but by one of the Coroners or for affinity in one c. Yet the Process shall still go to the Coroners Ita quod the Coroner se non intromittat If Default be in the Sheriff and To whom Process shall be directed for default in the Sheriff and Coroners Coroners the Court may choose two Esliors and if the parties can say nothing against them they shall make the Pannel But the Distringas shall not be directed to Esliers for the Court cannot make Officers to distreyn the Kings Liege people but the King may 8 H. 6. 12. dubitatur Process may be directed to the Justices of Assise by assent of parties not without When a Pannel is made by the Esliors they shall afterwards serve all Process that comes upon this as the Sheriff should 15 E. 4. 24. 18 E. 4. 3 8. Rolls tit Tryal 670. For it may be the Sheriff will distreyn only those who are his friends and be partial When the Process is once awarded Venire facias once directed to the Coroners shall not be to the Sheriff afterwards to the Coroners for a default in the Sheriff if there be a new Sheriff made afterwards who is indifferent yet the Process shall not revert but continue to the Coroners pendant le plea. 14 H. 7. 31. Bro. tit Venire facias 17. So the Entry is Ita quod Vicecomes se non intromittat 18 E. 4. 3. 8 H. 6. 12. And therefore where the Sheriff ought Sheriff shall not return the Tales where he cannot the Venire facias not to retorn the Venire he cannot retorn the Tales For in Error in the Exchequer Chamber of a Iudgement in the Queen's Bench the Error assigned was because the Venire facias was awarded to the Coroners for Consanguinity in the Sheriff and it was retorned by the Coroner and afterwards a Tales was awarded and it was retorned by the Sheriff and it was tryed and a Verdict given and Iudgement And for this cause held to be Erroneous and not aided by the Statute of 32 H. 8. or 18 Eliz. Wherefore the Iudgement was reversed Cro. 3. par 574. Bro. tit Octo. Tales 9. I will instance one Case more in the same Reports fo 586. because it is very full in the point After issue in Trespass the Plaintiff for his expedition surmised that he was Servant to the Sheriff which being confessed by the Defendant the process was awarded to the Coroners and Where the Coroner returns the Venire facias he ought to return the Tales after Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the Tales de Circumstantibus was awarded and returned by the Sheriff which was held by the whole Court to be good cause for Staying the Iudgement For it is a mis-tryal not aided by any of the Statutes for process being once awarded to the Coroners the Sheriff afterwards is not the Officer to return the Jury no more than any other man And process ought always to be returned by him who is an Officer by Law to return it otherwise it is meerly void But afterwards upon view of the Record it appeared that the Tales was returned by the Coroners and their names annexed thereto wherefore it was without further question But the Court said if their names had not been annexed No name to the Return to the Tales yet it had been well enough for they be annexed to the first Pannel And it shall be intended that the right Officer return'd it and the usual course is That to such Tales there is not any officers name subscribed and yet it is good enough for it is not within the Statute of York which appoints that the name of the Sheriff should be subscribed but it was moved that the Record of the Postea is that the Tales were returned by the Sheriff But the Court held that it was amendable and it was done accordingly and the Plaintiff had Iudgement But if the Venire be awarded to the Coroners Venire facias to the Sheriff after one awarded to the Coroners for default in the Sheriff and they do nothing upon the Writ then I suppose upon a default discovered in the Coroners de puisne temps the party may shew this to the Court and have a Venire awarded to the Sheriff if there be an indifferent one made in the mean time or else to Esliors sice converso In Error of a Iudgement in Chester Venire facias to the Coroners after one to the Sheriff the parties being at issue a Venire was awarded to the Sheriff And at the day of the Return it was entred Quod Vicecomes non misit breve And then the Plaintiff prayed a Venire facias to the Coroners for Cozenage betwixt him and the Sheriff which was awarded accordingly and at the day of tryal the Defendant made default and there upon Iudgement Error was assigned because that after the Plaintiff had admitted the Sheriff to execute the Writ he could not pray a Venire facias to the Coroners without some cause de puisne Temps sed non allocatur because there was nothing done upon the first Writ And the Defendant having made default it was not material Cro. 3. part 853. But the Defendant might have demurred No Venire facias to the Coroners after one to the Sheriff to this prayer For if the Plaintiff pray a Venire facias to the Sheriff he shall not challenge the Array nor have a Venire afterwards to the Coroners because the Sheriff is his Cousin or for any other principal challenge whereof he might by common intendment have Conusance when he so prayed the Venire facias for upon shewing this Cause at first he might have prayed Process to the Coroners but for a principal challenge of which by common intendment the Plaintiff could not know at the first as that the Defendant is of kindred to the Sheriff c. he may afterwards challenge the Array when they appear or if the Sheriff doth nothing upon the Writ he may pray a new Venire to the Coroners 15 H. 7. 9. If the Plaintiff prayes a Venire facias to If the Defendant denies the Planitiffs suggestion he shall have no benefit of it by Challenge the Coroner because he is of kindred to the Sheriff if the Defendant will not confess this but denies it this shall be entred and the Defendant shall not challenge the Array for this cause afterwards Br. tit Venire facias 21. and 23. If a Venire facias be awarded to the Coroners By Consent the Venire facias may be directed to a wrong Officer where it ought to be to the Sheriff or the Visne cometh out of a wrong place yet if it be per assensum partium and so entred of Record it shall stand for omnis consensus tollit errorem 1 Inst 126. li. 5. Mistryal without such consent 36. But if it be directed to the Coroners where it ought to be to the Sheriff
Juror shall be drawn in favour to the life of man And yet in a Prâ—cipe quod reddat by two and the Tenant challenge the Array because the Sheriff is Gossip to one of the Demandants and one Demandant acknowledge the challenge the other may say that this is not so and have it tryed Rolls tit Tryal 662. c. In Gager de ley none shall be challenged Ley gager for favour or insufficiency c. If there be a challenge for Cosinage he Cosinage that taketh the challenge must shew how the Juror is Cousin But yet if the Cosinage that is the effect and substance be found it sufficeth for the Law preferreth that which is material before that which is formal If the Juror have part of the Land that Dependingon the same Title dependeth upon the same Title If a Juror be within the Hundred Leet or any way within the Seigniory immediately or mediately or any other distress of Distress either party this is a principal challenge But if either party be within the distress of the Juror this is no principal challenge but to the favour If a Witness named in the Deed be returned Witness of the Jury it is a good cause of challenge of him So if one within age Infant of one and twenty be returned it is a good cause of challenge Vpon his own Act as if the Juror hath Challenges arising from the Jurors own Act. given a Verdict before for the same cause albeit it be reversed by Writ of Error or if after Verdict Iudgment were arrested So if he hath given a former Verdict upon the Former Verdict same Title or matter though between other persons But it is to be observed that I may speak once for all that in this or other like Cases he that taketh the challenge must shew the Record if he will have it take place as a principal challenge otherwise he must conclude to the favour unless it be a Record of the same Court and then he must shew the day and term So likewise one may be challenged that he was Indictor of the Plaintiff or Defendant Indictment either of Treason Felony Misprision Trespass or the like in the same cause If the Juror be Godfather to the Child of God father the Plaintiff or Defendant or è converso this is allowed to be a good challenge in our books If a Juror hath been an Arbitrator chosen Arbitrator by the Plaintiff or Defendant in the same cause and have been informed of or treated of the matter this is a principal challenge Otherwise if he were never informed nor treated thereof and otherwise if he were indifferently chosen by either of the parties though he treated thereof But a Commissioner Commissioner chosen by one of the parties for examination of Witnesses in the same cause is no principal cause of challenge for he is made by the King under the great Seal and not by the party as the Arbitrator is but he may upon cause be challenged for favour Arbitrator in another matter is no cause of challenge If he be of counsel Servant or of Robes Counsel or Fee or of either party it is a principal challenge If any after he be returned do eat and Eat or drink at the parties charge drink at the charge of either party it is a principal cause of Challenge otherwise it is of a Tryor after he be sworn Action brought either by the Juror against Actions of malice either of the parties or by either of the parties against him which may imply malice or displeasure are causes of principal challenge unless they be brought by Covin either before or after the return for if Covin be found then it is no cause of challenge other Actions which do not imply malice or displeasure are but to the favour as an action of debt c. More 3. In a cause where the Parson of a Parish Parson and Parishes is party and the right of the Church cometh in debate a Parishioner is a principal challenge Otherwise it is in debt or any other Action where the right of the Church cometh not in question If either party labour the Juror and give To labour the Jury him any thing to give his Verdict this is a principal challenge But if either party labour the Juror to appear and to do his Conscience this is no challenge at all but lawful for him to do it That the Juror is a Fellow Servant with Fellow Servant either party is no principal challenge but to the favour Neither of the parties can take that challenge to the Polls which he might have had To the Polls to the Array Note if the Defendant may have a principal cause of challenge to the Array if the Sheriff return the Jury the Plaintiff in that Venire facias to the Coroners case may for his own expedition alledge the same and pray Process to the Coroners which he cannot have unless the Defendant will confess it but if the Defendant will not confess it then the Plaintiff shall have a Venire facias to the Sheriff and the Defendant shall never take any challenge for that cause and so in like cases But on the part of the Defendant any such matter shall not be alledged and Process prayed to the Coroners because he may challenge the Jury for that cause and can be at no prejudice Challenge concluding to the favour when Challenges to the favour either party cannot take any principal challenge but sheweth causes of favour which must be left to the conscience and discretion of the Tryors upon hearing their evidence to find him favourable or not favourable But yet some of them come neerer to a principal challenge than other As if the Juror be of kindred or under the distress of him in the reversion or remainder or in whose right the Avowry or Iustification is made or the like These be in principal challenges because he in Reversion remainder or in whose right the Avowry or Iustification is is not party to the Record otherwise it is if they were made parties by aid Receipt or Voucher and yet the cause of favour is apparent so it is of all principal causes if they were party to the Record Now the causes of favour Favour are infinite and thereof somewhat may be gathered of that which hath been said and the rest I purposely leave the Reader to the reading of in our books concerning that matter For all which the rule of Law is that he must stand indifferent as he stands unsworn The Subject may challenge the Polls King where the King is party And if a man be out-lawed of Treason or Felony at the Suit of the King and the party for avoiding thereof alledgeth imprisonment or the like at the time of the Outlawry though the issue be joyned upon a collateral point yet shall the party have such
was mis-named in his Christian Name in the Venire Iudgement was arrested But it is there adjudged that if he had been well named upon the Venire and misnamed on the Distringas or Postea then upon Examination it should be amended But the Countess of Rutlands Case lib. 5. 42. is express in the point and so is Cro. 3. part 860. Rolls 196. Teppet in the Venire and Tipper in the Distring Amended And so if the mistake be in the Pannel Jurata the Sheriff may come in Court and amend it And so if Samuel be in the Venire and Distringas and Daniel in the Nomina Juratorum upon examination this may be amended And so if the name be right in the Ven. and mistaken in the Christian name in the Distringas or Postea it is amendable Rolls 197. And so if he be De A in the Venire and Distringas and De B. in the Nomina Juratorum this is amendable And it is to be known that in most Cases where the Venire facias Hab. Corpora or Distringas be defective they are to be amended but if the Malady be so fatal in the Venire that it causes a mis-tryal as in the mistake of a Jurors Christian Name or where a Juror not returned is sworn c. then the Verdict Venire facias de novo is to be set aside and a Venire facias de novo to be awarded and so was it to be upon those mistakes now amendable by the Statutes before the making thereof And where a Jury giveth a Verdict which is accepted One Jury shall not try a cause twice and recorded by the Court be the Verdict perfect or imperfect the Jurors are discharged and shall never try the same issue again upon a new Nisi prius But if the Verdict be so imperfect that Iudgement cannot be given upon it then the Court shall award a Venire facias de novo to try the issue by other Jurors li. 8. 65. Bulstr 2 part 32. If upon an issue all the matter be not Venire facias de novo fully inquired a Venire facias de novo shall issue 18 E. 3. 50. In an Audita Querela if the parties go to issue upon payment according to the defeasans of the Statute and this is found for the plaintiff but the Jury do not assess Damages the Court shall award a Venire facias de novo to assess damages 22 E. 3. 5. vide hic cap. 6. and Rolls tit Tryal 593. 595. If the Record of the Nisi prius be unum modum tritici for modium and the Plaintiff is Nonsuit at the Aâ—â—â—se for this mistake if the Record in Court be right scil Modium this Nonsuit shall not be Recorded but a Venire facias de novo shall be awarded So for any other mistake as if the Record in Court be Grays-Inn Lane c. and the Nisi prius which is but a transcript be Graves-Inn Lane c. For this is a nonsuit upon another Record than what is in Court In Battery against Three who plead Three several Pleas and upon the Writ of Nisi prius two issues are found for the Plaintiff and Damages assessed but nothing is found for the third issue this is a mis-trial and a Venire facias de novo shall issue In Detinue if the Jury find Damages Detinue and Costs but no value as they ought this shall not be supplied by a Writ of Inquiry of Damages but a Venire facias de novo shall be granted And so of other defects in finding the full issue In a Quare impedit if the issue be found Quare impedit for the Plaintiff but by negligence the Jury do not inquire of the four points scil de plenitudine ex cujus prâ—sentatione si tempus semestre transierit and the value of the Church per annum This shall be supplied by a Writ of Inquiry without any Venire facias de novo because the Court ex officio ought to have charged the Jury with the four points of Inquiry and if the Jury had found them no Attaint lay for as to this they were but as an Inquest of Office In a Writ of Annuity if the issue Annuity be found for the Plaintiff but the Jury do not assess Damages or Costs this shall not be supplied by a Writ of Inquiry but a Venire facias de novo shall be granted In Ejectment against Baron and Feme and Ejectment the Jury find the Wife not guilty and find a special Verdict as to the Husband which special verdict is afterwards adjudged insufficient by the Court a Venire facias de novo shall be granted for both as well the Wife as the Husband and the Wife may be found guilty because the Record and issue is intire and the Verdict is insufficient and void in tout So if there be several issues and the Imperfect Verdict Jury find some well and directly and in others special Verdicts which are imperfect a Venire facias de novo shall be granted for all and the Jury may find contrary to their first finding In trespass of Assault and Battery and taking away of grain and the Defendant as to the Batery justifies in defence of his grain upon which the Plaintiff demurs and as to the grain he pleads not guilty which is found for the Plaintiff and the Jury do not tax Damages for the Battery depending in demurrer as they ought in this case if the demurrer be afterwards adjudged for the Plaintiff yet the Damages for this cannot be afterwards supplied and taxed by a Writ of Inquiry of Damages but a Venire facias de novo shall issue to Tryal because all is comprised in one Original Vide apres cap. 13. and devant cap. 2. Who shall grant it In a Scire facias upon a Recognisance in Chancery if the Parties be at issue upon which the Record is commanded into B. R. and there it appears that the Venire facias is not well awarded the Venire facias de novo shall be awarded in the Kings Bench and not in the Chancery Roll. â—it Tryal 723. In Yelvertons Reports fo 64. the Case Album breve the County left out in a Venire facias is That a Venire facias was made Vicecomiti leaving out Salop for which there was a blank left in the Writ But re vera it was returned by the Sheriff of Salop. In Arrest of Iudgement it was alledged that the Venire facias was Vicious for this cause But Gawdy said it should be amended and by Fenner and Williams It is as no Writ because it is not directed to any Officer And then it is aided by the Statute of Jeofailes For it might rather be called a blank than a Writ because it was directed to no Officer If there be no return of the Sheriff indorsed upon the Venire facias it was held not amendable 35 Eliz. lib. 5. 4 Otherwise of the Distringas
if it be alledged in a Ward in the City of Bristol c. the Venue shall be of the Ward not de Civitate A Venire facias was awarded from T. Ward and not de vicinet de T. and for this cause resolved to be ill and not amendable Cro. 2. part 399. Bro. tit Ven. fa. 8. If the issue be Si rex concessit per literas De vicinet left out ill patentes The Tryal shall be as hath been said where the Land lies and not where the Patent was made because the Patent is of Record and if it be traversed Where the Land lies it shall be tryed by the Record and therefore the issue being upon non concessit the issue is not upon the Patent but where the issue is upon non concessit or non dimisit of a thing which passeth by Deed the Tryal shall be where the Grant or Demise is alledged But of a Feoffment or Lease for life pleaded the issue being non Feoffavit or non dimisit Livery ought to be made and therefore the Tryal shall be where the Land lies Cro. 2. part 376. 3. part 259. Where the offence is laid in the Count Where the Action is laid in one County and the Justification in another the Tryal shall be where the Justification is to be in one County and the Iustification in another County and the Plaintiff replies de injuria sua propria c. The Visne shall be where the Iustification is alledged As one Example for all to illustrate In an Action upon the Case for words supposed to be spoken at Bridg-North in the County of Salop the Defendant pleads that he spake them as a Witness upon his Oath upon an issue tryed at Chard in the County of Somerset The Plaintiff replies de son tort demesne c And thereupon it was tryed by a Venire facias of Bridg-North And Error thereof assigned because it ought to have been by a Visne of Chard where the Iustification arose and it was held clearly to be a mis-tryal and not aided by the Stat. of Jeofailes wherefore the Iudgment was reversed Cro. 3. part 468. 261. 870. More 410. Replevin taking 2 Horses at such a place in Denford in Com. Northampton the Defendant makes Conâ—sans as Bayliff to the Lord Mountague of his Mannor of S. which Mannor is holden of the Honour of Gloucester and that the place in which c. is within the said Honour and alledges a Custome within the said Honour on which Custome the parties were at issue and the Venire facias was from Denford the place of taking which was moved after Verdict for that the Venue was not so large as the issue which was the Honour and of this opinion was the whole Court of C. B. Pasch 13 Car. 2. Hull vers Bâ—nning But the great question was whence the Venue should arise in this Case and per Bridgman Ch. Just and Just Hide in no Case can a Venue arise from an Honour and Ch. Just said he had caused the Prothonotaries to search for Precedents and they Honours could not find that ever a Venue did arise from an Honour which is but a bundle of services and an incorporeal thing from which no Venue can come and yet an Honour may have demesns as the Honours of Grafton and Hampton have but Gloucester not Ch. Just and Just Hide seemed that the Venue should be de Corpore Comitat. Hob. 266. 249. But when the Court was after moved for their opinion they bad them take a Venire facias at their peril and would give no opinion An action of Debt was brought on a Bond to perform Covenants in an Indenture wherely the Defendant had granted to the Plaintiff a walk called shrob-walk in the Forest of in Com Northampton and Covenanted for peaceable in joyment c. and he was ousted per Earl of Northampton who had right on which Right issue was joyned and the Venire facias was from Shrob-walk Per Cur. It 's not good for it appears by the Record that Shrob-walk is not a Vill but if the Obligation had been laid to be made at Shrob-walk the Venue should arise from thence as a Vill. Inter. Stirt Bales Pasch 19 Car. 2. B. R. The Venue shall follow and be according Out of what County to the issue As for words in Warwick-shire Thou art a Vide â—ic ante postea Thief and stolest my Iron The Defendant justifies says the Plaintiff stole the Iron in Leicester-shire and brought it into Warwick-shire and therefore he spake the words in Warwick-shire If the Plaintiff replies de injuria sua propria absque tali causa the Jury shall come from Leicestershire to which the absque tali causa refers for the words are acknowledged See Rolls tit Tryal 598. 623. When part of the matter to be inquired of is in one County or place and part in another the Tryal shall be there where the best Conusans of the matter may be As in an action upon the Case the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant took the From the place best known Horse of A. at S. and sold him at D. to the Plaintiff as his proper Horse and afterwards A. retook the Horse If the Defendant plead that the property was in him at the sale upon which issue is ioyned The Venue shall be de S. where the taking is supposed for there the property may be best known which is only in question 42. Ass 8. see several cases in Rolls ib. 603. under this head If the issue be whether L. did ride from London to York and from York to London Where the Counties cannot joyn 5 times in six days this may be tryed by London only Although part of the matter to be inquired of was done in each County In an action of Battery in London if the Defendant justifies in defence of his possesâ—on in D. in Essex and the Plaintiff says de son tort demesn sâ—ns tiel cause this ought to be tryed by both Counties if they might joyn because he may be found guilty at another day and therefore because they may not joyn this may be tryed in Essex Of Assises in confinio Com. See 1 Inst 154. In case for words in one County if the Defendant justifie in another County and the Plaintiff reply de son tort demesn c. although the Counties ought to joyn if they could and the Iustification is principally put in issue yet the Tryal may be in either County at the Election of the Plaintiff In Ejectment in London upon a Lease Rolls tit Tryal 620. made there of Land in Mid. if the Defendant plead not guilty this may be tryed in London because the Counties cannot joyn although London cannot joyn with another County 49 E. 3. 20. the Jury ought to enquire of the Ejectment in Mid. and judgement affirmed in a Writ of Error See Rolls tit Tryal 602. Two Counties may
eadem c. The Plaintiff replies de injuriâ suâ propriâ c. The evidence was that the Plaintiff as Lady of the Mannor took the Horse as an Estray and it was Cryed and Marked c. that the Defendants refused to pay for the meat and took him away before the year and a day was out 1. Per Wadh. Wyndham Just d'assize A Lord may detain an Estray for meat yet no Trespass lies if the owner takes him but an action of the Case lies for the meat 2. If the action had been brought against the servant only he must justifie c. But being brought against Master and Servant this joynt-justification is good Cambr. Summer Assises 1667. Lady Hatton against Cotes and al. In Trespass the evidence for the Defendant was that the Defendant had a Barn and purschased a way over the Plaintiffs Land to that Barn after the Defendant bought other Lands lying contiguous to that Barn on the one side and to a Haven on the other side and carried Carriages by that way to the Barn and through it over his own new purchased Land to the Haven Per Hale Ch. Baron If I purchase a general way to such a place I may go from thence on my own ground whither I please though I purchase the ground after the way purchased Summer Assises Norf. 1665. Heynsworth vers Bird. Trespass was brought against many by a School-mistress for taking away a child her Scholar with a Scarfe of the Mistresses per Keeling Ch. Just In Trespass for taking things all are principals that are present and consenting Contra in taking persons and this action lies not by the Mistress for the child but for the Scarfe only Lent Norf. Ass 1663. Mary Coopers case Trespass lies for Lessee in Ejectment on a fictitious Lease to recover mean profits during the continuance of that Lease mentioned on Record And the Recovery shall maintain it Otherwise if brought by the Lessor for he is no party to the action Trespass lies not for pulling down a Pew in a Church fastned to a pillar with a Chain Contra had it been fixed by nails driven into the pillar per Glyn Ch. Just Trevors case Trespass quare fregit liberam Warrenam suam and took his Conies In evidence it appeared that the Plaintiff had liberty of chase in the place which though it includes Warren yet a general Trespass lies not but an action of the case E. of Arundels case Pasch 1658. B. R. Per Earl Sergeant if Beasts be impounded and the Key lost the Officer by Replevin may break the pound and deliver the Cattle per Stat. Marlebridge 52 H. 3. 21. Tenants in Common must joyn in Trespass done against them so Avowry Lead and Lamsteads case 7 Car. B. R. cited by Finch in Argument Or Tenant in Common surviving shall have Trespass In Trespass the Defendant sets forth a conditional Feoffment for payment of money at such a day and place and that he paid it accordingly issue joyned on the payment at the day and place evidence of payment before the day is not good Contra had the special matter been pleaded with acceptance More 47. In Trespass with Continuando to recover mean profits an Entry and possession of the Land before the Trespass must be proved and also another Entry after the Trespass In Trespass the Defendant prescribes to dig in the Common for Clay to repair antient houses holden of that Mannor and good Berney vers Stafford Norf. Lent Assises 1667. In Trespass they were at issue on Not Guilty and at the Assises the Defendant left his former plea and pleaded an accord with satisfaction the Iudge would have had it replied to and tryed presently but the Councel refused whereupon the Jury was sworn and the Plaintiff nonsuited Bedford Assises Lent 1667. Green vers Reynolds But this was contrary to the opinion of Sir Orlando Bridgeman at the same Assises and Contr. to 10 H. 7. 21. and 1 Bul. 92. Trespass lies by Recoveror in Erroneous Iudgement for a mean Trespass because the Plaintiff in Writ of Error recovers all mean profits and the Law by fiction of relation will not make a wrong doer dispunishable 13. rep Co. 22. but Contra where Act of Parliament restores c. Trespass for assault and wounding in Suff. the Defendant as to vi armis non Cul. As to the other justification of molliter Manus c. in Norf. and several Tryals Per Hale Ch. Baron Suff. Ass Summer 1668. the vi armis can't be tryed till the other be tryed Contr. If the first issue of non Cul. was as to the wounding and by him evidence of Livery of seisin generally shall be intended for life only The Hogs of B. were put into the yard of A. and broke into the Land of C. and did Trespass action lies against A. though the servant of B. did look to them and serve them by which the owner had the special possession of them So if Agisted Cattle do Trespass the Agistor shall answer Dawtry vers Huggins Clayton 33. per Barkley 11 Car. York A. by Indent of uses raised an Estate to B. in Fee who regrants Turbary to A. by another Deed and after A. levies a fine to confirm the Estate and uses abovesaid declared this doth not touch the Turbary per Vernon 11 Car. York Clayton 42. Any one imployed by an Officer is an Officer within 7 Jac. 5. to plead general issue and give the special matter in evidence Clayton 54. Prescription to tether Equos Boves upon such a balk c. Mares and Cowes good evidence within that prescription Per Barkley Clayton 54. Per Hale A Corporation may bargain and sell though it has been thought an use upon use they being seised to the use of their house But I think it rather a trust than an use If a Just of P. send his Warrant to I. S. who is no Officer to bring one before him if I. S. be no Officer he is not bound to execute it yet if he does execute it it 's good and he may execute it in any part of the County And so a Constable of one Town may execute a Warrant in any other Town in the same County and any such Warrant is as large as the Justices Commission is per Hale Norf. Summer Assises 1668. Wrongries case In Trespass against one for Gleaning on his ground per Hale Norf. Sum. Assises 1668. The Law gives licence to the poor to glean c. by the general Custom of England but the licence must be pleaded specially and can't be given in evidence on non Cul. Trover The Citizens of London gave in evidence their Custom to take Toll Jones 240. In Trover for an Horse proved of 15 l. value the Jury gave but 3 l. damages upon mistake they thinking that the Plaintiff had his Horse again Per Wadh. Wyndham if the Jury had not been gone they should have mended their Verdict but a new action of
it may be supplied by matter ex post facto and how And for this know that if damages be left out of a Vide hic cap. 6. Verdict this omission cannot be supplied by Writ of Inquiry of damages for this would prevent the Defendant of his Remedy by Attaint which would be very mischievous for then such omission might be on purpose to deprive the Plaintiff of his Attaint li. 10. 119. And the Rule is That when the Court ex officio ought to inquire of any thing upon which no Attaint lies There the omission of this may be supplyed by â— Writ of Inquiry of damages as in a Quar impedit if the Jury omit to enquire of these 4 things that is to say de plenitudine ex cujus presentatione si tempus semestre transierit and the value of the Church per annum there the Plaintiff may have a Writ to inquire of these points Dyer 241. 260. because of these no Attaint lies as it is holden in 11 H. 4. 80. because that as to these the Inquest is but of Office But in all cases where any point is omitted whereof on Attaint lyeth there this shall not be supplyed by Writ of Inquiry upon which no Attaint lyeth And therefore in Detinue if the Jury find Damages and Cost and no value as they ought this shall not be supplyed by Writ of Inquiry of damages for the Reason aforesaid Ib. Et sic in similibus But how then What shall the Plaintiff Verdict set aside because the damages not well assessed loose the benefit of his Verdict because the Jury assessed no damages or did insufficiently assess them Certes in such Cases where damages only are to be recovered he must loose the whole benefit of his Verdict but where any thing else is to be recovered besides damages as in Debt Ejectment c. he may release his damages and have Iudgment Release Damages upon his Verdict as to the rest And so where damages are to be recovered if part of them are assessed insufficiently and part well he may have Iudgment for those damages well assessed And oftentimes the insufficiencâ— Verdict set aside in part of the Declaration shall set aside the Verdict as if an Action upon the Case be brought upon two promises and one of For insufficiency in the Declaration them be insufficiently laid and the Verdict give intire damages this is naught for the whole But if the Damages had been severally assessed upon the several promises then the Verdict as to the promise well laid should have stood In the 11th Report fo 56. Marsh brought a Writ of Annuity against Bentham and the parties discended to issue which was tryed for the Plaintiff and the Arrerages found c. But the Iurors did not assess any damages or Cost which Verdict was insufficient and could not be supplyed by Writ of Inquiry of damages wherefore Release of damages where none were assessed the Plaintiff released his damages and costs and upon this had Iudgment upon which the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and assigned the Error aforesaid scil the insufficiency of the Verdict fed Judicium affirmatur because the Plaintiff had released his damages and costs which is for the benefit of the Defendant In Detinue of Charters or non detinet Verdict for the Plaintiff and Damages but the Iury did not find the value of the Déeds and a Writ of Inquiry was awarded to that purpose and returned and ruled good and by Twisden Just Debt against Executor who pleads plenè c. and it 's fouâ—d against him and the Iury give no damages that can't be aided by Writ of Inquiry Burton versus Robinson Pasch 17 Car. 2. B. R. In Dyer 22 Eliz. 369. 370. In a Wri Release of damages where they were not well assessed of Ejectione Custodiae terrae haeredis the Iurors assessed damages intirely which was insufficient for it lay not for the Heir yet the Plaintiff released his damages and had Iudgment for the Land And Note that insufficient assessment of damages and no assessing is all one The Iury ought to assess no more damages Damages and Costs pro injdria illata than the Plaintiff declares for But they may assess so much and moreover give cost which is called Expensae litis though in the proper and general signification Dampnum also comprehends Costs of Suit as the Entry reciting both damages and costs well affirms scil Quae dampna in toto se attingunt cum c. But if the Iury do assess more damages More damages than the Plaintiff declares for then the Plaintiff declares for the Plaintiff may remit the overplus and pray Iudgment for the residue as in the 10th Report fol. 115. in Trespass the Plaintiff declared ad dampnum c. 40 l. at the tryal the Iury assessed damages occasione transgressionis prâ—dict ad 49 l. and for costs of Suit 20 s. upon which Verdict the Plaintiff at the day in Bank remitted 9 l. parcel of the said 49 l. assessed for damages and prayed Iudgement for 40 l. Damages remitted to which damage he had counted with increase of costs of suit and had 9 l. de Incremento added by the Court which in all amounted to 50 l. and had his Iudgment accordingly upon which a Writ of Error was brought and the Iudgment affirmed For as in real Actions the Demandant shall not count to Damages c. because it is incertain to what sum the damages will amount by reason he is to recover damages pendant le briefe so in the ease of Costs he shall recover for the expences depending the suit which being uncertain cannot be comprehended in the Count because the Count extends to damages past and not to expences of Suit For in personal Actions he counts Damages in real and personal Actions to damages because he shall recover damages only for the wrong done before the Writ brought and shall not recover damages for any thing pendant le briefe But in real Actions the Demandant never counts to damages because he is to recover damages also pendant le briefe which are incertain The Iury may if they will assess the damages Damages and Costs intirely assessed and costs intirely together without making any distinction 18 E. 4. 23. But then they must not assess more damages and costs than the damages are which the Plaintiff counts to for if they do the Plaintiff shall recover only so much as he hath declared for without any increase of cost because the Court cannot distinguish how much they intended for cost and how much for damages As in 13 H. 7. 16. 17. One Darrel brought a Writ of Trespass and counted to his damage 20 marks the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Iury taxed the damages and costs of suit joyntly to 22 marks and the Verdict was held to be good for 20 marks and void for the residue because it doth not appear how much
assisas in ComÌ„ N. Capiend assignÌ„ ê‘ formam statuti c. venÌ„tam infra nominatÌ„ J. A. quaÌ„ infra scriptÌ„ H. C. ê‘ atturnatÌ„ suos infra ContentÌ„ IurÌ„ Iure unde infra fit mentio ExactÌ„ similitÌ„ venerÌ„ Qui ad veritatem de infra ContentÌ„ dicend electi triati Iurati fuerÌ„ Super quo pÌ„d H. ê‘ quendam J. B. de Consilio ipsius H. C. manutentione exitus interius IunetÌ„ Coram pÌ„fatÌ„ IustÌ„ IurÌ„ pÌ„d in Evidentijs oftend dicÌ„ quod c. Here recite the Evidence truely unde petitÌ„ IudiciuÌ„ qd IurÌ„ pÌ„d veredictÌ„ suum de suê‘ infra ContentÌ„ pro ipso H. reddant c. Et pd J. A. ê‘ quendaÌ„ C. J. de Consilio suo Demurrer dicÌ„ qd materia ê‘d ê‘ pÌ„fatÌ„ H. C. IurÌ„ pred suê‘ius in Evidentiis ostentÌ„ minus in lege existic ad pro band exitum interius IunctÌ„ pro parte ejusdem H. quodque ipse ad materiam illam in forma pÌ„d in EvidentÌ„ ostentÌ„ necesse necesse non habet nec ê‘ legem terrÌ„ tenetÌ„ respondere hoc paratus est verificare unde pro defectu sufficientÌ„ materÌ„ IurÌ„ pÌ„d in hac parte ostens Idem I. petitÌ„ IudicÌ„ quod IurÌ„ de VeridictÌ„ suo suê‘ Exit pÌ„d reddend exoneretur debitum suum infra specÌ„ una cum dampnÌ„ suis occasione de tentÌ„ debiti illius sibi addiundi cari c. Et pÌ„d H. C. Ex quo ipse sufficÌ„ materÌ„ in Joynde lege ad manutenen exitÌ„ infra ContentÌ„ pro parte ipsius H. IurÌ„ pred suê‘ius in EvidentÌ„ ostens qd ipse ê‘atÌ„ est verificare quaÌ„ quidem materiaÌ„ pÌ„d J. non dedicit nec ad eam aliqualiter respond sed verificationem illam admittere omnino recusat petÌ„ IudicÌ„ qd pred J. ab actione sua pred versus Eum habend precludatur ac qd IurÌ„ pred de VeredictÌ„ suo suê‘ exitÌ„ pred reddend onerentur c. A Precedent of a Demurrer upon the Evidence And now at this day the said Plaintiff and Defendant by their Attornies did appear and the Iury likewise did appear and were sworn c. upon which Sir T. W. Serjeant at Law of Councel with the Plaintiff gave in Evidence so and so and repeat it truely and did require the Iurors to find for the Plaintiff upon which J. C. of Councel with the Defendant saith That the Evidence and Allegations aforesaid alledged were not sufficient in Law to maintain the Issue joyned for the Plaintiff to which the Defendant néedeth not nor by the Laws of the Land is not holden to give any Answer wherefore for default of sufficient Evidence in this behalf the Defendant demands Iudgment that the Iurors aforesaid of giving their Verdict be discharged c. and that the Plaintiff be barr'd from having a Verdict c. Then the Plaintiff joyns and says That he hath given sufficient matter in Evidence to which the Defendant hath given no Answer c. and demands Iudgment and that the Iury be discharged and that the Defendant be Convicted then the Iury may give Damages if Iudgment shall happen to be for the Plaintiff c. A Bill of Exception Memorand That the First day of August Ebor. sc An. 1650. before T. P. and W. Iustices of our said Lord the King for taking of Assizes in the said County assigned in a Plea of Trespass and Ejectment which J. S. in the Court of our said Lord the King before himself by Bill doth Prosecute against E. B. supposing by the said Bill that the aforesaid T. B. c. and recite the substance of the Declaration or what it is c. and the Issue and then what the Evidence to prove the Defendant guilty was c. which here was a Surrender of a Copyhold out of Court c. and that he desired the Iury aforesaid to give their Verdict for the said T. B. of and upon the Premisses and that he likewise desired the Iudges aforesaid that they would inform the Iury aforesaid that the Surrender aforesaid out of Court made was good and effectual in Law and the aforesaid Iustices the aforesaid Surrender of the Land aforesaid with the Appurtenances made out of Court of the Mannour aforesaid in form aforesaid did affirm to the said Iurors was not good in Law by which the said Thomas for that the aforesaid matter to the said Iurors in Evidence shewed doth not appear c. did request of the said Iustices according to the form of the Statute in such case provided this present Bill which doth contain in it the matter aforesaid above by him to the Iurors aforesaid shewed by which the said Clayton's Reports Iustices at the request of the said Thomas this Bill have sealed at D. aforesaid 1. Westm 2. 31. 13 E. 1. When the Iustices will not allow a Bill of Exception upon Prayer if the Party impleaded tender the same unto them in Writing and requires their Seals thereunto they or one of them shall do it 2. If the Exception sealed be not put into the Roll upon Complaint thereof to the King the Iustice shall be sent for and if he cannot deny the Seal the Court shall procéed to Iudgment according to the Exception This Bill of Exception is given by the Statute Westm 2. cap. 31. before which Statute a man might have had a Writ of Error for Error in Law either in redditione Judicii in redditione Executionis or in Processu c. which Error in Law must be apparent in the Record or for Error in sait by alledging matter out of the Record as the death of either party c. before Iudgment But the mischief was if either party did offer any exception praying the Iustices to allow it and the Iustices over-ruling it so as it was never entred of Record this the party could not assign for Error because it neither appeared within the Record nor was any Error in fait but in Law and so the party grieved was without remedy until this Statute was made This Act extendeth to all Courts to all Actions and to both parties and to those who come in their places as to the vouchee c. who comes in loco tenentis It extendeth not only to all Pleas Dilatory and Peremptory c. to Prayers to be received Oier of any Record or Déed and the like but also â—o all Challenges of Iurors and any material Evidence given to any Iury which by the Court is Over-ruled 2 Inst fo 427. All the Iustices ought to Seal the Bill of Exceptions yet if one doth it it is sufficient if all refuse it is a contempt in them all And the party grieved may have a Writ grounded upon this Statute commanding them to put their Seals Juxta formam Statuti hoc sub periculo quod incumbit nullatenus omittatis The party must pray the Iustices to put their Seals but if they deny it they may be
commanded and may do it after Iudgment If the party grieved be dead his Heirs or Executors c. according to the Case may have a Writ of Error upon this Bill of Exceptions And no diminution can be alledged for the parties are confined to the matter in the Bill If the Iustice dye before he acknowledgeth his Seal according to the Act a Scire sac shall go to his Executor or Administrator for the Death of the Iudge is the act of God which shall not prejudice the party As in the case of a Certificate of the Marshal of the King's Host that the person outlawed was in the King's Service beyond Sea in a Writ of Error a Scire fac shall go to the Marshals Executor or Administrator upon shewing the Certificate If the Iudge denyeth his Seal the party may prove it by Witnesses ib. Error of a Iudgment at the Grand Sessions in the County of Pembrok in an Assise of darrein Presentment by Henry Cort against the Bishop of St. Davids Dorothy Owen al. for the Church of Stackpoole The fourth Error assigned was because the Issue being whether H. Cort did last present one R. D. the last Incumbent who was instituted and inducted upon his Presentation The Plaintiff offered in Evidence Letters of Institution which appeared to be and so mentions that they were sealed with the Seal of the Bishop of London because the Bishop of St. Davids had not his Seal of Office there And those Letters were made out of the Diocess And the Defendant had demurred thereupon That those Letters were insufficient and the Demurrer was denyed which Jones said was an Error because they ought to have permitted the Demurrer and should have adjudged upon it But it was held that the not admitting of the Demurrer ought not co be assigned for Error for when upon the Evidence the matter was over-ruled by the Iustices of Assize That was a proper cause of a Bill of Exceptions and the remedy which the Statute appoints in that Case And for the matter of the Letters of Institution sealed with another Seal and made out of the Dioâ—ess it was held they were good enough for the Seal is not material it being an Act made of the Institution the writing and sealing is but a testimonial thereof which may be under any Seal or in any place But of that point they would advise Croke 1. part 340. Note This Bill is to prevent the precipitancy of the Judges and ought to be allowed in all Courts and in all places of Pleadings and may be put in at any time before the Jury have given their Verdict But this Bill is rarely used there being impar congressus betwixt the Judge and the Councel and the Prudence of the Judges induce them to find special Verdicts in Cases of doubt and difficulty A Release Pleaded at the Assises after Issue joyned Et pred Def. in propria persona sua ven dic quod pred Justic Dom. Regis hic ad caption Jur. ss pred inter ipsum Def. prefat Quer. procedere non debent quia dic ' quod post xii diem F. ult preterit de quo die Jurat pred inter partes pred continuat fuit ante hunc diem scilt diem de Assise scilt primo die M. Anno c. apud c. pred Quer. per nomen c. remisit relaxavit c. Et hoc c. unde pet quod Justic pred ad captionem Jur. pred ulterius procedere nolunt The Death of one of the Defendants Pleaded after the last Continuance Et pred Def. per A. B. Attorn suum ven pred T. non ven super hoc pred Def. dic quod post ult concinuationem placiti pred scilt post xv Pasche ult preterit de quo die loquela pred ult continuat fuit hic usq ad hunc diem scilt in Cro. sce Trin. tunc prox ' sequen ' ante eundem diem scilt decimo die Maii ult preterit pred T. apud A. pred obiit Et pet quod null process ' nec aliquid aliud in placito pred ulterius versus prefat T. fiat Et quia pred J. K. hoc non dedic Ideo null process nec aliquiâ— aliud in placito pred versus prefat T. fiat c. A Baron Challenges the Pannel because no Knight was retorned of the same Et sup hoc idem T. calumpniat arraiament panelli pred quia dic quod ipse est tempore arraiament panelli ilâ—ius fuit Baro hujus Regni Angliae locum vocem habens in quol Parliamento hujus Reg. Quodque in eodem panâ—llo nullus Miles nominat retorn existit Et hoo paratus est verificare unde petit Judicium quod panellum illud cassetur c. Evidence and demurrer upon Evidence Middleton against Baker Cro. Eliz. 42. fol. 751. In Eject It was held by all the Court upon evidence to a Jury That if the Plaintiff give in evidence any matter in writing or Record or a sentence in the Spiritual Court as it was in this case and the Defendant offers to demurr thereupon the Plaintiff ought to joyn in the demurrer or wave the Evidence because the Desendant shall not be compelled to put matter of difficulty to lay Gens and because there cannot be any variance of a matter in writing But if either party offer to demurr upon any evidence given by Witness the other unless he pleaseth shall not be compelled to joyn because the Credit of the testimony is to be examined by a Jury and the Evidence is incertain and may be enforced more or less But both parties may agree to joyn in demurrer upon such evidence And in the Queens Case The other party may not demurr upon evidence shewn in Writing or Record for the Queen unless the Queens Councel will thereto assent But the Court in such case shall charge the Jury to find the matter specially as appears 34 H. 8. Dyer 53. But this is by Prerogative vide lib. 4. 104. the same case and 1. Inst 72. where my Lord Cook says If the Plaintiff in evidence shew any matter of Record or Deeds or Writings or any sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court or other matter of evidence by Testimony of Witnesses or otherwise whereupon doubt in Law ariseth and the Defendant offer to Demurr in Law thereupon the Plantiff cannot refuse to joyn in demurrer no more than in a Demurrer upon a Count Replication c. and so è converso may the Plaintiff Demurr in Law upon the evidence of the Defendant but the Kings Councel shall not be enforced to joyn in Demurrer but in that Case the Court may direct the Jury to find the special matter So that the several sorts of evidence make no difference as to the joyning in Demurrer 1. part Leon. 206. Darrose against Newbott Cro. 4. Car. fol. 143. In Error of a Judgment in Bridgewater The Error assigned was for
conclusion of a Verdict shall aid the Imperfections of it 400. For whom the Verdict shall be said to be found 401 402 403 404. 407 408. 501. Variance betwixt the Verdict and the Nar. 501 502 503. Verdict by defauit 504. Venire fac of this Cap. 3. per tot and Cap. 4. per tot To whom to be directed 38 c. what faults in it shall vitiat the Tryal 50 60 c. 129. De novo 54 55 56 57. By Proviso 62 63 64. Visne Cap. 8. per tot from what places ibid. The Venue shall follow the Issue 101. 113. 115. 120. 109. 121. De Corpore Com. 101 102. 124. from two Counties 116 117. 107. where the Writ is brought 117. 105. from the next adjoyning County 120. 127 128. where of Matters done beyond Sea 105. where the Land lyes 107. 122. 125 126. 128. from two places in one County 123. out of a wrong place by consent 129. Suburbs of a City 129. View 271. Use 223. Usury 243. W. WItnesses Tryals by them 16. 31. Who may be Witnesses who not 183. 185 186. 188. 243 2424. 247 48. One Witness sufficient 215. 233. Their Priviledges 186. Detained 187. Witnesses joyned with the Jury 233. A Witness is to have his Charges 246. Witnesses against the King 247. Wills 18. 215 216. Wager of Law 23. Wales 127. Warranty 367. 179. Way 219. Warren 220. FINIS Books Printed for and Sold by George Dawes at his Shop over against Lincolns-Inn Gate in Chancery-Lane THE History of the World in Five Books I. Intreating of the Beginning and first Ages of the same from the Creation unto Abraham II. Of the Times from the Birth of Abraham to the Destruction of the Temple of Solomon III. From the Destruction of Jerusalem to the Time of Philip of Macedon IV. From the Reign of Philip of Macedon to the Establishing of that Kingdom in the Race of Antigonus V. From the setled Rule of Alexander's Successors in the East until the Romans prevailing over all made Conquest of Asia and Macedon Written by Sir Walter Raleigh Knight with his Life and Tryal added to it in Folio Brief Animadversions on Amendments of and Additional Explanatory Records to the Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England concerning the Jurisdiction of Courts By William Pryn Esq in Folio A Book of Judgments in real personal and mixt Actions and upon the Statutes all or most of them upon Writs of Error collected out of the choice Manuscripts of Mr. Brownloe and Mr. Moyle sometimes Protonotaries of the Common Pleas as also of Mr. Smither formerly Secondary of the same Court. Perused transcribed corrected and tabled with Addition of Notes by George Townsend Esq second Protonotary of the Common Pleas Very useful and necessary for all Protonotaries Secondaries Students Clerks of Judgments Attorneys and all Practicers of Laws in Quarto Modus Intrandi Placita Generalia The Entring Clerks Introduction being a Collection of such Precedents of Declarations and other Pleadings which Process as well Mesne as Judicial as are generally used in every days practice with Notes and Observations thereupon Composed for the benefit of the Students of the Common Law of England as also of the Attorneys Entring Clerks and Sollicitors of the Courts of Common-Pleas and King's Bench acquainting them with Rudiments of Clerkship and such general Pleadings and Processes as are used at this day in the Courts of Records at Westminster By William Brown Gent. Author of Formulae bene Placitandi in large Octavo De Jure Maritimo Navali or a Treatise of Affairs and of Commerce in Three Books The Third Edition Corrected and inlarged with many useful Additions through the whole Book by Charles Molly Esq in large Octavo Jus Imaginis apud Anglos Or the Law of England relating to Nobrlity and Gentry faithfully collected and methodically digested for common benefit By John Brydal of Lincolns-Inn Esq in large Octavo Jura Coronae His Majestie 's Royal Rights and Prerogatives asserted against Papal Usurpations and all other Anti-Monarchical Attempts and Practices Collected out of the Body of the Municipal Laws of England in large Octavo Parsons Law or a View of Advowsons wherein is contained the Right of Patrons Ordinaries and Incumbents to Advowsons of Churches Collected by William Hughes of Greys-Inn Esq The third Edition reviewed and much enlarged by the Author in his life-time in large Octavo Mounsieur Scarron's Letters to Persons of greatest Eminency and Quality Rendred English by John Daves of Kidwelly in large Octavo Of the Office of the Clerk of the Market of Weights and Measures and of the Laws of Provision for Man and Beast for Bread Wine Beer Meal c. By William Shepard Esq in Octavo Hughes Quaeries or choice Cases for Moots containing several Points of Law not resolved in the Books being very useful for the Students of the Common Law Collected by William Hughes Esq late of the Honourable Society of Grayes-Inn in Twelves Decus Tutamen Or a Prospect of the Laws of England purposely framed for the Safeguard of the King's Majesty his Sacred Person Crown and Dignity against all traiterous Speeches Designs and Conspiracies To which are added peculiar Notes upon the Judgment in High Treason fit for all His Majestie 's Subjects and Leige-People to be acquainted withal By John Brydal of the Honourable Society of Lincolns-Inn Esq in Twelves There may be had several sorts of Blank Bonds very Vseful and Necessary for Attorneys and all other Persons relating to the Law SIngle Bonds for Payment of Money Double Bonds for Payment of Money Bonds for Performance of Covenants either Single or Double Single or Double Bonds for Arbitration with an Umpire Single or Double Bonds for Arbitration without an Umpire Single or Double Bonds to save Sureties harmless General Releases Letters of Attorney to Receive Money Warrants of Attorney to Confess Judgments Bail Bonds Single Bonds without Conditions Double Bonds without Conditions Sheriffs Warrants upon mean Process for any County or City Blank Warrants for a Justice of Peace Licenses for Ale-house Keepers Indentures Ruled and Text. And the best Ink for Records
I Do allow the PRINTING and PUBLISHING of this BOOK Entituled Tryals Per Pais Or The Law of England Concerning Iuries by Nisi Prius Fr. Pemberton Tryals per Pais OR THE Law of England CONCERNING JURIES BY Nisi Prius c. The Second Edition Newly Revised and much inlarged with an Addition of Precedents and Forms of Challenges Demurrers upon Evidence Bills of Exception Pleas puisne Darrein Continuance c. Very Useful and Necessary for all Lawyers Attorneys and other Practicers especially at the Assizes By G. D. of the Inner Temple Esquire Per testes solum lex ipsa nunquam litem dirimit quae per Juratam xij hominum decidi poterit Cum sit modus isle ad veritatem eliciendam multo potior efficacior quam est forma aliquarum aliarum legum orbis Fortescue cap. 21. LONDON Printed for George Dawes and are to be Sold by Matthew Wotton at the Three Pigeons against the Inner Temple Gate in Fleetstreet 1685. TO THE PRACTICERS OF THE LAW Gentlemen IN the Dedication of Books such persons should be chosen whose Studies or Profession agree with the nature of the Subject To prove conclusions in one science by the Heterogene Principles of another To make a Grammarian Patron to a pecie of the Mathematicks to dedicate a Treatise of Logick to a Master of Musick or a matter of Practice to a man of Speculation would not only be improper but absurd You know that in the whole Practice of the Law there is nothing of greater excellency nor of more frequent use than Tryals by Juries In this our Common-Law and not without just cause values it self beyond the Imperial Laws before the Canon Law or any other Laws in the world And seeing the hopes and life of all the Process the force of the judgement and the truth nay the right of the Parties lie in the Tryal for as one elegantly says Qui non probat at the Tryal dicitur veritate jure carere and indeed the knowledge of all the Law tends to this for without victory at the Tryal to what purpose is the science of the Law The Judge can give no sentence no decision without it and must give judgement for that side the Tryal goes therefore I may well say 't is the chief part of the Practice of the Law And if so to whom should I offer this Treatise but to you the Practicers I need say nothing for small Tracts and Treatises The infinite number of them in the Civil Law there being for every Title a distinct Tract nay the number of them in our Law sufficiently shews their use Ringelbergius in his Book de ratione studii giving directions what books Students ought to carry with them when they change places and travel from one to another tells us That out of the Volums by reason of their bigness not portable he used to tear out several leafs and take them with him in his journeys and so he says he had served the works of Pliny Tully Plato Demosthens c. although he had given great prices for them which justifies the writing of this Treatise the subject matter thereof being of such general use in all Circuits When I read the elaborate books of Farinacius de testibus and the 3 Exquisite and Incomparable Volums of Mascardus de probationibus in the Caesarian and Pontifical Laws which works were so valued and esteemed that they were looked upon as new lights sent from Heaven by the professors of those Laws I could not but see the defect and want of such books in our Law for surely they are as necessary in the one as in the other And although I cannot compare my weak indeavours with those excellent and methodical works theirs being intire this only quasi an Abridgement fitted for use not for show Yet until more learned and judicious Proficients in our Law shall undertake the work I thought fit to produce mine To compare this sort of Tryal by Jury with the Tryals of other Laws and Countries and declare how much and wherein it excels them all after Fortescue de laudibus c. and his learned Commentator would be like the arrogance of Limning after Apelles and requires the room of a Volum rather than an Epistle And considering my own insufficiencies I shall praise it more by saying nothing than all I can for to say less than a thing deserves would be instead of an Encomium a disparagement Therefore I shall content my self only to say that Tryals in other Laws are by Witnesses only privately examined This by Witnesses publickly examin'd and confronted and by Jury also and so consequently the fact is setled with the greater certainty of truth upon which the uprightness of the judgement depends It would be well if there were less corruption in the returning of Juries but I think 't is parallel'd if not exceeded by that of examining Witnesses privately on whose depositions the Tryals in other Laws consist And so that must be no objection against the thing I hope an expedient may be found out to prevent the corruption in returning Juries but I believe it never can in the other To say this Tryal by Jury is too popular in a Monarchy would be a good objection from a French-man but not of any English-man who lives under the best tempered Monarchy and the best sort of Government in the World to which this manner of Tryal is so proper and well accommodated that neither the wisdom of our Ancestors could nor I may say can this present nor after ages invent a better But as the unskilful Painter drew a Curtain before what he could not express with his Pencil so must I vail with silence the excellencies of this Celebrated Tryal which I am not able to delineat Gentlemen To make an Apology for the stile of a Law book especially of an Epitome would be a vain thing Ornari res ipsa negat contenta doceri neither shall I make any Apology for my undertaking this work if 't was better performed yet Momus would be carping and if 't was worse it would be good enough for him who cannot or will not do it better Be it what it will your kind reception will abundantly satisfie Your Servant G. Duncombe THE PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION THE Philosopher could not see a man unless he heard him speak Loquere ut videam Speech is the Index of the Mind and the Mind only discriminates the Man For although an Ideot who hath but the shape of a man may with silence so hide his folly that strangers to his Manners cannot discern him from a Sophister Yet doubtless Silence is the greatest Enemy to Learning the Grave wherein Oblivion buries the Parts and Knowledge of the bravest spirits Wherefore Learned Salust from Historiae facil princeps this takes his Exordium Omnes homines qui sese student praestare caeteris animalibus summa ope niti decet ne vitam silentio transeant veluti pecora Those
to the good of the King and State who attempt to alter or invade this Fundamental Principle in the administration of the Iustice of this Realm by which the Kings Prerogative has flourished and the just liberties of the people have been secured so many Ages And what answer shall I make to the Princes vehementer admiror videlicet Wherefore are not Juries used in other Countries if they are so good but that of Fortescue the Portescue ca. 29. Learned who best could tell scil That other Countries can scarce produce one Jury so well accomplished with Wealth and Ingeny as one County nay one Hundred can in England But not to dwell in the Porch I will address my self to the Gravity of the Law where you must not so much expect the flash of Rhetorick as the light of Reason No the Law knows best how to express Things not words most regarded in the Law her self in her own terms wherefore all other Sciences must learn with reverence to keep their distance And as the Golden Finch sings be glad to have their Finch c. 3. sparks raked up in her Ashes And since an Issue is previous and the matter of a Tryal I shall first give you the description thereof and then touch upon the several Tryals allowed by the Law for discussion of the truth CAP. II. Of an Issue and the divers sorts of Tryals thereof and when a Tryal shall be by a Jury and when not when by Certificate when by the Spiritual Law when by Battail and when by an Almanack what Issue shall be first tryed per Pais what shall be tryed by the Court and what by Examination of the Attorney Sheriff c. ISsue exitus saith Cook is a single 1. Inst fo 126. Omnia unum aliquem sortiuntur exitum vel per patriam vel per Judices terminandum Finch Epistle certain and material point issuing out of the Allegations and Pleas of the Plaintiff and Defendant consisting regularly upon an Affirmative and Negative to be tryed by Twelve men and it is twofold scil either special as where the special matter is pleaded or general as in Trespass Not guilty In Assise nul tort nul disseisin c. And as an Issue natural cometh of two several persons so an Issue legal issueth out of two several Allegations of adverse parties And to give you likewise his definition of Tryals Note that upon a demurrer to part and Issue to part though it is the best way to give Judgment upon the quaestio juris first yet the Court may try the quaestio facti first at their discretion 1 Inst 72. 125. Lach. 4. Rolls tit Tryals 626. 723. Tryal It is to find out by due examination the truth of the point in Issue or question between the parties whereupon Iudgement may be given And as the question between the parties is twofold so is the Tryal thereof For either it is quaestio Juris and that shall be tryed by the Judges either upon a demurrer Special Verdict or Exception For Cuilibet in sua arte perito est credendum quod quisque noverit in hoc se exerceat Or it is quaestio facti And the tryal of the fact is in divers sorts First chiefly and most commonly by a Jury of Twelve men of which kind of tryal my intention is principally to treat in this Book For by Twelve men are matters of Proceedings in Civil Causes fact for the most part tryed with us in England in Causes both Criminal and Civil in Causes Civil after both Parties have said what they can one against another in Pleading if there arise a question about any matter of fact it is referred to Twelve indifferent men to be Impanelled by the Sheriff and as they bring in their Verdict so Iudgment passeth And this the Judge is to declare as the Law is upon the fact found For the Judge saith the Jury finds thus and then the Law is thus and so we judge For the Law arises upon the fact For Criminal Causes the course is this Proceedings in Criminal Causes At the Kings-Bench for Midds and at the great and general Assises and at the general Sessions of the Peace there is one Jury called the Grand-Jury which consists commonly of 24 men substantial men out of every Hundred with in the County returned by the Sheriff and they are to consider of all Bills of Indictment preferred to them which they either approve of by writing Billa Vera or disapprove by writing upon them Ignoramus and those which they approve of are to be tryed by another Jury called the Petit-Jury Or the Grand-Jury may charge any person upon their own Presentment which will be of the force of an Indictment and the party charged may Traverse the offence and bring it to be tryed by a Petit Jury Some lesser matters in these Courts are proceeded upon without a Jury and some things are removed by Certiorari into higher Courts and then must be tryed there and that thing to which there is a Traverse put in must be tryed and ended by a Petit Jury which for the most part in all Civil and Criminal Causes are but Twelve men which ought to be Free-men not Villains or Aliens and lawful men not Outlawed and also men of worth and honesty But because it is necessary to be known that there are many ways allowed by the Common-Law to try matters of fact besides this by Juries I will here repeat some of them And for this first hear the Oracle who tells you that he had read of six 1 Inst fol. 74. kinds of Certificates allowed for Tryals by the Common-Law 1. The doing of service by him that Tryals by Certificate holdeth by Escuage in Scotland was to be tryed by the Kings Marshal of his Army Per son Certificat en escript south son seal que serra mis a les Justices saith Littleton 2. If it be alledged in avoydance of an Outlawry that the Defendant was in prison at Burdeaux in the service of the Mayor of Burdeaux It shall be tryed by the Certificate of the Mayor of Burdeaux Note this was when Burdeaux was partel of the dominions of the King of England Rolls tit Tryal fo 583. 3. For matters within the Realm the Custome of London shall be Certified by the Mayor and Aldermen by the mouth of the Recorder vide apres 17. 4. By the Certificate of the Sheriff upon a Writ to him directed in case of Priviledge if one be a Citizen or Foreigner 5. Tryal of Records by Certificate of the Judges in whose Custody they are by Law All these be in temporall Causes 6. In Causes Ecclesiastical as Loyalty of Marriage general Bastardy Excommengement profession These and the like are regularly to be tryed by the Certificate of the Ordinary vide apres 16. If the Def. claim his priviledge as a Scholar of the Vniversity of Oxon of such a Colledge or Hall This
shall not be tryed by Certificat but per pais Rolls tit Tryal 583. Concerning Certificates of Spiritual persons vide Rolls ibidem 591 592. 7. A Record shall be tryed by the Record it Records self and not per pais But matter of fact concerning a Record is tryable by a Jury as whether a plaint c. was levied according to the Custom non prosecutus est ullum breve is tryable by the Country Mixt with fact Hob. 244. Hutt 20. So if a Statute hath two Seals or but one 1 Leon. 229. 2 Cro. 375. 1 Inst 125. b. so in a per quae servitia if the Tenant say he held not of the Conusor Jour del note levie shall be tryed per pais In Escape upon a Cepi returned ne unques in son gard shall be tryed per Record but upon Rolls tit Tryal 574. a Capias not returned the prisal shall be tryed per pais So shall an action brought by Covin for the Covin is not of Record In a scire facias per Roy to have execution of a Iudgment in a Quare impedit if the Def. say that after the Recovery the King presented issint Judgement execute and the issue be whether the King presented per cause del Judgement or of an avoydance after the death of J. S. who was presented by a stranger after the avoidance upon which the King had Iudgment This shall be tryed per pais And Why there needs no visne where Letters Patents were made otherwise in pleading Deeds 4 Rep. 71. for this Reason in pleading of Letters Patents the place need not be alledged where the Letters Patents were made because the Dâ—fendant cannot plead nul tiel Record but must plead non concessit and then the Jury shall come from the place where the Lands lie Vide li. 6. fo 15. 1 Inst 117. 260. Plo. Com 231. But upon a Non est factum pleaded to a Deed there must be a place alledged where the Deed was made because though the Deed as to the matter of Law be tryable by the Court yet the sealing and delivery thereof Deeâ— and other matter of fact must be tryed by the Jury so that in this case of a Deed there is a Tryal per Pais and by the Court. 1 Inst fol. 35. vide apres 18. The issue upon an Indictment or acquittal What issues shall be tryed per Record upon this shall be tryed by the Record So shall the allowance of a Protection in Bank The imprisonment upon the execution and not for other cause in escape The justification of an imprisonment because he is a Iustice of Peace A Statute-Merchant Count or not Count Baron of the Parliament or Vicount or not Whether a place be within the Ligeance of the King of England or in Scotland A Fine sur release Rendring his body in discharge of his Baile shall be tryed by the Record Rolls tit Tryal 574. But in escape against the Mayor of Astaple What per Pais for suffering J. S. in execution upon a Statute Staple to go at large if the Defendant say he was not in Prison upon the execution but upon a Plaint there this shall be tryed per pais and not per Record because 't would be unreasonable that the Defendant should certifie a Record where he himself was concerned ibid. The time of inrolliing Letters Patents shall be tryed per pais Co. Lib. 4. 71. 9 H. 7. 2. Disseisin of an Office in any Court or Office Raseing a Record rasing a Record in any Court by the Filizers and Attorneys of the Court. 8. A Peer of the Realm i. e. a Lord of Peers the Parliament shall upon an Indictment of Treason or Felony misprision of Treason and misprision of Felony be tryed by his Peers without Oath 1 H. 4. 2. But in an Appeal at the Suit of the Party he shall be tryed per probos legales homines Juratores 10 E. 4. 6. c. because that is not the Kings Suit but the Parties Vide li. 9. 31. Le case del Abbot de Strata Mercella And in a Praemunire his Tryal shall be per pais 12 Bep 93. Lamb. Inâ—t 520. 3. Inst 30. Bolstr 1. part 198. Dutchesses Countesses or Baronesses although married shall be tryed as Peers of the Realm are but so shall not Bishops and Abbots Stam. 153. 20 H. 6. 9. 2. Inst 48 49 50. 156. b. 294. 9. The Customs and usages of every Court shall be tryed by the Judges of the Customs of Courts c. tryed by the Judges same Court if they are pleaded in the same Court ib. and many other things are tryed by the Judges as the reasonableness of a fine of an offender or upon surrender of a Copy-hold Estate and so it is of Customes services and also of the time that a Tenant at will shall have to carry away his Goods And these Cases come under the Rule which makes matter of Law to be tryed by the Judges Vide 1 Inst fol. 56. And in some Cases matter of fact shall be tryed by the Judges as if the Plaintiff appear by Attorney in Court and then the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff is dead If one appears and saith that he is the Plaintiff whether he is or not shall be tryed by Inspection the Judges li. 9. 30. So the non-age of an Infant generally by inspection of the Court But in many Cases Infancy shall be tryed per Pais as if an Infant appear by Attorney v. Bulst 1 part 131. Rolls tit Tryals 573. in Error this shall be tryed per Pais li. 9. 31. and so it is in an Aetate probanda Maihim in an Appeal of Maihim the Maihim Court may adjudge this upon the view at the prayer of the Defendant and this Tryal is peremptory to the Parties by a Jury of Chirurgeons Vide Rolls tit Tryal 578. Maihim may be tryed again by the Court by inspection for increase of Damages but then these things are to be considered First it must be a Maihim and not a bare wounding Secondly The Maihim must be ascertained in the declaration so as that it Maihim may appear that the Maihim inspected and the Maihim in the declaration be all one as was resolved Mich. 21 Car. 2. B. R. in the Case of Badwel and Burford the principal Case of which was that the Defendant whip'd the Plaintiffs Horse which made him throw her and another Horse trod on her and maim'd her hand and adjudged no increase of Damages in that Case being a Consequential and not a direct Maihim Nonage in a Writ of Error to reverse a Inspection Iudgement or a fine of the Tenant by resceit of one vouched come deins age issint praie le paroll à demurrer Nonage sur aid praier in Appeal Audita querela to avoid a Statute Accompt and in all actions where 't is prayed that the paroll demurroit Nonage shall be tryed per
without such consent of parties This is an insufficient Tryal not remedied by any Statute except it be upon an insuffâ—ient suggestion and then the Statute of 21 Jac. 13. helps it Vpon suggestion that the Plaintiff and Venire facias to some of the Coroners the Sheriff and one of the Coroners are of kindred to the Plaintiff or Defendant or upon any other suggestion which contains a Principal challenge the Venire facias may be directed to the other Coroners Dier 367. Error of a Iudgement in Northampton Bayliffs because in Northampton the Court being held before the Mayor and two Bayliffs the Venire facias upon the Issue was awarded to the two Bayliffs to return a Jury before the Mayor and Bayliffs secundum Consuetudinem which being returned and Iudgement given the Error assigned was because the Bayliffs being Iudges of the Court could not also be Officers to whom Process should be directed there being no Custome that can maintain any to be both Officer and Iudge But all the Court absente Hide conceived it might be good by Custome And that it is not any Error for the Iudges be not the Bayliffs only but the Mayor and Bayliffs and it is a common course in many of the Antient Corporations where the Bayliffs are Judge and Officer to return Writs Judges or the Mayor and they be Judges yet in respect of executing Process they be the Officers also And one may be Iudge and Officer diversis respectibus as in Redisseisin the Sheriff is Judge and Officer Whereupon Iudgement was affirmed Cro. 1 part 138. In Trespass and Assault laid in the Venire facias to the Garden of the Palace of Westminster Rolls tit Tryal 667. Court to be at the Palace of Westminster It was adjudged that the Venire facias shall issue al Garden del Palace and not to the Sheriff of Middlesex Bro. tit Ven. fac 31. In Trespass against two if one plead Award of Venire facias and two issues are joyned upon his Plea and two other issues are also joyned and the Court award a Venire ad triandum extitum illum quam praedictum alium exitum inter the Plaintiff and the other Defendant c. This is a good award although there be several issues betwixt the Plaintiff and both Defendants because that this word Exitus may be for all reddendo singula singulis Hob. 91. If an Inquest remain for default of Rapers and a Decem Tales is awarded and the Defendant saith for his deliverance that he is Lord of the Rape where c. and that all there are within his distress and prays a Writ to the next Hundred The Court may try this by Prochein Hundred Tryors presently without a return of the Sheriff and if it be true may award to the next Hundred otherwise if it be false 3 H. 6. 39. CAP. IV. What faults in the Venire facias shall vitiate the Tryal what not When a Venire facias de novo shall be awarded when several Venire facias's When the Venire facias shall be betwixt the party and a stranger to the Issue Who may have a Venire facias by Proviso and when WE have now shewed you to what Officer the Venire facias shall be directed The next step in the Writ is Praecipimus tibi quod Venire facias Which words Venire facias are Venire facias why the Writ so called the most effectual words in the Writ and therefore they give the denomination to the whole Writ And here opportunity is offered us to speak something of a Venire facias in general I am not ignorant how our Books swarm with Cases which arise from the defects in this Process and how that Verdicts have been set aside Iudgements stayed and reversed for want of sufficicient Returns misawarding disagreement with the Rolls discontinuance and many other faults in this Writ But the Statutes of Jeofailes especially the Statute 21 Jacob. cap. 13. have pardoned as I Statute of Jeofailes 21 Jac. 13. may so say these enormities As the awarding this Writ hab Corpora or Distringas to a wrong Officer upon any insufficient suggestion or by reason the Visne is in some part misawarded or sued out of more places or of fewer places than it ouhgt to be so as some place be right named The misnaming of any of the Jury either in Sir-name or addition in any of the said Writs or in any return thereupon so that upon examination it be proved to be the same man that was meant to be returned or if no Return be upon any of the said Writs so as a Pannel of the names of the Jurors be returned or annexed to the said Writ or if the Sheriff or Officers name having the Return thereof is not set to the Return of any such Writ so as upon Examination it be proved that the said Writ was returned by the Sheriff or Undersheriff or such other Officer In all these Cases the Iudgment shall not be stayed nor reversed for these defects But this Act doth not extend to any Writ Declaration or Suit of Appeal of Felony or Murther nor to any Indictment or Presentment of Felony or Murther or Treason nor to any Process upon any of them nor to any Writ Bill Action or Information upon any popular or penal Statute Wherefore since Informations and popular Actions are grown so frequent Popular Action c. the Attorneys c. herein had best beware of these Jeofailes By this Statute many defects are remedied which were not by the Statutes of 32 H. 8. Cap. 30. and 18 Eliz. Cap. 14. yet all are not for this Act only helps the mis-naming of a Juror in Sir-name or addition and saith nothing of his Christian name wherefore I conceive the Law in Christian name mistaken in the Venire facias incurable Codwels Case in the fifth Report remains as it was then which is that if a Juror be mis-named in his Christian name on the Venire though he be named right in the Distringas and Postea yet this is ill and not amendable and with this agrées Goddards Case Cro. 2. part 458. And since the Court Cro. 1. part so 203. doubted thereof I may well put the Christian name right in the Venine facias wrong in the Distringas Question if a Juror be right named upon the Venire and mis-named in his Christian Name in the Distringas c. whether this is amendable or not without dispute it is not by the Statute of 21 Jacob. for that only helps the Sir-name But with Reverence to the Courts doubt I conceive clearly it is holpen by the Statutes of 32 H. 8. and 18 Eliz. as a discontinuance of Process and I may with the more confidence believe it because in Codwels Case aforesaid where in the Pannel of the Venire a Juror was named Palus Cheale and in the Distringas c. he was right named Paulus Cheale and so because he
joyn although they be not nearest nay though 20 Counties be between them Finch French 59. 1 Inst 154. But if it be of a Lease at Ickford of Land in Bury in Suff. the Venue must be of Bury not of Ickford ib. 619 If the issue be taken upon the name or Where the Writ is brought condition of the person this shall be tryed in the County where the Writ is brought 21 E. 4. 8. for this may be well known there Rolls ib. 615. Where the issue is to be tryed upon a point which shall be tryed by two Counties and one cannot joyn with the other this shall be tryed where the Writ is brought 21 E. 4. 8. but for this see before where the Counties cannot joyn In Debt in London against I. S. of D. in Where in other County than where the writ is brought Essex if the Defendant saith that he was at S. in Essex at the time of purchasing the Writ and not at D. this shall be tryed in Essex and not where the Writ is brought for none can know where he dwelt so well as the County of Essex 12 H. 6. 5. Vide many cases in Rolls ib. 605. c. about this matter In an Action of the Case against a Sheriff upon an escape in London and the Arrest laid Where the escape was and not where the Arrest was to be in Southampton adjudged that the Visne shall be where the escape was because that is the ground of the Action and not where the Arrest was Cro. 3. part 271. In Debt upon an Obligation payment was pleaded apud domum mansionalem Rectoriae de Much-Hadam and the Venire facias was de vicineto de Much-Hadham where it ought to have been de vicinet Rectoriae de Much-Hadam but it was adjudged good because Much-hadam is here intended a Vill. ib. 804. So you see that where a thing is alledged to be done at the Capital House * Rectoriae of D. there the Venire shall be of D. For that is intended to be all one with the Vill. Castle But where it is at the Castle of Hertford c. there the Venire facias shall not be de Rolls tit Tryal 621. vicineto de Hertford but de Castro de Hertford for Castrum Hertford is intended a distinct place by it self and so of all Castles Cro. 2. part 239. More 862. A Venire facias may be awarded of a Castle Rolls 618. Where the issue is not parcel of the Mannor Mannor of D. or the Custom of a Mannor is in question the Venire ought to be of the Mannor Hob. 284. Cro. 2. part 327. If the Mannor be laid to be in a Vill the Venire facias Rolls tit Tryal 621. may be of the Mannor in the Vill as de vicineto maneâ—ii de Stansted-Hall in Windham Cro. 2. part 405. More 851. Arundels Case li. 6. 14. The Venue cannot be of a scite of a Mannor Rolls tit Tryal 618. In the Common Bench in Trespass for taking away a Bag of Pepper the Defendant justified as Servant of the Mayor and Commonalty of London for Wharfage due to them by the Custome of London which the Plaintiff refused to pay The Plaintiff replyed that the Custome did not extend to him London because he was a Free-man of the City and ought not to pay Wharfage to which the Defendant re-joyned that the Custom extended to him as well as to strangers upon which issue was joyned Resolved 1. That the issue should be tryed Reâ—order per Pais not by the mouth of the Recorder because he certifies nothing but what the Mayor and Aldermen direct who are concerned in the cause 2. That the Venire facias should not be awarded to the Sheriffs of London nor Middlesex because the Tryals there are by Free-men But it shall be to the County Where the Tryal shall be by the County next adjoyning next adjoyning viz. to the Sheriff of Surry So where any City is concerned the Venire facias shall not be directed to the Officers of the City but to the County next adjoyning Hob. 85. Stiles 137. More 871. vide hic cap. 2. If the issue concern the Mayor and Commonalty of a Town the Array shall be made all of Foreigners 31. Assise 19. vide Rolls tit Tryal 597. So if the issue concern the Mayor and Commonalty c. although they are not parties yet the Venire facias shall be directed to the Sheriff of the next County 15 E. 4. 18. Where a man lends a Horse to another Where a man lends his horse in one place and he is spoiled in another Visne where he is spoiled to till his Land and the Horse dies with excessive Labour the Visne shall be from the place where the excessive labour was and not where the delivery was More 887. vide Hob. 188. Rolls tit Tryal 615. pasch 22 Car. 2. B. R. Horsley versus Potter An action of the case was brought for misusing an Horse in Itinere the Contract was laid at Swafham in Norf. and the riding to Peterborough in Northampton-shire where the Horse died it was tryed in Norf. and the Court seemed that it ought to have been tryed in Northampton-shire where the damage was done and not where the contract was made but it was aided by the Stat. of Jeofailes 17 Car. 2. cap. 17. after Verdict that Statute being then in force Where a promise is laid in one place and Promise in one place and breach in another Visne guided by the issue the breach in another the Visne must be according to the event of the issue whether it be taken upon the promise or breach But if no place be alledged for the breach and issue be taken upon it the Visne must be from the place of the promise which shall be intended right where the contrary appears not see Godbolt 274. Easter 39 Eliz. In the Kings Bench Trespass Assault and Battery en Wilts continuing the Assault in Middlesex and adjudged that the Jurors shall come out of both Counties More 538. The name of a Mannor or Land or Misnomer other local thing shall be tryed where it lies because it is local but the name or addition of a person shall be tryed where the Action is brought because this is transitory Bro. tit Visne 7. lib. 6. 65. In Covenant upon an Indenture of Demise of the Rectory of Stoken Church in the County of Oxford That the Defendant Where the Land lies had good Power and Authority to demise The Indenture was alledged to be made at London and the Venire facias was awarded to the Sheriff of Oxon and this being assigned for Error Iudgement was affirmed and this adjudged to be good More 710. because the Rectory was in Com. Oxon. vide pag. 45. In Debt upon an Obligation in one Where the Land lies and not where the Writ c. County to perform Covenants in a Lease and the Land
Trover lies for damages for the Horse in which the Jury shall prove the 3 l. given was only for the conversion not the value of the Horse and by him Trover lies for goods in the Plaintiffs possession to recover damages for the conversion only Tyndal vers Jolliffe Norf. Lent Assises 1660. In Trover by Administrator where the conversion was in the time of the Intestate the Plaintiff must shew the Letters of Administration Contr. where the conversion was after his death Per Hale Norf. Sum. Ass 1660. If an Estray be claimed within the year and the day c. and the Lord refuses to deliver it Trover lies though the keeping is not paid for and the Lord sayes he detains for the same and the Lord can't detain for the meat c. but must bring his action Per Moreton Just Lent Norf. 1667. Bond vers Paston Quaere vide Dent tit Trespass per Wyndham Contr. and I think is Law At the same Assises Daniel vers Berney by Moreton Just Proclamation may be made of an Estray by any person and it is not necessary that it should be made by the Bell-man or any other Officer Vide Co. Entries 170. Barber vers Fawcet In Trover issue was joyned on tender of amends for keeping c. and Verdict pro Plaintiff and judgement Note I find precedents that in Trover the matter of an Estray may be pleaded specially or given in evidence on Not guilty Oats were taken from the owner and carried to a Miller to make into Oat-meal and before it was done the owner prohibits the Miller c. and demanded the Oats who notwithstanding made them into Oate-meal Per Barkely it 's a conversion in the Miller 1630. Clayton 57. Hollworth's case On non Cul. The Defendant gave in evidence a seisure for goods Foreign bought and Foreign sold Per Custom of Lynn Norf. good per Hale Norf. Sum. Ass 1668. Harwich vers Twells A man lends his Horse to a special purpose the Bailee abuses the Horse and over works him then the lender takes the Horse again Per Hugh Wyndham Just Lent Assises Bucks Trover lies not Constables case Dower In Dower the issue was ne unque seisie que Dower and for the Plaintiff a Feoffment in Fee was given in evidence to the Husband the Defendant would have given in evidence a seisin in tayle with a discontinuance and then the Feoffment c. and so a remitter but it ought to be pleaded per Cur. Dyer 41. If an Heir Mortgage for years and then assigne Dower legally i. e. a 3. part of the whole the assignment shall bind the Mortgagee Cont. if the assignment be illegal as of one whole Mannor when there were three Mannors that being not as the Law would have done it And if a disseisor assigne a legal Dower it 's good But if the Heir Mortgage in Fee and then assigne c. legally c. that is not good because the whole Freehold was out of him at the time of assignment Per Hugh Wyndham Just Bucks Lent Ass 1668. Account Against S. as receiver of two 30 ls and as Bayliff for receiving his Rents for several years not saying any certain sum of Rents Per Earl Sergeant the proper way is to find quod Computet as to what is certain in the declaration and so proved as the money was but not to the Rents and so he said was the opinion of Hale But per Moreton Just the Verdict shall be general and it may be both ways Saye's case Norf. Lent Assises 1667. Thus far I have made an Essay of a method to be further built upon by our Practiser and have given some cases not in Print and it may be useful I shall add some other cases not so proper for heads except that of Evidence with which I shall conclude this Chapter Evidence Inspection of a Deed Inrolled may be given in evidence Contr. of a bare Deed not Inrolled or of a Deed that needs no Inrollment Pasch 1655. B. R. Goodson's case A Deed to Lead the uses of a fine was Inrolled on the acknowledgement of but one of the parties to it was allowed by Glyn Ch. Just in evidence as Roll Ch. Just had done before him though no binding evidence Turber vers Maddison Pasch 1655. B. R. An office found at a death c. may be given in evidence A Verdict against one under whom either Plaintiff or Defendant claims may be given in evidence against the party so claiming cont If neither claim under it Duke and Ventres Mich. 1656. B. R. If an Action be brought on a Statute which has several provisoes in it the Defendant may plead not guilty and aid himself by any of the provisoes in evidence But if provisoes be made to that Statute of which the Defendant may take advantage he ought to plead it and not give it in evidence per Roll. Ch. Just Mich. 1650. B. R. Jones 320. accord Iointenancy in trespass cannot be given in evidence but must be pleaded in Abatement Jones versus Randal Hill 1652. C. B. Arrest and Imprisonment to prove a Bankrupt must be proved by Record Newby vers Bathurst Pasch 1659. B. R. In a Tryal at Barr. The custome of New-England to marry by the Magistrate in the presence of a Minister was allowed good by Hale Ch. Just B. R. Trin. 1663. at Guild-Hall in t Hall Hall The Certificate of the King under his sign Manual was allowed in Chancery for proof without exception Hob. 213. Records as Patents Statutes Judgments may be given in Evidence Hob. 227. contr to Dyer 129. When Records are pleaded they must be Sub pede Sigilli Contr. if given in Evidence Stiles 22. Whites case An answer in Chancery is Evidence against the Defendant himself but the Bill must he proved Godb. 326. Vpon a traverse of a Lease parol for years viz. Absque hoc quod A. demisit c. Nihil habuit in tenementis may be given in Evidence Dyer 122. Shewing a Grant to digg Turfs is no Evidence against a Prescription for the same but the Grant being the same with the Prescription shall be taken as a confirmation Crew Vernon Moore 819. Quaere tamen v. Moore 830. Where a Court of Pipowder is claimed by Prescription and Grant and good 2 Cro. 313. Acc. In Trespass for taking Goods after Iudgment per confession non sum informatus or nil dicit Property need not be proved to a Writ of inquiry for it would oppose the first Iudgment Quod quaerens recuperet and the Iudges might have Assessed damages if they would Yelv. 151. Yet quaere if the Defendant may not disprove property in mitigation of Damages for the Iury may find no Damages A Copy of a Deed is good Evidence where the Defendant has the deed and will not produce it Per Vernon just Clayton 15. A deed of Feoffment without Livery may be given in Evidence as a Release Per Berkly 11 Car. Clayton 32. If a
the Plaintiff was seized in his Demesn as of Fréehold and that afterwards the Rent was behind at such a Feast c. By which the Lessor entred into the Land upon the possession of the Lessée And pray the discretion of the Iustices if this be a Disseisin done to the Plaintiff or not Then for that it appeareth to the Iustices that this was no Disseisin to the Plaintiff insomuch as the Entry of the Lessor was congeable on him The Iustices ought to give Iudgment that the Plaintiff shall not take any thing by his Writ of Assize and so in such case the Lessor shall be ayded and yet no Writing was ever made of the Condition For as well as the Iurors may have Conusance of the Lease they also as well may have Conusance of the Condition which was declared and rehearsed upon the Lease In the same manner it is of a Feoffment in Fée or a guift in tail upon Condition although no Writing were ever made of it And as it is said of a Verdict at large in an Assize c. In the same manner it is of a Writ of Entry founded upon a Disseisin and in all other Actions where the Iustices will take the Verdict at large there where such Verdict at large is made the manner of the whole Entry is put in Issue But in Assise of Rent it cannot be found to be upon Condition unless they also find the Deed of the Condition So of a Confirmation in Fee to Lessée for years Per Hale Ch. Just Guild-hall Hill 1671. A Special Verdict may be found as to Damagâ—s in an Action of the Case as the Case was there viz. Pro Quer ' and if so c. then such Damages if so c. then Damages such and he said he had known it so done in Debt and the Damages three ways Also in such case where the Enquest may General Verdict give their Verdict at large if they will take upon them the knowledge of the Law upon the matter they may give their Verdict generally as is put in their charge as in the case aforesaid they may well say that the Lessor did not disseize the Lessée if they will c. The Iury may likewise find Estoppel Estoppels which cannot be pleaded as in the 2 d Report fol. 4. it well appears where one Goddard Administrator of James Newton brought an Action of debt against John Denton upon an Obligation made to the Intestate bearing date the 4th day of April Anno 24 Eliz. The Defendant pleaded that the Intestate dyed before the Date of the Obligation and so concluded that the said Escript was not his Deed upon which they were at Issue And the Iury found that the Defendant delivered it as his Déed 30 July Anno 23. Eliz. and found the Tenor of the Déed in haec verba Noveriat universi c. Dat. 4. Aprilis Anno 24 Eliz. And that the Defendant was alive 30 July Anno 23. Eliz. And that he dyed before the said date of the Obligation and prayed consideration of the Court if this was the Defendants Deed And it was adjudged by Anderson Chief Justice Windham Periam and Walmesley that this was his Deed And the Reason of the Iudgment was That although the Obligèe in Note that a Deed may be plâ—aded to be delivered after the dare but nor before because it shall not be intended written before the date which may be after the date 12 H. 6. 1. pleading cannot alledge the delivery before the date as it is adjudged in 12 H. 6. 1. which case was affirmed to be good Law because he is estopped to take an averment against any thing expressed in the Deed yet the Jurors who are sworn ad veritatem dicâ—nd shall not be estopped For an Estoppel is to be concluded to speak the truth and therefore Jurors cannot be estopped because they are sworn to speak the truth But if the Estoppel or Admittance be As in Wast supposed in A. to plead that A is a hamlet in B. and not a Town of it self admitteth the Wast c. 9 H. 6. 66. and the Jury cannot find no Wast for that would be against the Record Estoppel within the same Record in which the Issue is joyned upon which the Jurors give their Verdict there they cannot find any thing against this which the parties have affirmed and admitted of Record although it be not true For the Court may give Iudgement upon a thing confessed by the parties and the Jurors are not to be charged with any such thing but only with things in which the parties vary Ib. li. 5. 30. So Estoppels which bind the Interest of the Land as the taking of a Lease of a mans own Laâ—d by Déed indented and the like Cro. 1. part 110. Lib. 4. 53. being specially found by the Iury the Court ought to judge according to the special matter for albeit Estoppels regularly must be pleaded and relyed upon by apt conclusion and the Iury is sworn ad veritatem dicend yet when they find veritatem facti they persue well their Oath and the Court ought to adjudge according to Law So may the Iury find a Warranty being given in Evidence though it be not pleaded because it bindeth the right unless it be in a Writ of Right Warranty not pleaded when the Mise is joyned upon the méer right 1 Inst 227. Verdicts ought to be such that the Court Uncertain Verdicts may go clearly to Indgment thereon and therefore Verdicts finding matter incertainly or ambiguously are insufficient and void and no Iudgment shall be given thereupon As if an Executor plead Plene Administravit and Issue is joyned thereon and the Jury find that the Defendant hath Goods within his hands to be administred but find not to what value this is an uncertainty and therefore an insufficient Verdict li. 9. 74. 1 Inst 227. It is the Office of the Jurors to shew the The Office of the Jury verity of the fact and leave the Iudgment of the Law to the Court. And therefore upon an Indictment of Murder quod felonice per cussit c. If the Iury find per cussit tantum yet the Verdict is good for the Iudges of the Court are to resolve upon â—he special matter whether it was felonice and so Murder or not li. 9. 69. And if the Court adjudge it Murder then the Jurors in the conclusion of their Verdict find the Felon guilty of the murther contained in the Indictment A Verdict that finds part of the Issue and Verdict finding part of the Issue finding nothing for the rest is insufficient for the whole because they have not tryed the whole Issue wherewith they are charged As if an Information of intrusion be brought More 406. against one for intruding into a Messuage and 100 Acres of Land upon the general Issue the Iury find against the Defendant for the Land but say nothing for the House this
for the Battery of the Baron by its self and for the Battery of the Feme by its self and Iudgment was given for the damages for the batâ—ery of the feme and the Writ abated for the residue And of that Opinion was Lea Chief Justice and Doderidge al. contra And the same Law I conceive if the Iury had found the Defendant Not guilty of the battery to the Palmer's Reports 338. Husband but guilty to the Wife Cro. 2. part 655. Rochel and his Wife brought an Action of Trespass and Assault in the Exchequer Rochel and his Wife against Steel Hill 1659. against Steel and others who pleaded Not guilty and the Verdict found Steel guilty of the Battery to the Wife but found nothing concerning the Husband Wherefore Iudgment was stayd but the Barons held That if the Iury had found the Defendants not guilty as to the Husband then the Verdict had helped the Declaration and the Plaintiff should have had Iudgment for the Damages for the Battery of the Wife The Iury may find any thing that may be Of what a Verdict may be given in Evidence to them as Records either Patent Statute or Iudgment Things Plo. Com 411. done in another County or Country for which sée Evidence before Hob. 227. And of those things they ought to have Conusance they are to have Conusance also of all Incidents and dependants thereupon for an Incident is a thing necessarily depending Incidents upon another Co. Littleton 227. b. If the Verdict may by any ways be construed How construed good a construction to destroy it ought not to be made If one of the Iury be Outlawed when the Verdict is found the Verdict is not good but Outlaw may be reversed by Error In a special Verdict the case in Fact must be found clear to a Common intent without Equivocation Vaughan's Reports 78. If the Iury collect the Contents of a Contents of a Deed. Deed and also find the Déed in haec verba the Court is not to Iudge upon their Collection but upon the Déed it self The Iury may find the Contents of a Déed or Will proved by Witnesses Ibidem Trespass for disturbing him of his Common Common belonging to 100 Acres and the Iury find Common for 50. this is for the Plaintiff otherwise upon an Avoury or Quod permittat which are founded upon the right but the Trespass is for Damages Palmer's Rep. 289. If the matter and substance of the Issue The Verdict may be against the Letters of the Issue so the substance is found be found it is sufficient though it be against the Letter of the Issue As in the first Institutes fo 114. b. A Modus decimandi was alledged by prescription time out of mind for Tythes of Lambs And thereupon Issue joyned And the Iury found that before twenty years then last past there was such a prescription and that for these twenty Prescription years he had payd Tythe Lamb in specie And it was objected first That the Issue was found against the Plaintiff for that the prescription was general for all the time of the prescription and 20 years fail thereof 2. That the party by payment of Tythes in specie had waved the prescription or custom But it was adjudged for the Plaintiff for albeit the modus decimandi had not been paid by the space of twenty years yet the prescription being found the substance of the Issue is found for the Plaintiff In Assiise of Darrein Presentment if the Avoydance Plaintiff alledge the avoydance of the Church by privation and the Jury find the voydance by death the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment for the manner of voydance is not the title of the Plaintiff but the voydance is the matter 1 Instit 282. If a Gardein of an Hospital bring an Assise against the Ordinary he pleadeth that Deprivation in his Visitation he deprived him as Ordinary whereupon Issue is taken and it is found that he deprived him as Patron the Ordinary shall have judgment for the deprivation is the substance of the matter Ib. The Lessee Covenants with the Lessor not to cut down any Trées c. and binds himself in a Bond of 40 pounds for the performance of Covenants The Lessee cut down 10 Trees the Lessor bringeth an Action Breach of 20 Trees cut down for 10. of Debt upon the Bond and assigneth a breach that the Lessée cut down 20 Trées whereupon Issue is joyned and the Jury find that the Lessée cut down ten Iudgment shall be given for the Plaintiff for sufficient matter of Issue is found for the Plaintiff to forfeit the Bond. Ib. And this Rule holds in Criminal Causes For if A. be appealed or indicted of Murder viz. that he of malice prepensed killed J. A. pleadeth that he is not guilty Modo forma yet the Jury may find the Defendant Indictment of Murder and Verdict finds Manslaughter guilty of Man-slaughter without malice prepensed because the killing of J. is the matter and mâ—lice prepensed is but a Circumstance Plo. Com. 101. And generally where modo forma are Modo forma not of the substance of the Issue but words of form there it sufficeth though the Verdict doth not find the precise Issue As if a man bring a Writ of Entry in câ—su proviso of the Alienation made by the Tenant in Dower to his disinheritance and counteth of the Alienation made in Fee and the Tenant saith that he did not Alien in Manner as the Demandant hath declared Alienation and upon this they are at Issue and it is found by Verdict that the Tenant aliened in tail or for term of another mans life The Demandant shall recover yet the Alienation was not in manner as the Demandant hath declared Littleton Sect. 483. Also if there be Lord and Tenant and the Tenant hold of the Lord by fealty only and the Lord distrain the Tenant for Rent and the Tenant bringeth a Writ of Trespass against his Lord for his Cattel so taken Trespass by the Tenant against the Lord. and the Lord plead that the Tenant holds of him by fealty and certain Rent and for that Rent behind he came to distrain c. And demand Iudgment of the Writ brought against him Quare vi armis c. And the other saith That he doth not hold of him in manner as he supposed and upon this they are at Issue And it is found by Vâ—rdict that he holdeth of him by fealty only in this case the Writ shall abate and yet he doth not hold of him in manner as the Lord hath said For the matter of the Issue is Whether the Tenant holdeth of him or no for if he holdeth of him although that the Lord distrain the Tenant for other services which he ought not to have yet such Writ of Trespass Quare vi armis c. doth not lye against the Lord but shall
Castle but that there was a Goal this was for the Plaintiff because Goal is the Substance If the Issue be whether the Defendant had Accompted before R. and W. Auditors Accompt assigned by the Plaintiff and the Iury find an Accompt before R. only the Issue is found for the Defendant for the Accompt is the effect of the Issue Vide Rolls tit Trial. 707. c. If 11 agrée and the 12th will not the Verdict of the 11 cannot be taken but the Court Jury agree may carry the Iurors with them in Carts until they are agréed 41 Ass 11. A privy Verdict may be altered in open Verdict altered Court In an Extendi fac upon a Statute if the Iury deliver their Verdict in Writing they may afterwards make it more formal but they cannot alter it in substance for it is a compleat Verdict by the delivery So of Presentments c. A Fine pleaded in Barr and that after Fine and Non-claim the death of A. scil 1 August 3. Car. B. Father of the Plaintiff was alive in plena vita remansit infra hoc Regnum infra quatuor Maria c. apud W. in Com. D. and no Entry or Claim within five years after and the Plaintiff replies and takes Issue què Modo forma il non fuit remansit infra hoc Regnum Angliae modo forma c. And the Iury find quod non fuit remansit infra hoc Regnum Angliae 1 August 3 Car. but that he was there 1 Maii 4. Car. and remained there a Month and refer to the Court Au fuit remansit infra hoc Regnum modo forma c. This Issue is found for the Defendant for the matter and substance of the Plea is whether he was within the Realm after the death of A. and five years before Entry or Claim per him or the Plaintiff and modo forma shall not make the day material Roll. tit Trial. 713. Iudgment upon a Demurrer and a Writ Judgment Arrest at what time of Inquiry executed at the return the party may shew any thing in Arrest of Iudgment for Iudgment is not compleat until the last Iudgment The first is but an Award A man may plead any thing in Arrest of Iudgment after a Verdict which will make Error if the Iudgment be given In Debt upon a simple Contract against an Executor if he will not plead in Abatement but other Matter which is found against him he shall not afterwards alledge that he is not chargeable in Arrest of Iudgment So in Debt against Executors upon Arrearages of Accompt where they are not chargeable That which appears ill upon the same Record What may be alledged but not a maâ—â—er of Fact which doth not appear upon the Record because the parties cannot by the Issue As that a Iuror was challenged and yet served on the Tales for this cannot appear without alledging matter of Fact Nor that the Defendants Attorney had no Warrant But if there be any irregular or foul practice this may be offered to set aside a Iudgment If any thing be omitted in the Declaration Variance between the Verdict and the Declaration or if more be put into the Declaration than is found by the Iury if it make a material Variance betwixt the Nar. and the Verdict the Action shall abate These following are adjudged material Variances If the Declaration be for these words Thou procuredst eight or Ten of thy Neighbours Words to Perjure themselves and the Iury find that he said Thou hast caused eight or 10 c. for he might be a remote Cause scilicet causa sine qua non without Procurement Nar. He is a Bankrupt Verdict He will be a Bankrupt within two days Nar. He is a Thief Ver. He stole a Horse Nar. Thou art a Murderer Ver. He is c. Nar. I know him to be a Thief Ver. I think him to be a Thief So it is a material Variance if a special Promise be laid to be upon Request and the Verdict find it without Request So if the Promise Declaration be upon a Lease made by two or by Baron and feme and the Iury find that one of them had nothing in the Land or that the Baron only made the Lease or that the two were Tenants in Common and so several Leases otherwise if they were Coparteners So in Case that the Testator was indebted to the Plaintiff in 55 l. and the Defendant being Administrator in consideratione c. Promise to pay this upon non Assumpsit if the Verdict find the Promise to be to pay 30 l. part of the 55 l. So in Ejectment If the Nar. be of a Lease Eje ment of thrée Acres a Lease of a Moiety will not maintain the Nar. So in Wast for Cutting Trees and the Wast Verdict find that he eradicated the Trées but did not cut them A Prescription in modo decimandi That Prescription every one who hath seven Lambs or under seven shall pay to the person ob for every Lamb and the Iury find that and further That if he had more than seven Lambs he should pay a Lamb and that the Parson should pay the Parishioner ob This is not the same Prescription but makes a Variance But if there be a Variance between the Variance Verdict and the Nar. either by way of Surplus or Defect but if this matter of Variance be not material in the extenuation of the Action or Damages the Action shall lye notwithstanding the Variance These ensuing are adjudged not to be material Nar. Strong Thief Verdict Thief Nar. I say c. Ver. I affirm or I doubt not Nar. The Plaintiff will do such a thing Ver. I think in my Conscience he will c. Nar. Of a Lease by a Parson for five years if he tam diu should be Parson tam diu viveret And the Verdict find the Lease to be for five years if he tam diu viveret without the words and should continue Parson for the Law implyeth That if he be deprived or resign that the Lease Determines Nar. He is a Murderer Ver. He was a Murderer for when he says He is a Murderer 't is not intended that he did the Act in presenti but before So in Trespasses or Actions upon Torts and wrongs which are several If the Verdict find part 't is no material Variance and the Plaintiff in these Cases shall have Iudgment Roll. tit Tryal 720. A Jury of Middlesâ—x was demanded in Enquest by default the Common-Pleas the first day of the Term and some appeared and some not so that there was not a full Jury and neither the Defendant nor his Attorney did appear and therefore the Plaintiff prayed that the Inquest might be awarded by default and by the opinion of Welsh and Dyer his prayer shall be granted and the Custos Brevium and all the Prothonotaries said the
informed the Court hereof and the Iury being examined confessed the matter aforesaid upon which Iudgment was stayed for after the Iury are sworn they ought not to sée nor carry with them any other Evidence but what was delivered to them by the Court Afterwards the Plaintiff said That the Escrowle proved the same Evidence which was given to them at Barr by him wherefore it was not so bad as if it had béen new Evidence not given before Sed non allocatur 11 H. 4. 17. Pasche 38 Eliz. Inter Vicary Farthing Church-Book delivered to the Jury act of Court at the Nisi prius The Issue was about Non-age and two Church-Books were given in Evidence one whereof was delivered to the Iury in Court by the assent of parties and afterwards the other was delivered to the Iury out of the Court by the Solicitor of the Plaintiff without the assent of the Court and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and this was indorsed on the Postea The Question was whether this should make the Verdict void or no for the Iustices differed in opinion Popham and Gawdy that it should not Fenner and Clench that it should the Negative Iustices gave these Reasons That the Book was delivered in Evidence in the Court and so the other party might answer to it and that the Court had informed the Iury of the validity thereof how far they were to believe iâ— with many other Reasons But the Affirmative was urged because there might be some matter in this Book to induce them otherwise than was intended before and because it was delivered on his part for whom the Verdict passed without the Courts assent yet one Book scil Cro. last part 411. tells us Iudgment was afterwards given for the Plaintiff sée More 's Reports 452. The Books differ for Cro. makes Clinch give Consider the Reasons in the former cases his opinion for the Verdict But More brings him on the other side which I conceive is truest and for my part I know no reason why foisting of Evidence to the Iury without the Court should have any favour at all In the Case of Taylor and Webb Trin. 1653 B. R. Twisden moved to set aside a Verdict given at Barr because that after Evidence when the Writings were delivered to the Iury some Writings which were not sealed and therefore ought â—ot to be delivered to the Iury were delivered by a stranger to the Iury. Hales Counsel of the other side produces an Affidavit of the Foreman 's of the Iury that they made no use of them in giving their Verdict and that most of those Writings were read in Court in Evidence upon the Tryal and Hales said That if this should avoid the Verdict then that would be in the power of any Stranger unknown and against the mind of the parties to avoid any Verdict Roll. Ch Iust The Affidavit of the Iury ought not to be allowed to make good their own Verdict for now they are as it were parties and have offended and shall not be allowed by their own Oath to take off their offence and it is the Duty of the Iury to look what Writings they receive before they go from the Barr and if any such Paper be wrap'd up among other Papers delivered to them by the Court so soon as they have discovered it they should call in the Tip-staff who keeps them and deliver it to him and to testifie they made no use of it and he said it would be dangerous to give the least way to the delivering of any Writings to a Iury. And at another day Roll cited 11 H. 4. 18. the Plaintiff before the Tryal delivered a a breviaâ—e of his Evidence to the Iury which contained no more than was proved in Court yet by this the Verdict was avoided So Mich. 31 Eliz. C. B. Metcalfe and Dean After the Iury were gone from the Barr they sent for one of the Witnesses and re-examined him who gave the very same Evidence that he had before given in Court yet the Verdict was avoided and the reason of both is a fear and jealousie that other matters might be given c. 37 Eliz. Farthing's Case a Paper not under Seal which was given in Evidence was delivered to the Iury this did not avoid the Verdict because here can be no such fear and per Roll If any Writing though not given in Evidence be delivered to the Iury by the Court it shall not avoid the Verdict And in the principal Case the Verdict was avoided Hill 40 Eliz. Rot. 847. In Arrest of Iudgment after Verdict it was alledged Escrowle from one who was no party that a Iuror delivered to his Companions an Escrowle for Evidence to them which was not given in Evidence at the Tryal and adjudged no cause to Arrest Iudgment unless it had béen received from one of the parties which did not appear More 546. but otherwise if it had béen given by a party and the Iury had found for him In the Case of Duke and Veâ—tres Mich. 1656. B. R. tryed at Barr one Mr. Beverly of Suff. a Barrister was returned of the Iury who having béen at a Tryal of the same Cause above 20 years before in the Cheq and heard there great Evidence to make a Deed fraudulent which was now the Contest demanded of the Court whether he ought to inform the rest of the Iury privately of this or conceal it or declare it in open Court The Court ordered him to come into Court and deliver all his knowledge which he heard then proved which Evidence was not now given because the parties were dead and so he did being not sworn again but only upon the Oath taken as a Iuryman And certainly It is of dangerous Consequence to receive a Verdict against Evidence given on supposal that some of the Iury knew otherwise or on private Information given by one Iuryman to the rest where he can't be Cross-Examin'd and let such Iurors beware of Attaint but the best way is as before in open Court In a Writ of Error the first Error assigned was that Termino Trin. twelve Iurors and no more did appear This ex assensu partium was adjourned until Jury adjourned Crastino Animar on which day two others came in and were sworn being of the first Pannel The Court all clear of Opinion that this is no Error this being good enough they being all to be called again Leon. 3. part 38. If a Iuror depart after he is sworn Juror depart he shall be sined and imprisoned and by assent of parties another Iuror may be sworn Bro. Jurors 46 lib. 5. 40. If a man be non-suited after the Jury is ready to give their Verdict the Court may cause the Amercement of the Plaintiff to be presently affered by the Iurors li. 8. 39. CAP. XV. What Punishment the Law hath provided for Jurors offending as taking Reward to give their Verdict Of Embraceors Decies tantum Attaint several Fines on Jurors
Embraceors F. N. 6. Br. 171. So much doth the Law hate that Jurors Fined for taking Money after their Verdict should privately take Money for their Verdict That certain Jurors were fined for taking Money after their Verdict though there was no prâ—ingagement for it 39 Assise p. 19. The practice is otherwise at this day if it were not the Middlesex Iuries would not so Court the Bayliffs to return them especially to Tryals at Barr where 5 l. a man is frequent Gratuity sometimes more If a full Iury appear and some are challenged Issues off so that the Iury remains for default of Iurors the Defaulters shall loose their Issues 4 H. 6. 7. otherwise if a Iury be sworn and one is withdrawn by consent But if there be a joynder of Counties and a Iury of one County appear and not of the other The Defaulters of that County from which enough came shall not loose their Issues because the Inquest doth not remain for their default but for the default of them of the other County 48 Ass 5. Mes quaere If the Iurors at the return of Scire fac Amercement make default yet they shall not be amerced because the parties may be claimed at the first day but at the return of the Habeas Corpora they shall 10 E. 4. 19. 1 E. 3. 12. If any of the Iurors appear the Court Demand sur peine may charge them to inquire if any of the other Iurors were within the Town after the return and if they find they were they shall be demanded upon a Pein and if they come not they shall be amerced Rolls tit Trial. 632. A Juror was challenged and six other Jurors were sworn to try the Challenge who found him indifferent and thereupon the Juror fined for departing when he was challenged Jury was demanded but did not appear for which default he was fined the value of his Lands for a year and the other Jurors inquired of the value c. although the other party then would have challenged him when he was demanded so that he might have béen treit But the Court would not admit this because then the King would have lost his Fine 36 H. 6. 27. If a Juror appear and is adjourned upon Juror adjourned upon pain pain and makes default in this Case because he shall be fined to the value of his Land per annum this shall be inquired by his Companions of the Jury because the Court knows not the value of his Land li. 8. 41. A Verdict was taken from the Fore-man Fined for giving a Verdict before they were agreed of the Jury to which one of them did not assent and damages assessed to 20 s. in Trespass and Assault and afterwards every one of the 11. were fined for giving their Verdict before they were all agreed 40 Assise 10. Where a Iury are to be fined a Fine The fine must not be joynt jointly imposed on them is not legal but they must be severally fined because the offence of one is not the offence of another Et nemo debet puniri pro alieni delicto For then it might be said Rutilius fecit Aemilius plectitur lib. 11. 42. A man stroke a Juror at Westm sitting Punishment for striking a Juror in the Court who passed against him and he was thereof indicted and arraigned at the Kings Suit and attainted his judgment was that he should go to the Tower and stay there in prison all days of his life and that his right hand should be cuâ— off and his Lands seised into the Kings haâ—ds 41 Assise p. 25. and now our Juror sées what punishment it is to strike him in the face of the Court. Let him hold his hands from others least the same Iudgment light on him By the Statute of 27 Eliz. cap. 6. It is Enacted that upon every first Writ of Habeas Corpora or Distringas with a Nisi prius 10 s. shall be returned in Issues upon every person impannelled and upon the second Writ 20 s. and upon the third 30 s. Issues And upon every Writ that shall be further awarded to try any Issue to double the Issues last afore specified until a full Jury be sworn And these Issues being returned upon a Not summoned Tenement in Fée simple in tail or for life of another or himself or in the right of his Wife the Land he then hath will be chargeable for it and any mans Cattel upon this Land may be distrained for it But if the Under Sheriff c. return a Juror summoned who in truth was not legally summoned and therefore doth not appear and so looseth Issues the Vnder-Sheriff shall pay him double the value of the Issues lost Sée the Statutes of 35 H. 8. 6. and the 2 E. 6. 32. And note the Law hath béen so careful to punish all offenders who would endeavour to byass and corrupt the Iury and to punish the Juries themselves if they receive Money to give their Verdict or any otherwise pre-ingage themselves to any of the parties All which is to the end that a true and honest Verdict may be given What punishment shall that Jury have which gives a false Verdict Such a punishment that as I said before in civil Causes it is without example and surely if the Jurors did bear it in their minds their Verdicts would be always grounded upon their Evidence and not upon their own Interests or any partiality to either of the parties Wherefore if the Jurors give a false Verdict which is perjury of the highest degrée upon an Issue joyned betwéen the parties in any Court of Record and Iudgment thereupon The party grieved may bring his Writ of Attaint in the Kings-Bench or Attaint Common-Pleas upon which 24 of the best men in the County are to be the Jurors who are to hear the same Evidence which was given to the Petite Iury and as much as can be brought in affirmance of the Verdict but no other against it And if these 24. who are called the Grand Iuâ—y find it a false Verdict then followeth â—â—is terrible and heavy Iudgment at Common Law upon the Petite Iury. 1. That they shall loose liberam legem for Judgment in Attaint ever that is they shall be so infamous as they shall never be received to be a Witness or of any Jury 2. That they shall forfeit all their Goods and Chattels 3. That their Lands and Tenements shall be taken into the Kings hands 4. That their Wives and Children shall be thrown out of doors 5. That their Houses shall be rased and thrown down 6. That their Trées shall be rooted up 7. That their Meadow-grounds shall be ploughed up 8. That their Bodies shall be cast into the Goal and the party shall be restored to all that he lost by reason of the unjust Verdict So odious is Perjury in this Case in the eye of the Common-Law And the severity of this
punishment is to this end Ut poena ad paucos metus ad omnes perveniat for there is Misericordia puniens and there is Crudelitaâ—parcens And séeing all Tryals of real personal and mixt actions depend upon the Oath of 12 men prudent Antiquity inflicted this severe punishment upon them if they were attainted of Perjury 1 Inst 294. But now by the Stat. of 23 H. 8. cap. 3. The severity of this punishment is moderated if the Writ of Attaint be grounded upon that Statute But the party grieved may at his Election either bring his Writ of Attaint at the Common-Law or upon that Statute Wherefore let the Juror expect the greatest punishment when he offends 3 Inst 163. 222. And so I conclude as to the Iuror only with the words of Fortescue Quis tunc etsi immemor salutis animae suae fuerit non formidine tantae poenae verecundia tantae infamiae veritatem non diceret sic Juratus Who then though he regard not his Souls health yet for fear of so great punishment and for shame of so great infamy would not upon his Oath declare the truth But as to our Practicer I would give this one further Advertisement which relates also to Iurors When a Verdict has been given by a former Iury in the same Cause and on the same Evidence it is allowed to give the former Verdict in Evidence and I have known this Introduced by the Counsel as obliging to the latter Iury to find accordingly intimating that otherwise they do in effect perjure the former 12 men which may amuse render minds and draw them from the strict Inquiry into the Merits of the Cause in favour of their Predecessors which is a palpable mistake and misinformation for these Reasons 1. The same Evidence in the former Cause and Tryal perhaps was not so perspicuously delivered as in this 2. This latter Iury may be of more sagacicus and Comprehensive Iudgment than the former 3. The Directions of the Court which the Iury most héed may be more clearly delivered to this Iury. 4. The Matter in Contest perhaps was not in the former Tryal so clearly manag'd by the Counsel being not so well instructed as afterwards 5. And laâ—â—ly supposing the Evidence equally deliuered by the Witnesses apprehended by the Iury directed by the Court manag'd by the Counsel yet it 's no perjury or fault to differ in Iudgment for if 24 Iurymen were to try a Matter of Fact and 12 were of one Opinion and 12 of another who is in fault while they Iudge according to the best of their Knowledge and Skill to which only they are sworn And it 's a reasonable kindness to Iury-men to make good Construction of differing Iudgments among them while we sée how oft Iudges themselves differ in their Opinions on a matter stated equally to them all and that not only as to matter of Law but as to matter of Fact as attending Practicers may observe in Tryals at Earr in the several Iudges several Directions And this I thought good to advertise for that I have known Verdicts gained on this unwarrantable Suggestion against clear and express Evidence and could instance some Cases Sed verbum sat c. As to the difference betwixt the Judge and the Jury and that Question which has made such a noise viz. Whether a Jury is fineable for going against their Evidence in Court or the Direction of the Judge I look upon that Question as dead and buried since Bushel's Case in my Lord Vaughan's Reports yet some of the Ashes thereof I may sprinkle here without offence It doth appear there to have béen resolveâ— by all the Iudges upon a full Conference at Serjeants-Inn That a Jury is not fineable for going against their Evidence where an Attaint lyes And that it is Evident by several Resolutions of all the Iudges That where an Attaint lyes the Iudge cannot fine the Iury for going against their Evidence or Direction of the Court without other Misdemeanour And where an Attaint doth not lye as in Criminal Causes upon Indictments c. My Lord Vaughan says these words That the Court could not Fine a Jury at the Common Law where Attaint did not lye I think to be the clearest Position that ever I considered either for Authority or Reason of Law And one reason for this which can never be answered is The Iudge cannot fully know upon what Evidence the Iury give their Verdict for they may have other Evidence than what is shew'd in Court They are of the Vicinage the Judge is a Stranger they may have Evidence from their own personal knowledge that the Witnesses speak false which the Iudge knows not of they may know the Witnesses to be stigmatised and infamous which may be unknown to the Parties or Court And if the Iury knew no more than what they heard in Court and so the Iudge knew so much as they yet they might make different Conclusions as oftentimes two Iudges do and therefore as it would be a strange and absurd thing to punish one Iudge for differing with another in Opinion or Iudgment so it would be worse for the Iury who are Judges of the Fact to be punished for finding against the Direction of him who is not Iudge of the Fact But he that would be better satisfyed in this point may read that Case and the Authorities and Reasons given by my Lord Vaughan whom I must honour as a man of great reason It is shewed in that Case That muth of the Office of Jurors in order to their Verdict is Ministerial as not withdrawing from their fellows after they are sworn not receiving from either side Evidence after their Oath not given in Court not eating and drinking before their Verdict refusing to give a Verdict and the like wherein if they transgress they are Fineable But the Verdict it self when given is not an act Ministerial but Judicial and according to the best of their judgment for which they are not fineable nor to be punisht but by Attaint Nor can any man shew That a Jury was ever punisht upon an Information either in Law or in the Star-Chamber where the Charge was only for finding against their Evidence or giving an untrâ—e Verdict unless Imbracery Subornation â—r the like were joyned But the Fining and Imprisoning of Jurors for giving their Verdicts hath several times béen declared in Parliament an Illegal and Arbitrary Innovation and of dangerous Consequence to the Government the Lives and Liberties of the People This celebrated tryal by Iuries having béen confirmed by many Parliaments Littleton Sect. 368. tells us That as the Iury may find the matter at large that is a Special Verdict which the Court cannot refuse if it be pertinent to the matter put in Issue and leave the Law to the Court so if the Iury will they may take upon them the knowledge of the Law upon the matter and may give their Verdict generally as is put in their Charge As
that in an Action upon the Case far Asumpset the parties being at issue a demurrer was joyned upon the evidence and thereupon the Jury discharged and afterwards judgment was given for the Plaintiff and a Writ of Inquiry of damages awarded and damages found and Judgment thereupon where the Jurors which came to find the Issue although by the Demurrer they were discharged of the Issue yet ought to have assessed damages conditionally if judgment should be given for the Plaintiff And in proof thereof was cited Newis and Scholastica's Case in Plo. Com. fol. 408. and the old Books of Entries c. And it was said by the Court If these Precedents be good Law thâ—â— it may be inquired of by the same Jury conditionalâ—y But it may be as well inquired of by a Writ of Inquiry of damages when the Demurrer is determined And the most usual course is when there is a demurrer upon evidence to discharge the Jury without more inquiry But as My Lord Chief Baron Montague held at the Assises in Cambridgeshire 1682. it may be one way or other In the Assise by R. Newis and Scholastica his Wife against Lark and Hunt which was taken by default The Precedent in Plowd Com. as to this matter runs thus Recogn ' Assisae pred exacti venerunt qui ad veritatem de premissisdicend electi triati 8 â—â—rati fuerunt sup quo Willielmus Bendlows Serviens ad legem de consilio predictorum R. Scholasticae in manutentione Assisae pred coram Justic Dominae Reginae de Banco hic in evident Recognit Assisae pred dixit quod diu ante diem impetration is Assisae pred quidam H. Clark fuit seisitus â—c Et condidit testamentum ultimam voluntatem sua in scriptis inter alia unde pars inde in hiis Anglicis verbis sequitur videl Also this is the last Will and Testament of me the said Henry Clark for and concerning c. Et ulterius idem Serviens ad legem ex parte pred R. S. dedit in evident eisd Recognit quod c. Quorum pretextu idem jam Serviens ad legem exigit quod iidem Recogn Assisae pred Assisam pred de tenementis pred cum pertin ' in visu c. pro parte ipsorum R. S. triari comparere debeant c. Et veredictum suum dare debent quod pred W. Lark J. Hunt dictos R. S. de tenementis pred cum pertin ' in visu c. disseisiverant c. Et pred W. Lark J. H in propriis personis suis dic quod evidentiae allegationeâ— pred ex parte pred R. S. superius allegat minus sufficien in lege existunt ad manutenend Assisam pred ad quos ipsi necesse non habent nec per leg terrae tenentur respondere unde pro defectu sufficien evident in hac parte pet judicium quod juratores pred de veredicto suo in premissis dicend exonerentur c. Et quod pred R. N. S. ab Assisa sua pred habend precludantur c. Et pred R. S. dicunt quod ex quo ipsi sufficien materiam in manutentione Assisae pred in evident recognit pred ostend quam quidem materiam pred W. Lark J. Hunt non dedicunt nec ad eam aliqualit respond petunt judicium Et quod iidem Jurator inde exonerentur quod pred W. J. de Assisa illa convincantur c. Sup. quo dict est Recogn pred quod inquir quae dampna pred R. S. sustinuertam occasione disseisinae pred quam pro misis custagiis suis per ipsos circa sectam suam in hac parte apposit si conting judicium pro eisdem R. S. in placito pred sup evidentias pred reddi Qui quidem Recogn dicunt sup sacram suum quod si conting judicium in placito pred pro pred R. S. sup evidentias pred reddi iidem R. S. sustinuer dampna occasione disseisinae pred ad 13 s. 4 d. pro misis custagiis suis ad 20 s. Et quia Justitiarii hic se advisare volunt de sup premissis priuâ—quam judicium inde reddant dies datus est partibus predict c. Note several Exceptions were taken to the manner of giving the Evidence First for that the intire Will was not shewed but part and that this being the foundation of the Evidence the whole Will ought to have been shewed for there might be some oâ—her matter of substance as a Condition Limitation c. in the parts not shewed But all the Justices disallowed this Exception and said the party in any Title or Bar needs shew no more than what makes for him As in an Act of Parliament in which are divers branches 't is sufficient to shew that branch which serves ones purpose and not like the Case of a Fine or Recovery of 20 acres where I must shew the whole Record although I am concerned but in one acre because the Originial is intire and so is the Record grounded upon it See also Fulmerâ—ton and Stewards Case Plo. Com. 102. Another Exception was That the fine was not shewed under the Seal of the Court or the Great Seal but one part indented of the Chirograph was only shewn which the Jurors were not bound to believe because it wanted a Seal But all the Justices were against this and said the Jury might find the Fine of their own knowledge without the shewing of the parties or they might find it upon the Credit of any Witness that had seen it and the shewing the part indented is the usual evidence of a Fine Note a Fine indented and not exemplified under Seal c. shall not be delivered to the Jury 34 H. 6. 25. And they said because it is only the Inducement of the verity to the Jurors the party could not Demurr upon this for the effect of the matter is that therâ— is such a Fine which is amongst the Records And this is the substance of the matter and the part of the Chirograph is nothing but the Image of the verity and therefore suum coram Baronibus hic prestitum in premissis dicit quod c. here recite the Evidence Et pred Attorn Domini Regis pro eod Domino Rege dic quod evidentiae pred superius dat minus sufficien in lege existunt ad manutenend seu proband exit pred pro parte ipsius A. F. superius ad patriam junct unde ob insufficient earundem evident ac ex quo per evidentias illas non dedicitur forisfactura bonorum pred in informatione pred spec i em Attorn Domini Regis pro ipso Domino Rege petit judicium ac quod eadem bona remaneant Domino Regi forisfacta juxta formam statuti pred Et pred A. F. dic quod evidenciae pred superius ex parte ipsius A. F. dat