the full value of both Estates 1689. Reginald the Defendant Petitioned the House of Commons for leave to bring in a Bill to reverse his Attainder but the Committee to whom the Petition was referred hearing Mr. Hall's Case who oppos'd it only on account of his said Purchase and Examining the Defendant if he was guilty of the Treason did not Report the same to the House the Defendant's design being to avoid Payment of Mr. Hall's Money which he hath often offered to accept with his Interest and to account for the mean Profits and to Release the Estate and is now willing so to do after nine years trouble and vexation and often Soliciting to save the Defendant's life before he heard of Andrew Tucker 1692. The Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the King 's Bench to Reverse the said Attainder and in Easter Term last the same was Revers'd only because these words Contra ligeantie sue debitum are not in the Conclusion of the Indictment To which it is answered That the Indictment amongst other things sets forth that the Defendant Reginald and one Thomas Place timorem Dei in cordibus suis non habentes nec debitum Ligeantiae suae ponderantes dilectionem ac veram debitam obedientiam quas veri fideles subditi Dom. Regis hujus Regni Angliae erga ipsum Regem gererent de jure gerere tenentur penitus subtrahentes ac machinantes totis suis viribus intendentes pacem tranquilitatem hujus Regni Angliae perturbare c. proditorie compassaverunt imaginati fuerunt intendebant dictum Regem supremum naturalem dominum suum non solum de Regali statu titulo Regimine Regni sui Angliae c. deprivare exheriditare verum etiam eundem Dominum Regemad mortem finalem destructionem adducere Guerram Rebellionem Insurrectionem contra Dominum Regem infra hoc Regnum c. Levare Suscitare ad easdem proditiones conspirationes imaginationes suas perimplendum ad effectum redigendum c. ijdem Reginald Thomas c. contra dictum Dominum Regem Supremum verum naturalem indubitatum Dominum suum cum magna multitudine gentium armatarum c. Guerram publicam contra dictum Dominum Regem proditorie c. levaverunt c. And concludes contra pacem Domini Regis Coronam Dignitatem suas c. ac contra formam Statuti c. I. And forasmuch as it appears in the body of the Indictment That the King was the Defendant's Natural Lord and by Consequence the Defendant his Subject and the Fact alledged in the Indictment appearing to be High Treason it is humbly submitted whether it be necessary in the end of the Indictment to repeat the Fact to have been done against the duty of his Allegiance it being so fully and plainly express'd before in the body of the Indictment to be so II. This Indictment is according to a multitude of Presidents of Indictments for High Treason which are without such Conclusion the Records whereof are ready to be produced III. Many Persons have been Executed on the like Indictments IV. The Consequence of such Reversal may be very fatal for that there are many Estates granted and enjoyed under those Attainders and if for this Error the Judgment in this Case shall stand Reversed then may also the Judgments upon those Attainders be for the same Error Reversed and divers Grantees and Purchasers under the Title of those Attainders be defeated of their Estates to their utter Ruine Wherefore it is humbly submitted to your Lordship's Consideration and hoped that for the Reasons aforesaid the said Judgment of Reversal given in the Court of King's-Bench shall be Reversed by your Lordships Monday 21. Jan 94 This Judgm t of reversall given in the K's Bench was affirmed in Parliam̄