Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	case_n	reverse_v	writ_n	2,436	5	9.2966	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25882	The arraignments, tryals and condemnations of Charles Cranburne and Robert Lowick for the horrid and execrable conspiracy to assassinate His Sacred Majesty King William in order to a French invasion of this kingdom who upon full evidence were found guilty of high-treason before His Majesty's justices of Oyer and Terminer at Westminster, and received sentence the 22d. of April, 1696, and were executed at Tyburn the 29th of the said month : in which tryals are contained all the learned arguments of the King's councel, and likewise the councel for the prisoners, upon the new act of Parliament for regulating tryals in cases of treason.	Cranburne, Charles, d. 1696.; Lowick, Robert, d. 1696.	1696 (1696)	Wing A3767; ESTC R18124	90,422	76

will not be well enough L. C. J. Holt. You had better have sav'd these kind of Exceptions 'till the Tryal was over Sir B. Shower But my Lord if there be one Overt Act ill laid I submit it whether they can give any Evidence of that Overt Act. L. C. J. Treby No doubt of that they cannot but we think it is as well laid as it could be laid L. C. J. Holt. Truly I am not well satified that it is necessary after you have laid the Proditoriè as to the particular Treason to lay it again to the Overt Act. For the Overt Act is but Evidence of the Treason The Treason it self lies in the Compassing which is an Act of the mind L. C. J. Treby You cannot Indict a Man of Treason for Assassinating or Killing the King but you must in every such Case frame the Indictment upon the Article for Compassing and Imagining the Death of the King which must be laid to be done Trayterously Then when afterwards you say the Person accused did Wound him or Imprison him or Consult and agree to Assassinate Him or did actually Assassinate Him these are but so many Overt Acts of Compassing the Death and you having first said that he did Proditorie compass and imagin the King's Death you have thereby shewn that you charge him with a greater Offence then Felony which my Lord Coke says is the use of the word Proditorie and that being thus done I do not apprehend it to be necessary that you should ad Proditorie to all the rest of the following particulars for they are only external Discoveries of the inward Treason and more properly deemed to be lividence of the Treason than to be the Treason it self L. C. J. Holt. The Treason is consummate in the Intention besides the words of the Statute make that the Treason not the Overt Act that is but Evidence and so it was held not upon this Exception but upon the reason that my Lord Speaks off in Case of the Regecides of King Charles the First That the Indictment should not be for Killing the King but for Compassing and Imagining his Death and the Killing was alledged as an Overt Act. Sir B. Shower It must be so if it were for levying of War L. C. J. Holt. Most true for levying the War is the Treason but in this Case we think it is no exception Mr. Att. Gen. Thent let us have the Fifth Sir B. Shower Then my Lord here is another Thing It is a Question whether there be any Overt Act presented by the Jury at all The Indictment say's Juratores pro Domino Rege presentant that they as false Traytors did Compass the Death of the King and the Slaughter of his Subjects and they did Meet and Consult and Agree how to do it Et ijdem Christopherus Knightley and the rest to fulfil their said Trayterous Intentions and Imaginations did Afterwards the tenth of February Buy Arms and Horses Now our Objection is that it does not appear that any one of these Overt Acts are the presentment of the Jury With Submission they ought to have begun it again either with a Quodque or something that should have referred it to the first Juratores presentant or else they must have begun quite again with a Juratores Ulterius presentant and not have coupled them as this is with an ulterius presentant and not have Coupled them as this is with an Et. The most forms begin with an Ulterius presentant but here we find no Overt Act is so Introduced They might present part and not present the other part for any thing that does appear Every Thing ought to be laid positively as the Jury's Dictum it may be onely the Clerks saying and not the Juries for any thing that do's appear Your Lordship remembers the Case of the King and Trobridge Trobridge upon a Writ of Error to Reverse a Judgment for Erecting and Continuing a Cottage against the form of the Statute now Contra formam Statuti was in the begining of the Indictment but not in the Conclusion to the Erecting but not to the Continuing And tho there was there Juratores Ulterius dicunt it was not super Sacramentum suum and they did not say he did continue it against the Statute and there being no formal presentment that he maintain'd the Cottage notwithstanding the Act Et did no so Couple it to the first part as to make it a good presentment So we say in this Case this is a fault and different from all the Common Forms there ought to be a Direct presentment of each Overt Act and not Coupled by an Et. For Et will not do it for it is a Distinct Overt Act every one and should have been Et Quod Consultaverunt quodque Agreaverunt that a certain number should do so and so and to be sure it should have been so at the last Overt Act which is onely Et ijdem Christophorus Knightley did Buy Arms and Horses Now this last Et being a loose Conjunction Copulative in common Sence ought to Refer to that which they had agreed upon for that is last mention'd there and the natural Sence leads thither and not to the begining of the Bill Juratores presentant quod Mr. Phipps I shall not trouble your Lordship further they ought to have put in a Quodque or an Ulterius presentant Mr. Att. Gen. Where would you have the Quodque or the Vlterius presentant Mr. Phipps Either to every Overt Act or at least to that last Mr. At. Ge. The Indictment setsforth that they Commited such and such Treason Their objection is that Quodque is not put in to every overt Act and our Answer is That the first Quod governs all that relates to that Treason It may be if there were two distinct Treasons in the Indictment when you come to set forth the Second Treason you should say Juratores ulterius presentant the Second Treason but the Overt Acts to prove the same Treason are all parts of that Treason and make but one Species of Treason which is the imagining the Death of the King There 's the Treason and to bring it to pass they did so and so This my Lord must be part of the finding of the Jury as well as the Treason it self of which these are the Overt Acts. But then if you will lay the levying of War in the same Indictment then it may be you must say Juratores ulterius presentant quod c. But it had been a strange Absurdity to say Juratores ulterius presentant such and such Overt Acts For the Overt Act is not a further Indictment but only a setting forth that which is Evidence upon which they found the Indictment for Treason Mr. Sol. Gen. What the Indictment says is a direct Affirmation as can be all along in the Presentment of the Jury that the Prisoner and others did compass and imagine the Death of the King and to bring it about