Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	common_a	error_n	writ_n	3,288	5	9.7175	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41429	The Royal College of Physicians of London, founded and established by law as appears by letters patents, acts of Parliament, adjudged cases, &c. : and An historical account of the College's proceedings against empiricks and unlicensed practisers, in every princes reign from their first incorporation to the murther of the royal martyr, King Charles the First / by Charles Goodall ...	Goodall, Charles, 1642-1712.	1684 (1684)	Wing G1091; ESTC R8914	319,602	530

but such onely which are for the better government of the old And also he said plainly that it appears by the Statute of 1 Mariae That the former Statutes shall not be taken by Equity for by these the President and Commons have power to commit a delinquent to Prison and this shall be intended if they shall be taken by Equity that every Gaoler ought to receive him which is so committed But when it is provided by 1 Mariae specially that every Gaoler shall receive such Offenders by this it appears That the former Statute shall not be taken in Equity And so he concluded that Iudgment shall be entred for the Plaintiff which was done accordingly College of Physicians versus Butler Sir William Jones's Reports p. 261. THe President of the College and Comminalty of the faculty of Physick London brought debt against one George Butler The Writ was quòd reddat Domino Regi Praesidenti Collegii ac Comminal ' facultat ' Medicor ' London Qui tam pro Domino Rege quàm pro seipso sequitur 60. li. quas eis debet And the Declaration was in the name of the said President by the said name qui tam pro Domino Rege quàm pro seipso sequitur c. which contained the Charter of H. 8. made Anno Regni sui 10. and confirmed by Act of Parliament Anno Regni sui 14. as it is contained in the Statute of 14 H. 8. and that the said Defendant minimè ponderans the said Statute or the Penalty thereof exercised the faculty of Physick in London although he was not admitted so to do by the President and the College or Comminalty of the faculty of Physick London by the space of 12 months before the said Action brought per quod actio accrevit eidem Domino Regi dicto Praesidenti qui tam pro dicto Domino Rege quam pro seipso sequitur c. ad exigend ' habend ' of the said Defendant pro dicto Domino Rege eodem Praesidente Colleg ' praedict ' 60 li. videlicet 5 li. pro quolibet mense praedict ' 12 Mensium praedict ' Tamen Desendens praedicto Domino Regi Praesidenti non reddidit unde the said President said that he was damnified to the value of 100 li. The Defendant pleaded the Statute of 34 H. 8. whereby liberty is given to every one of the Kings Subjects that hath knowledge and experience of the nature of Herbs Roots Waters or the operation of them by speculation or practice to exercise apply and administer to any external ulcer wound apostumation outward tumor sive morbo alicui alio any Herb Ointment Bath Pultess or Plaster according to the experience and science of the said diseases or other Maladies eisdem consimil or Potion pro calculo Strangury vel febr without any impediment any Statute or other thing to the contrary And saith that he was a Subject and having experience and science by speculation and practice in the nature of Herbs Roots and Waters applied and ministred to divers of the Kings subjects Herbs Ointment Bath Pultess Plasters and Potion to Vlcers Diseases Maladies Strangury and Ague talibus aliis morbis illis consimilibus prout ei bene licuit And to the residue pleaded Not guilty The Plaintiff replied to the first Plea and pleaded the Statute of 1 Mariae whereby the said Charter and the said Act of 14 H. 8. was confirmed in the whole Whereupon the Defendant demurred and shewed for cause of Demurrer that the Replication was a departure from the Declaration And upon Argument in the Common Pleas Iudgment was given by the opinion of all the Iudges for the Plaintiff and thereupon Error was brought in the Kings Bench. Two Errors were assigned the one was the departure the second was because that the Writ was in the name of the King and the President and the Declaration was in the name of the Informer also And after argument at the Bar by Council on both sides the Iudges delivered their opinions The Chief Iustice began and then Jones Whitlock and Crook They all said that Iudgment ought to be affirmed First they agréed that the Writ and Declaration were good and although some Precedents be that upon a penal Law the Writ be to answer the Informer qui tam pro seipso quàm pro Domino Rege sequitur Yet they thought that the most proper and better way of a Writ was to answer the King and Informer for the debt was given to them by moieties therefore it is not so proper to demand all for the Informer and yet to have a several judgment for the King and the Informer for the moieties and so is Partridge and Crokers case in the Comment But when it is by information there it shall be that the Informer informs for the King and himself Another exception was taken to the Writ because it is in the name of the President and not of the College also And also it was contrary in the end of the Declaration where it is said unde actio accrevit to the said King and President for to have 60 li. of the Defendant For the King one Moiety and for the President and College the other Moiety But it was adjudged by the Court that notwithstanding it was good for First although the Incorporation was by the name of President and College notwithstanding the suite is by the Charter given to the President and there may be a Corporation by one name to purchase lands and otherwise yet it shall sue by another name 11 E. 1. a Corporation was by the name of Master Wardens Brothers and Sisters of Rouncevill and by the said Patent it is said they should sue by the name of Master and Wardens of Rouncevill 2. Although that the Action is given by way of suite to the President onely yet the Recovery and money recovered shall be to the President and College therefore the Conclusion for to have the money to the President and College was held good The 3. point was resolved that the Plea in Bar was not good for the liberty given is disjunctive for outward medicines to use Plasters Oyntment Bathes c. and for 3 diseases to wit the Stone Strangury and Agues onely yet they jumble all together that he ministred the Ointments and Potions to all the said Maladies which cannot be for he may not administer a Potion unless to the said 3 diseases and no other 4. It was resolved that it was not any departure but that the Replication was subsequent and pursuant to the Declaration But for the main matter they said nothing to wit whether the Statute of 1 Mariae took away the force of the Statute of 34 H. 8. for they gave their Iudgment upon the Bar by reason it was naught Onely Crook spake to this point and it séemed to him that the Statute of 34 H. 8. is not repealed or avoided by 1 Mariae Butler versus the President of

part for we labour only for part so that 14. is in force as it was at first in every branch thereof notwithstanding 34 H. 8. for 1 Mariae restored this and that which the 14. gives is Medicines not as it is generally to be intended and so to include Chirurgery but all that was proper to Physicians 34 H. 8. although it allow men to give Medicines yet it is at their perils for if a man die under their hands it is as it was at Common Law By the Statute of 34. to repeal all of 14. which was contrary to 34. which does not in the least name the 14. yet it is repealed for so much as concerns Agues c. The Statute of 33 H. 8. for trial of Treason is repealed And after by 1 Mariae our Case is a far stronger Case that every Clause shall be in force notwithstanding any Statute c. these words ought not to be void if by construction they may be made to stand and no Statute withstands this Statute but 34 H. 8. and therefore all which this Statute takes away ought to be restored He confessed the case put of Confirmation of 32 H. 8. Statute of Wills that this doth not take away the Stat. of 34. for it is but an explanation and one being confirmed the other is confirmed And it is plain that the 13 Eliz doth not take away 1 Eliz. for it was in the affirmative and commenced after and therefore it is expounded not to extend to the Bishop As the Statute of contra formam collationis doth not include the Bishop as it was there adjudged And he cited Langton's Case where this point which is the point of departure was adjudged and 10 and 11 Eliz. rot 248. B. R. action by the College versus Eliheus Cornelius and upon these very points Iudgment was given for the College Also the Barr is ill Allow the Statute of 34. were in force yet the Iustification is ultra that which the Statute gives and took the same exception as before 2. There is a departure which was so ruled in Langton's Case and is so in reason Also this is a proper departure when a man relinquishes the title upon which he grounds himself and betakes himself to another And we have not made a departure our title is 14 H. 8. which makes good the Letters Patents then if you repeal the Letters Patents we ought to repeal the 14 H. 8. and it would be absurd for us to commence with 1 Mariae for then we ought to have recited all the Statutes 37 H. 6. 5. 21 H. 7. 25. 18. If a man avow for rent granted by I. S. the other saith that I. S. had nothing in the Land at the time of the Grant the other shews that he was seifed to his use this is a departure for his title to the first was by the Common Law and therefore seeing the Statute was his title it ought to have béen shewed But in our Case the Statute 1 Mariae is not our title to the action but onely removes the impediment 6 H. 7. 8. A condition is pleaded in destruction of a Feoffment and a release pleaded to destroy the condition and no departure but the Feoffment stands with a good title So in our Case Hill 4 Jac. intrat H. 3. Jac. Bagshaw versus Gower Trespass for chasing his Cattle 14 Maii 1 Jac. The Defendant Iustifies as an Estray and that 16 Maii 1 Jac. he delivered them The Plaintiff replies that 15 Maii he laboured and worked them upon which the Defendant demurres This was no departure but the working maintained the Trespass done 14. and made him Trespasser ab initio Mich. 23 24 Eliz. C. B. rot 2297. Pledal and Clark Trespass for chasing his Cattle in Barkshire the Defendant justifies damage fezant the Plaintiff replies that afterwards he drove them into another County scil Oxford c. and sold them the Defendant demurred and the declaration was in Barkshire yet the sale made him a wrong doer ab initio Where the Replication maintains the title and onely removes the impediment it is good Pasch Jac. B. R. Action upon the Case Wood and Hankford for disturbing him of Toll and intitles himself by Letters Patents of H. 6. The Defendant pleads 28 H. 6. which restores all Franchises The Plaintiff replies 4 H. 7. which revives the first Statute and adjudged no departure for if he pleadeth the resumption and the reviver if there were 20 he ought to plead all Then in our case all is gone and we know not whether he ought to justifie one kind or other 3. For the Iurisdiction This Court is most proper for the Informer and he cited Gregories Case and said If the King might elect to sue in what Court he pleased the Informer might also But however it is out of the Statute of 21 Jac. The title is for the ease of the Subject The preamble c. 18 Eliz. cap. 5. there it appeareth that the common Informer ought to inform in proper person the College was never so nor cannot and in common Information there ought to be the day of the Information c. and there is not any day here 25 Eliz. 12. Knevet informed against Butcher and afterwards was non-suited for which the Defendant prayed to have Costs c. and there the Plaintiff alledged that he was not a common Informer insomuch that this was the first Information that he ever exhibited yet ruled against him insomuch that it was upon a penal law where every one may have the action But in our case it is not so because this is no such Information or Informer within the Statute 40 Eliz. Agar informs against Cavendish and others upon the Statute of 8 E. 4. for Liveries which appoints the Information in C. B. B. Reg. and that they may sue as many as they will and the Exchequer is not named there but inferiour Courts be and Iudgment was given for the Informer But after in a Writ of Error brought it was adjudged that the Information doth not lie in the Exchequer but they resolved that the King might have sued there and therefore the Iudgment shall be good to intitle the King to the intire sum forfeited Richardson said that it was a hard case to prove the King may sue in any Court and he cited 14 E. 3. Countess of Kent's case 40 Ass 35. the King may sue for Spiritual matters in the Temporal Court as a Legacy c. Hill 36 Eliz. rot 135. Hammond Informant upon a penal Statute and died and upon motion by the Attorney General Iudgment was given for one Moiety for the King notwithstanding And the difference betwixt this and Agar's Case that in this case the Informer was well intitled to a Moiety but there not Statutes which take away Iurisdictions of the Courts at Westminster ought to be taken strictly Mich. 44 45 Eliz. Buck informs in the Exchequer for transporting of raw hides in Middlesex

authority in that case 3. The fines and amercements to be imposed by them by force of the Act do not belong to them but to the King for the King hath not granted the fines and amercements to them and yet the fine is appointed to be paid to them in proximis Comitiis and they have imprisoned the Plaintiff for non-payment thereof 4. They ought to have committed the Plaintiff presently by construction of Law although that no time be limited in the Act as in the Stat. of West cap. 12. De Servientibus Ballivis c. qui ad compotum reddend ' tenentur c. cum Dom ' hujusmodi servientium dederit eis auditores compoti contingat ipsum in arreragiis super compotum suum omnibus allocatis allocandis arrestentur corpora eorum per testimonium auditorum ejusdem compoti mittantur liberentur proximae gaolae Domini Regis in partibus illis c. in that case although that no time be limited when the Accomptant shall be imprisoned yet it ought to be presently as it is holden in 27 H. 6. 8. and the reason thereof is given in Fogossa's Case Plow Com. 17. that the generality of time shall be restrained to the present time for the benefit of him upon whom the pain shall be inflicted and therewith agréeth Plow Com. 206. b. in Stradling's Case And a Iustice of Peace upon view of the force ought to commit the offender presently 5. For as much as the Censors had their authority by the Letters Patents and Act of Parliament which are high matters of Record their proceedings ought not to be by word and so much the rather because they claimed authority to fine and imprison And therefore if Iudgment be given against one in the Common Pleas in a Writ of Recaption he shall be fined and imprisoned but if the Writ be Vicontiel in the County there he shall not be fined or imprisoned because that the Court is not of Record F. N. B. in bre de Recaptione so in 47 F. N. B. a Plea of Trespass vi armis doth not lie in the County Court hundred Court c. for they cannot make Record of fine and imprisonment and regularly those who cannot make a Record cannot fine and imprison And therewith agréeth 27 H. 8. Book of Entries The Auditors make a Record when they commit the Defendant to prison A Iustice of Peace upon view of the force may commit but he ought to make a Record of it 6. Because the Act of 14 H. 8. hath given power to imprison untill he shall be delivered by the President and the Censors and their Successors reason requireth that the same be taken strictly for the liberty of the Subject as they pretend is at their pleasure And the same is proved by a Iudgment in Parliament in this Case For when this Act of 14 H. 8. had given power to the Censors to imprison yet it was taken so literally that the Gaoler was not bound to receive them which they committed to him and the reason thereof was because they had authority to do it without any Court And thereupon the Statute of 1 Mar. cap. 9. was made that the Gaoler should receive them upon a pain and none can be committed to any prison if the Gaoler cannot receive him but the first Act for the cause aforesaid was taken so literally that no necessary incident was implyed And where it was objected that this very Act of 1 Mariae hath enlarged the power of the Censors and that upon the word of the Act It was clearly resolved that the said Act of 1 Mariae did not enlarge the power of the Censors to fine or imprison any person for any cause for which he ought not to be fined and imprisoned by the said Act of 14 H. 8. For the words of the Act of Q. Mary are according to the tenor and meaning of the said Act Also shall send or commit any Offender or Offenders for his or their offence or disobedience contrary to any Article or clause contained in the said Grant or Act to any Ward Gaol c. But in this Case Bonham hath not done any thing which appeareth within this Record contrary to any Article or clause contained within the Grant or Act of 14 H. 8. Also the Gaoler who refuseth shall forfeit the double value of the fines and amerciaments that any offender or disobedient shall be assessed to pay which proveth that none shall be received by any Gaoler by force of the Act of 14 H. 8. but he who may be lawfully fined or amerced by the Act of 14 H. 8. and for that was not Bonham as by the reasons and causes aforesaid it appeareth And admit that the replication be not material and the Defendants have demurred upon it yet forasmuch as the Defendants have confessed in the Bar that they have imprisoned the Plaintiff without cause the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment And the difference is when the Plaintiff doth reply and by his replication it appeareth that he hath no cause of action there he shall never have judgment But when the Bar is insufficient in matter or amounteth as this Case is to a confession of the point of the action and the Plaintiff replyeth and sheweth the truth of the matter to enforce his Case and in Iudgment of Law it is not material yet the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment for it is true that sometimes the Count shall be made good by the Bar and sometimes the Bar by the Replication and sometimes the Replication by the Rejoynder c. But the difference is when the Count wantethtime place or other circumstance it may be made good by the Bar so of the Bar Replication c. as appeareth in 18 E. 4. 16. b. But when the Count wanteth substance no Bar can make it good so of the Bar Replication c. and therewith agrée 6 E. 4. 2. a good case and mark there the words of Choke vid. 18 E. 3. 34. b. 44 E. 3. 7. a. 12 E. 4. 6. 6 H. 7. 10. 7 H. 7. 3. 11 H. 4. 24. c. But when the Plaintiff makes a Replication Sur-rejoynder c. and thereby it appeareth that upon the whole matter and Record the Plaintiff hath no cause of action he shall never have Iudgment although that the Bar or remainder be insufficient in matter for the Court ought to judge upon the whole Record and every one shall be intended to make the best of his own case Vid. Rigeways case in the 3. part of my Reports 52. And so these differences were resolved and adjudged betwéen Kendall and Heyer Mich. 25 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. And Mich. 29 30 Eliz. in the same Court betwéen Gallys and Burbry And Coke Chief Iustice in the conclusion of his argument did observe 7 things for the better direction of the President and Commonalty of the said Colledge in time to come 1. That none can be punished for practising

he petitioned that he might answer the College action without an arrest which was granted provided he would find Sureties to answer the College Suit if he were cast at Law Which being done and this Cause appointed to be heard at the King's Bench Bar 6 of the Fellows of the College were deputed to attend there and after this hearing Dr. Harvey the Treasurer and the 4 Censors were desired to take special care in the future management of the College's cause against Butler who had procured a protection from the Lord Chamberlain upon which account 4 of the Fellows were ordered by the President to wait upon his Lordship to take off his protection that the College might proceed in their Suit against him The Lord Chamberlain upon their application declared his readiness to comply with the College's request and ordered his Secretary to write the following reference against Butler The College of Physicians having represented that one George Butler under colour of being sworne an extraordinary Chirurgion to his Majestie doth take upon him to give Physick and practise Chirurgery without either skill or Licence to the apparent prejudice and endangering of the lives of his Majestie 's subjects and thereupon desired leave to take the ordinary course of Law to inhibite his practice and to prevent the danger which may ensue thereby I do hereby declare and publish unto all such as it may concerne that I have and do give free leave and liberty unto the said College to use all lawfull wayes and meanes accustomed in like cases either by arrest or otherwise for the suppressing and prohibiting of the said Butler's further practice in as free and ample manner as if the said Butler had never been sworne the King's servant Whitehall the 25th of November 1626. About 8 months after several fresh complaints of great mischief done by Butler in his practice were exhibited against him As particularly for giving a sleeping potion to one Patient who was sound dead in his sleep The wife of this man thus murthered applied her self to the Censors and desired that Mr. Butler might be punished for professing that which he did not understand which she pressed the more because she said such a man as he might kill many both Body and Soul every one being not so well prepared for death as her husband She desired a Certificate from the College concerning Mr. Butler and his ill practice After this Butler sent a Letter to the President and College which being read was rejected After this a servant of Butler's acquainted the Censors that while she dwelt with him a woman came to him for Cure who within 3 weeks died and was carried away secretly without tolling the Bell or any Minister being called Upon this information Butler endeavoured to imprison this servant using all arts to take her which occasioned her application to the College for their protection complaining of the many injuries she had received from Mr. Butler since her appearing against him Wherefore the President ordered the following Letter to be drawn up and presented to the Lord Chief Justice in her behalf MAy it please your Lordship to understand that the Petitioner on the 7th of Jan. last past came to our College voluntarily to complain of the evil practice of Mr. Butler as is in the petition specified since which time we are certainly informed that he hath laid heavy actions upon her and kept her in prison as is above specified We conceiving the chief grounds of his violent proceedings against her to have risen upon her complaint made to us In consideration of her misery We having noe power to relieve her doe presume humbly to intreat your Lordship to take such course as your Lordship in your wisdome shall think fit that she may obtain the benefit of her Petition After this Dr. Winston signified to the College that Butler sent a petition to him to be presented to the College which he refused Then Butler sent a Letter to the President after which it was agreed that if he paid in the money recovered and due to the College before the Term then the other Suits depending might be suspended if it pleased the President A Letter about this time in the behalf of Butler was brought from the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas by Captain Butler directed to the President and Censors of the College the Contents of which are the following Mr. Doctor Argent I Am informed of a Judgment which is obtained against Mr. Butler at your Suit and the rest of the College of Physicians for 60 l. which I find him very willing and ready to satisfie so far forth as his ability will give leave for the present He will pay half the money in hand and the next some time the next Terme which I conceive is no ill payment his estate considered Therefore I desire you and the rest of your College to take him thus far into your consideration And what you do herein I shall take as done in respect of me who am intreated to write in his favour by some whom I am willing to satisfy in this request appearing to me to be but reasonable and little hurtfull to your selves But to animate him of any other against your Government I neither do nor ever will write Your very assured loving friend Ro. Heath Julii 1. 1633. Captain Butler promised that on Friday 36 l. of the money due from Butler should be paid and desired time till the next Term for the payment of the rest The College took time to consider for a few days and then promised him their answer Upon the Friday aforementioned according to promise Captain Butler brought 36 l. from Mr. Butler to whom by Mr. President 's appointment was given the following note It was ordered by Mr. President and Censors the 5th of July 1633. that Mr. George Butler having sent in 36 l. in part of Payment of the 66 l. due to the College by a judgment given against him in the King's Bench in Easter Term in the 7th year of his Majestie K. Charles 1. his Reign at the request of the Lord Chief justice of the Common Pleas should have time given him for the payment of the other 30 l. till the 20th of November next ensuing and in the mean time all prosecution upon the foresaid judgment should surcease Mrs. Bendwell was complained of by Thomas Audley for undertaking his cure in 3 days though in a Hectick Fever she telling him that she had cured those whom the Doctours had left and could not cure She gave him a Purging drink that wrought day and night and brought him to exceeding weakness He said that about the same time she gave his Laundress physick of whom she had Linen to pawn which she was warned to bring in Complaint was likewise made against her by a man and his wife who had bargain'd with her for a cure and had pawned a dozen of Napkins to raise money for her payment c. She