the Plantiffe shall be outed to take advantage of a bad plea and so upon the whole matter it seems that judgement shall be given in the ejectione firme for the Plantiffe Altham second Baron to the same purpose there needs no special day to be given by the Iudge of nisi prius although that it be upon a Collateral matter or plea for by the record in this Court a day is given to the Iurors conditionally viz. if the Iustices of nisi prius at the Assises do not come c. but to the parties it is given absolutely fee 6. Assises pla 7. and L. 5. E. 4. fo 2 3 and 4. where there are several cases to this purpose see 9. E. 3.21 H. 6. fo 10. if the Defendant make default at nisi prius a new distress shall issue to the same Iurors to be here in Bank and 3. H. 6. fo 8. and 9. if a man appear and plead he shall never take advantage of any discontinuance Also it seemeth that the plea is not good and to say that the word Tenementorum refers only to the odde acres and not to the Mannor it seemeth that it refers to all but if it shall be taken to refer only to the odde Acres yet this is not good and this is proved by the Book in L. 5. E. 4. fo 110. for a plea to the writ ought to be alwayes certain and this case also answereth that which hath been said that the demurrer confesseth the matter against the Plantiffe for I say if you plead a release in Bar of a debt and shew no place where the release was made this demurrer is no confession of the release except that the cause of the demurrer fall out against me wherefore in respect that the plea is not good and is peremptory to the Defendant as other pleas to the writs are for this cause I conceive Iudgement shall be given for the Plantiffe Snig Baron accordingly that the plea is not good for the not shewing of a place certain wherein the entrie was as by the matter of discontinuance it seemeth that the day of nisi prius is all one with the day in Bank and therefore there needs no day to be given and for that the death of any of the parties after the verdict and before the day in Bank shall not stay the judgement the Books which were cited on the other parts are different from our case for there the suit was adjourned into another Court and the Courts in the Country are not as the Courts here and therefore it was necessary that in such cases a day ought to be given for the manner of pleading we ought to give judgement against him who pleads the plea notwithstanding the matter admitted by the Plantiffe wherefore judgement shall be given for the Plantiffe Tanfield chief Baron accordingly the plea whereupon the issue was joyned was for three Mannors and lands in three Towns and entrie is alledged to be in two Closes called c. parcel of the premises in Bar of the Action if the Defendant in liew of not guiltie plead an affirmative plea and at nisi prius he pleads another plea then the entrie ought to be that the Defendant relicta verificatione c. but in our case such an entrie needs not the plea here ought to be more certain then others for two reasons First it is pleaded in abatement of the writ Secondly it is in delay of the Plantiffe and to which no rejoynder can be made as to the plea it seemeth it is not good for by 10. H. 7. fo 16. a quare impedit was brought by an Administrator of a grantee of a next avoidance and shewed that the Bishop of Sarum granted Administration to him the Defendant saith that the intestate had bona notabilia in divers Diocesses and so the Administration void and shewed in what Diocesses the goods were but shewed no place where they were and therefore it was adjudged that the plea was not good because he did not shew a place c. see 2. R. 3. and 5. H. 7. accordingly and this plea shall not be amended by a rejoynder as is 21. H. 7. also to say parcel of the premises this cannot be intended that parcel of three Mannors or of the three Towns in certain and therefore the plea cannot be good because there is no place from whence the venue should come and it is inconvenient that the venue should come from all if the place where c. lies but in one Town for as it appears in Arundels case Cook lib. 6. if a Mannor be alledged to be within a Town the venue shall come from the Town because it is a place more certain as to the general demurrer that the plea aforesaid is lesse sufficient in Law c. in 18. E. 4. it appears that in debt upon an Obligation the Plantiffe doth not shew a place where the Obligation c. and the Defendant confessed the Action yet notwithstanding this fault Iudgement ought to be given against the Defendant but this differeth from our case because here is an express confession and in our case here is not also here needs not to be shewed any special cause of demurrer but advantage may be taken well enough upon the general demurrer but if the demurrer were that the plea amounted to the general issue only there ought to be shewed a special cause or otherwise no advantage to be taken and he cited the agreement of seven Iudges to be at Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet this Term in a writ of Error in Dickensons case the case intended was between White and Priest parties in an Action upon Trover and conversion and the Record thereof is in the Kings Bench Trin. 7. Jac. Rot. 843. as to the matter in Law touching the discontinuance for want of a doy given by the Iudge of nisi prius it seemeth there is no discontinuance in this case for there needs not to be any day given as our case is yet in some case the Iudge of nisi prius ought to give day but that shall not be a new day but only the day within contained and that but in special cases viz. if the issue be joyned and at the shewing of the evidence there is a demurrer here the Iudge giveth to the party the day within contained as it appears in 10 H. 8. Rot. 835. and Hill 11. H. 8 accordingly in the Common Pleas but Hill 36. Eliz Rot. 448. upon non-suit at the Assises no day given so if the party confess the Action and so if there be a bill of exceptions yet no day shall be given Hill 38. Eliz. Rot. 331. in the Kings Bench but peradventure it will be said that these Authorities do not match with our case because it is upon a material plea but I say it is all one and therefore in case of a release pleaded after the last continuance this is recorded and yet no day given as appears Hill 4. H. 8.
Executor prosecureth as Executor c. and for the Testator and there it ought to have a resemblance of the Regionall debt and although that the Statute appoints that the sayl shall be to the party as Altham Baron remembred yet here as the pleading purports the Bayl is to the aforesaid Executor which implies a legall dependency upon the first suit Then it hath been granted and the Law is so that if an Executor recover a debt which was due to the Testator and hath judgement for it now if you will have an action upon this judgement this ought to be in the detinet because it is a legall pursuance of a thing given to the Testator and not voluntary as a bond for further security or assurance and so here the Bayl being pursuant and compulsory but by 5. E. 3. if it be voluntary then it ought to be put in the Kings Bench to an Executor which is to be resembled to our case if an Executor bring debt upon a Bayl it ought to be as Executor and not as I. S. cleerely Altham the Bayl in the Kings Bench is upon the originall suit and so it is not here wherefore c. to which it was not answered but for that matter it was adjourned see H. 6. in the Kings Bench if a Feme c. take Husband and one of the Debtors of the Testator promise the husband if he will forbear his suite to pay the debt if the Husband will commence his action upon this promise it ought to be in the name of his Wife also because the action pursueth the Originall debt Williams contr it was agreed that if the Law were such that the Action ought to be in the detinet only then the bringing of it in the debet and detinet is such a Ieofaile as is not aided by the Statute of 18. Eliz. Nichols case and Chamberlains case Cook lib. 5. Tanfield chief Baron said in this case that it is proper that the Action ought to be brought in the detinet only but as our case is here is no issue joyned because here is not a negative and an affirmative for the declaration is that he oweth and detaineth and the Bar whereupon the issue is joyned is that he oweth not so where if his Action ought to be in the detinet then there is not any Nâ—gative and so no issue which was not denyed at another day they agreed that the action ought to have bin in the detinet only and therefore judgement was given that the Plaintif take nothing by his bill Sir Henry Browns case touching the Countesse of Pembrook SIR Henry Browns case wherein Hawkins and Moore were parties was this the Plaintif declared of an ejectment of the Mannor of Kiddington Dâ—le Sale and doth not mention them to be adjacent to any Ville and also of an 100. Acres of Land lying in the same Ville of S. and that upon not guilty pleaded the Iury at the Assises at Oxon were ready and then the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintif after the last continuance had entred into a Close called Well Close parcell of the Tenements mentioned with conclusion and this in the Declaration he is ready to aver and demanded judgement if it c. and this was before Yelveton Iudge of Nisi Prius there and now the Plea here was debated And 1. in this case it was upon conference with all the Iudges allowed that this plea may be pleaded at the Assises well enough and the Iudge there accepting of it had done well but as Tanfield chief Baron said the Iudges may allow it or not for if they perceive that it is Dilatory they may refuse it for it is in their discretion and therefore c. But by Dodderidge the Kings Serjeant the Iudge of Nisi prius is not Iudge thereof if it be well pleaded or not but is to give day to the Parties in Court where the Suit depends to maintain this Plea for he is only appointed Iudge to take the issué and upon such Plea he ought to discharge the Iury of the matter in issue and record the Plea and this is all his duty and by him in this case here is a Discontinuance for the parties have no day given upon the Roll as it ought to be for the day in bank in judgement of Law is all one with the day of Nisi prius and this is of course given to the Parties to hear Iudgement only concerning the matter in issue and here is other matter and therefore the Iudge c. Nota that in all Cases where a thing is pleaded triable before other Iudges the Iudge before whom it depents ought to give day to the Parties to be before the Iudges where the matter is tryable 12. E. 3. Voucher 115. and Title Day 25. and 34. and Assise pla 14. a Lord demands Cognizance of Pleas day ought to be given to the Franchises or otherwise it is a discontinuance of the Nisi prius for there ought to be a speciall day for the parties here to hear judgment in this Plea 10. H. 7. fo 26. so if at the Nisi prius a protection be cast the Iudges shall give day to the Parties in Bank to hear judgment if this protection shalve allowed or not for the Iudg of Nisi prius is no Iudg therof Also the Iudg in this case ought to have discharged the Iury it appears not here that he had done so therefore upon the whole matter it is a discontinuance but admitting that here was no discontinuance it seemeth that the plea was good and I agree that in all cases of Pleas issuable the plea ought to be expresly shewed or that which Tantamounts and here is shewed that which Tantamounts for when the Plantiffe in his Action had shewed the names of the Mannors and the Towns in which the acres lies then the Venue to try it for every parcel shall come de vicineto from all together and by consequence it is reasonable that the Venue for the trial of one particular to be parcel or not parcel shall come from all for if the plea in this case were that the Plantiff hath entred into the premises this had been good and then if it be good for the general it seemeth it should be good for every particular also it is clear that two may be parcel of all the three Mannors as in this case it is admitted to be parcel of all the premises by the demurrer if so c. Coventry the plea here is not good for the plea is to the writ and the conclusion ought to be pursuant to the premises of the plea or otherwise the plea is not good 36. H. 6. if a man plead to the writ and conclude to the Action it is evil 20. Eliz. Dyer 361. also the plea is not good because it is not shewed where the land lies wherein the entrie is alledged and therefore if the Plantiffe had denied it then is there no
touching the premisses Also peradventure if he will assign the place this may fall out to be in another County then where the Action was brought for so it may be and yet parcell of the premisses and so he may give us cause to demur Also to say cleerely that the Plaintiff had entred c. is not good for it ought to be that the Plaintif also expelled or amoved the Defendant as appears in the book of Entries Tit. Debt or Lease fo 11. or 12. and fo 175. B. also here the Plea is double to say in one close called Well Close and this is matter of substance whereof we may take advantage notwithstanding this general Demurrer And also he saith it is parcell of the tenements mentioned in the Declaration this may be and yet never parcell of the thing whereof the Action is brought for there are other Writs therein comprehended within the pernosme And as to the objection of Serjeant Dodderidge that here is a discontinuance because the Plea is not continued by the Iudge of Nisi prius into this Court here if seemeth that this needs not notwithstanding that it be a collaterall Plea in this Court in Trin. Term at the Assises but it is that the parties aforesaid do attend in Octab. Mich. and the continuing untill the Assises is but with a Nisi prius c. and by expresse words the the Parties have day to attend to hear judgement and at the Assises to try the issue and this is a sufficient continuance and as to that the Iudges of Nisi prius ought upon this Plea to discharge the Iury to that it seemeth that the relinquishing of the issue joyned and the acceptance of this new Plea is a discharge in Law Also the Iudges of Nisi prius have no power to give day in the Court here to the Parties for the Court here is to appoint the day in the book of the other part 37. H. 6. fo 2. is only that the Iudgs of Nisi prius give to the parties their day viz. the ordinary day and not another day and the cases tit Voucher and tit Journ in Fitz. cited of the other part are where the Plea is to be put in another Court as Durham c. where the parties have no day before and there a day ought to be given but that is apparantly different from our case Nichols Serjeant to the contrary admit that the Action had been brought of the Mannor of D. only and the entry had been alledged in parcell as here it is then it had been good see the Book of Entries tit Debt or Lease 11. or 12. accordingly and by the same reasons it seemeth the Action being brought for the ejectment of three Mannors the entry was pleaded to be in one Close parcell of the Tenements and good for the venue shall come from all as well from one Close as from the other Also here the entry is alledged to be in parcell of the Tenements and not of the premisses and so the venue for the tryall ought to be from the three Towns where the odde Acres lye and not from the Mannor also and by a reasonable intendment it may be conceived that the place where c. lyeth in all the three Towns 36. H. 6. fo 17. the Defendant saith that the place where c. is parcell of the Mannor of B. that he intitled himself unto he needs not shew where the Mannor lyeth and yet it shall be intended in the same County and although that in such case it is said to be shewed in certain by the Book in 6. E. 6. Dyer fo 76. yet this doth not prove that it ought to be of necessity and here by the shewing of the Plaintiff he had confest the matter of fact which is an entry into parcell of the Premisses and by consequence he falsified his Writ for if he confesse that he had entred into any parcell thereof whereof he brought his Action he had falsified his Writ cleerely he vouched 21. H. 6. fo 8. and 6. Eliz. Dyer 226. in a Ejectione firme against Nevell and others it is said that by a Demurrer to such a Plea the Plaintiff had confessed the Entry but otherwise it should be if he had imparled see Bowld and Mullinexes case in Dyer fo 14. for the shewing of a place c. and l. 5. E. 4. fo 138. an Executor pleads fully administred and at the Nisi prius he pleads that the Plaintiff recovered part of the Debt in D. after the last continuance and a good Plea although it be not shewed in what County D. is Also it seemeth that day ought to be given in this Plea or otherwise it is a discontinuance for the day given upon the Roll is to hear judgement upon the verdict and this plea is Collateral wherefore c. and he vouched 10. H. 7. fo 27 and 7. E. 3. fo 338. by Herl where a difference was taken when a day in Bank shall be given and when not and he vouched 4. and 5. Eliz. Dyer 218. where Fitz. Iustice gave day in Bank Tanfield chief Baron true it is that if it be in an Assise which commenteth originally before the Iudge of Assise he may give day Nichols also vouched 33. H. 6. and 11. E. 4. fo 13. Hobert Attorney general the demurrer doth not confess the plea when it is insufficient but if upon the demurrer the plea be adjudged sufficient then the fact is confessed for the demurrer only confesseth the matter of the plea conditionally viz. if it be good in the matter of the case in 6. Eliz. Dyer 226. the Plantiffe conceived that the plea there ought not to be pleaded in an ejectment after the last continuance and did not demur for the form and a demurrer doth not confess the plea good although that the matter is true and the Book in 21. H. 6. doth not prove against me for that was of an actual confession but in 37. H. 6. the issue joyned was if he who prayes to be received may plead the entrie of the demandant after the last continuance and the cause of the demurrer there was only if he could plead that plea or not because it appears not if he had any thing in reversion or no and so it seemeth that we might have demurred specially and this had been no confession and therefore the general demurrer shall not prejudice us for the matter of confession Bromley Puisne Baron it seemeth the plea is not good because a place is not assigned in certain in what Town the entrie is divers Towns being alledged it seemeth that it is no discontinuance for there needs no special day to be given but the day of return of the nisi prius for they cannot give any day being delegate only to a special purpose and it seems to me that the demurrer doth not confess the plea of the Defendant but conditionally viz. if the plea fall out to be good for otherwise
Rot. 906. in the Common Pleas and this was upon a new and Collateral matter as our case is Trin. 20. H. 8. Rot. 247. or 2447. upon an Arbitrament pleaded and he vouched divers other precedents upon the same point Trin. 3. H. 8. 446. or 466. and 14 H. 8. Rot. and 11. H. 8. Rot. 446. and Mich. 31. H. 6. Rot. 141. and. Hill 33. H. 6. Nota that here it was admitted without any doubt that an Ejectione firmae lyeth of a Mannor although it was said at the Bar that Williams Iustice was of opinion to the contrary the last assises at Norwich and so by all Iudgement was entred for the Plaintiff immediately and a Writ of Error was brought but never prosecuted for the Countesse of Pembrook had day given to remove her goods out of the Mansion House and so she relinquished the possession of all the premisses as I heard Trespasse against Gibson and others VPon evidence to a Iury an Action of Trespass against Gibson and others it appears that the Defendant was Deputy to the Duke of Lenox upon his Patent of Vlnage and that by vertue thereof he pretended to make search of certaine Stuffs called new Drapery which the Plaintiff were carrying to London and at the Town of Ware two or three strangers affirming themselves to be servants of the said Gibson did unpack the said Drapery and laid it in the dirt whereby the Plaintifs were hindred of the sale c. And in this case it was agreed if they as Servants to Gibson without his precedent appointment doe seise the Plaintifs goods and the said Gibson approve them to be seised although his Servants without his consent abuse the goods yet Gibson shall be Trespasser ab initio Also they agreed without any scruple although that the first seisure of these goods be admitted to be lawfull as by the pretence or licence in Law yet the abusing of them makes the originall seisure to be wrongfull and trespass lyeth and therefore in this case although it were not proved that Gibson himself appointed or was privy to the misusing aforesaid yet he shall be charged in dammages and so he was for severall seisures in an Action to 32. pounds viz. 30. l. for one seisure and 2. l. for another seisure and so severall dammages for severall Trespasses in one Action and although that by the abusing of an Authority or licence in facto a man shall not be a Trespassor ab initio but an Action upon the Case lyeth yet for misusing of an Authority in Law Trespass lyeth ab initio for if he who hath power to seise Estrayes will labour the Estray a Trespas lyeth for the seising thereof Bagshews case Hill 4. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. Bromleys Case Hill 8. Jacobi in the Exchequer HUtton Serjeant came to the Bar and shewed that one Bromley had before this time made a Lease for years in County Palatine of Durham of certaine Cole-mines in that County rendring rent 100. l. per annum which rent is arreare for divers years and that Bromley became outlawed here in the Common Pleas for debt at the Suit of Cullamour a Merchant and that the King had granted this debt due upon this Lease for years as forfeited for outlawry unto him And Hutton for the Bishop said that it belongs to him because he had all the goods of men outlawed within his County and if this debt belongs to the King or the Bishop it was the doubt the party being outlawed in the County of Northumberland which is out of the County Palatine of Durham Tanfield chief Baron said that the debt shall follow the person and he said that in 21. Eliz. Vere and Jefferies case it was a question if debt upon a Bond shall be forfeited to him who had such a priviledge where the Bond is and he said that in this case it was resolved that he shall have the Bond and debt who had Bona utlagatorum where the Bond is and so it was resolved as he said in a Case referred out of the Realm of Ireland but here is a bebt which accrueth by reason of a reall contract of goods in the County Palatine and he who is Debtor is the party outlawed but not in the County Palatine of Durham And Hutton Serjeant said that he dad the Rolle of a Case in this Court in the time of E. 3 that the Bishop of Durham was allowed a debt in a more strong case then this is for there a Creditor was outlawed in London and his Bond was also in London and the Creditor was only an Inhabitant within the County Palatine yet the Bishop was allowed this debt Curia put in your Claime and we will allow that which is reasonable and it was adjourned Isabell Fortescues case VPon a motion it was shewed by Coventry that upon a penalty imposed upon Isabell Fortescue for her Recusancy and Inquisition issued and it was found by the Iury that the said Isabell was seised of no Lands but those mentioned in a Schedule to the Inquisition annexed and then expresseth divers particulars in the Schedule without expresse finding that she was seised of them this is no good Inquisition nor finding of any seisin by the whole Court And so by the Court where an Inquisition or Schedule saith that the said Isabell was seised of the Mannor of D. as by information this is not good cleerely for it may be she is seised without information but where it was shewed that upon this insufficient Inquisition divers summes of money were levied and paid into the Kings Coffers that this may be restored The Court answered it doth not appear but that the King may by a new Inquisition have this money justly therefore it shall not be delivered out of the Kings Coffers but if you mone good matter in equity to be discharged in your English Bill you shall have restitution c. Brockenburies case THe Kings Debtor suffered A. to manure his Land and therefore the Sheriff seised the goods of A. for this debt whereupon A. to the intent to have his goods again paid the Fees to the Sheriff and made a Bond to the King to pay the Summe due And now upon a motion and Affidavit that the Debtor himself had sufficient to satisfie the debt due it was ordered by the Court that the Fees taken by the Sheriff shall be restored to A. and that the Bond remaine in the Office here and if this debt can be levied of the lands or goods of the Debtor the Bond shall be delivered to A. but if it fall out that it cannot be levied of the Debtor then the King shall resort to A. upon this Bond and he shall have the assistance of this Court for his reliefe against the said Brokenbury the Debtor Robert Beckets case touching Recusancy RObert Backet seised of divers Lands in Fee in the County of Cornwall upon an Indictment in 28. Eliz. was convicted of Recusancy for 10. moneths next before and died
words of a fee to be in the feoffor and the Bar confesseth only as of a fee gained in an instant but I agree that if the Bar had been that the Feoffor was Tenant for years and made a Feofment this had been good without Traverse but when Tenant in tail makes a Feofment it shall not be intended that he gained a Fee because it may be he hath purchased the remainder and thereby had lawfully acquitted it as an addition to his estate and here the saying in the Deelaration that Edward Stanley was seised in Fee as a thing material and of necessitie and not superfluous as the pleading in a Declaration for debt upon an Obligation to say that the Obligor was of full age or as a Repetition of the writ which needs not be Traversed and that it appears in 15. Ed. 4. in some case a Surplusâ—ge ought to be Traversed and 7. Ed. 6. Title Formedon the Declaration as in our case ought to be special and 21. H. 7. if a man will maintain debt upon a lease he ought to shew how he was in titled to make the lease also although that in our case the lease for years is the effect of the suit yet I say that the seisin in Fee is the effect of the plea 27. H. 8.50 H. 7.14 in a replevin the Defendant avows as seised in Fee the Plantiffe sayes that he was seised for life and doth Traverse c. and 14. and 15. Eliz. was our very case Dyer 312. and there it is said that the sure way is to take a Traverse as it is also said in 11. Eliz. Dyer also where the Bar saith that one R. was seised in Fee and gave it to the Father of the Feoffor and the heirs of his body he ought to say that the land descended to the Feoffor as son and heir of the body c. also where the Plantiffe declareth of a lease for years made by force of a feofment made the 30. day of August 6. Iac. the Bar saith generally that the 30. day of August 6. Iac. the said Feoffor made a Feofment of the same land to the same persons c. but he doth not say that it is one and the same with the Feofment mentioned in the Declaration so he answereth not our title and for that cause not good and therefore he prayed Iudgement for the Plantiffe Jones of Lincolns Inne to the contrary it seemeth as to the first matter moved that in this case the resioue of the use shall result back to the Feoffor 34. Eliz. Balfores case if Tenant in tail make a Feofment to the use of himself for life without more by Popham the residue of the use shall be to the Feoffee for otherwise the estate for life would be drowned but otherwise it is when a remainder of an use is limited to another in Fee for this saves the drowning or confounding of the estate for life as to the point of remitter it seemeth that it is no other but that Tenant in tail makes a Feofment to the use of himself and his heirs and dies if the issue shall be remitted or not and as to that he said that the Statute of 27. H. 8. cap. 10. hath by express words a saving of all antient rights and therefore the antient right of the estate tail is saved and therefore the issue shall be thereunto remitted and so should the Tenant in tail himself if he had not been within the words of the Statute as it is resolved in Amy Townsends case in Plowden and the authorities of my part are 33. H. 8.54 in Dyer expresly with me and without any quere as to the point of remitter but there it is said that he ought to avoid the lease by entrie as in our ease it is pleaded and as to the pleading it seems there needs no Traverse First because it is matter in Law Secondly we have confessed a Fee in an instant as to the first reason the Declaration is generally of a seisin in Fee and not expresly of a Fee simple and therefore it is matter in Law 5. H. 7. and 11. H. 7.21 the Fee not Traversed 46 Ed. 3.24 in Dower the Defendant pleads a special tail made by one who was seised in Fee the other saith that the Dower had but an estate tail at the time of the gift without Traversing that he was seised in Fee 2. Ed. 4.11 that a seisin in Fee tail is sufficient to maintain an allegation of a seisin in Fee to the second reason it is not alledged expresly that he was seised in Fee but quod cum talis seisitus fuit c. and 34. H. 6.48 he needed not in his Declaration to say that he was seised in Fee Pasch 34. et 35. Eliz. Taylors case if the Plantiffe in a quare impedit alledgeth seisin in Fee and the Defendant confess the seisin by Vsurpation this is a sufficient confession of the seisin in Fee Fitzherbert Title Travers 154. a good case to this purpose and in Moils case cited before on the other side the Plantiffe doth not mention in his Declaration a seisin in Fee absolute and the Defendant saith that A. was seised and gave to the Plantiffe as long as A. had issue of his body he needs not Traverse the absolute Fee Pasch 33. Eliz. in the Common Pleas where there was a stronger case to the replication the Defendant said that the Countess of Devon was seised and leased for life the remainder to her self for life the other saith that the Countess was seised in tail and Traverseth that she was not seised in Fee it is there said that the Countesses estate in Fee need not to be Traversed and yet it was there agreed that in regard it was but matter of form it was aided by the Statute of Jeoffales for that was moved in arrest of judgement Tanfield chief Baron in the principal case the issue of the Feoffor is remitted without entrie notwithstanding the lease because it is not in possession but a lease in remainder and therefore the title of the Lessees is distrained before entrie by the Defendant and therefore the Defendant hath not answered the entrie upon the Lessees for you by your plea destroy the title to this Term which you have allowed them before they were ever in possession thereof and the Declaration is that they were possessed of a Term for years and that you ejected them and to this you give no answer upon the matter for clearly if Tenant in tail make a lease to commence at a day to come and dieth before the day this is meerly void by his death ad quod non fuit responsum see Plowden in Smith and Stapletons case for there it is made a quere and notwithstanding that Tanfield chief Baron with the assâ—nt of the whole Court pronounced that judgement should be entred against the Plantiffe immediately and so it was done Bents case IN a suit depending in this Court between
impedit praesentare to the Church of D. the Defendant saith that there is no such Church 22. E. 4. fo 34. an action was brought against I. S. Maior of D. and he Traversed that there is no such Corporation Tanfield chief Baron said that if in an action of Trespass the Defendant saith that I. S. was seised in fee and infeoffed him without that c. and the Plantiff saith that I. S. was seised in fee and infeoffed me without that that there was any such person as I. S. in being this is no good Traverse Hern Baron seemed that this Traverse is good in the principal Case but he was once of Counsel with the Plantiff and it was moved that the Case should be Compounded An Information against Page IN an Information against Page and another upon the Statute of 3. 4. E. 6. cap. 21. for buying of Butter and selling of the same by retail contrary to the form of the Statute upon not guiltie pleaded the Iury found one of them only guiltie both of buying and selling and the other not guiltie and it was moved that no judgement may be given in this Case in asmuch as the action is conceived upon a joynt buying by two and it appeareth that this is but by one but it was argued that judgement ought to be given for it cannot be intended in Law as to this purpose a joynt buying for the wrong is several and in proof thereof was cited 36. H. 6. fo 27. the 11. H. 4. Dyer fo 194. or 195. accordingly also this action is for a wrong done to the Common-wealth which is a several wrong by either and to this purpose was cited 40. E. 3. fo 35. 36. H. 6. cited before and 5. H. 5. fo 3. where an action de malefactoribus in Pareis was brought against three and one only was found guiltie and judgement was given against him and there is no difference as to this purpose between this Case and an action of debt upon a joynt contract made by two as appeareth by 21. H. 7. and Partridges Case in Plowden where it is said that the bargaining is but matter of conveyance to the action and according unto this was cited 33. H. 8. Brook tit issue and also 28. H. 6. fo 7. and 36. H. 6. fo 29. and a Case was adjudgeed in Mich. 35. 36 Eliz. in the Kings Bench which proves the same also where an information was brought supposing the Defendant to have bought Cattle of two contrary to the form of the Statute and it was found that he bought them but of one and yet judgement was given Hitchcock to the contrary and he argued that no judgement ought to be given for he said that if an information be brought against two upon the Statute of usury and one only is found guiltie yet no judgement may be given in this Case to which the Court agreed and he cited Dyer 160.5 Ma. where two sued in the Court of Admiraltie one for an offence triable within the bodie of the Countie contrary to the Statutes of 13. 15. of R. 2. and an action was brought against one of them only and good and he vouched also 22. Eliz. Dyer fo 370.2 R. 3. fo 18. where three brought an account against one he pleads he was never their receiver and the Iury found c. and he cited a case to this purpose an information was brought against two for buying of Cattle of one B. and for selling of them contrary to the form of the Statute and in this Case the Iury found the Defendant not guiltie for the buying them of B. but that he bought them of one P. and upon an attaint of the Iury the opinion of the Court was in this case that though the verdict was affirmed yet no judgement ought to be given thereupon and this was the true Case of Lidwood and Pearpoint cited before on the other side as George Crook said York and Allein A Man recovered damages in an action upon the Case against B. who at the time of the judgement was joyntly seised in fee with C. and that after B. and C. aliened the partie who recovered is outlawed the King eight years after this outlawry extends the moitie of this land for these damages recovered against B. and it was moved if he shall have them in extent for them or not also if he shall have it without a scire facias and the Barons were clear in opinion that he shall have it in extent for it was liable to the extent of the partie outlawed before the Alienation and then when it comes to the King by the outlawry although it be after the Alienation it continueth extendible for the King although the Alienation was before the outlawry It was admitted by all the Barons that if a Coppiholder surrender to the use of a younger son and dies that this younger son cannot bring an action until admittance but if the Copihold had descended to the heir he may have an action before admittance see Cook Coppihold Cases lib. 4. fol. 22. and also it was said that all Coppiholders of the Kings Mannors may now have admittance into their Coppihold estates well enough and the order for the stay of their admittances which was made heretofore is now dissolved and quashed Dennis against Drake DEbt was brought by Dennis against Drake Sheriff for an escape a man had judgement in the Kings Bench and a writ of error was brought within the year and after the year passed the judgement was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber and within a year after the affirmation a Capias issued to the said Drake the Sheriff who took the partie and suffered him to escape and this being the Case upon the declaration in this action the Defendant demurred and all the Barons said that there is no question but a Capias may well issue within the year after judgement affirmed without a scire facias though it be more then a year after the first judgement and it seemed to them that there was no difference though that the writ of error was not brought untill after the year of the first judgement given although in such case there be an apparant neglect in the partie who had not sued his execution within the year and therefore he was enforced to a scire facias thorough his neglect whereas if error had been brought within the year he had never been driven to his scire facias in this Case yet for asmuch as when the judgement is affirmed this is all one as a new judgement they conceived it made no difference and Tanfield chief Baron said that it had been often so judged in the Kings Bench. It was said here that if a man be instituted to a benefice he ought to pay the first fruits before induction by the Statute but by the Common Law it was otherwise for he is not to have the temporalities until induction and therefore he could not pay the first fruits
the world if he will or inflict a pain upon any who shall Trade into such place inhibited so may he do upon any commoditie either inhibit it generally or upon a pain or Impost and if a subject use the Trade after such inhibition or import his wars and pay not the impost it is a contempt and the King shall punish him for it at his pleasure and as to that which is said that it is a burthen to the Merchant that is not so for the burthen layeth it only upon the better part of the subjects and if it were a burthen it is no more then they themselves imposed which was in their hands by commission in the time of Queen Eliz. and they have raised the prices to subjects more then the value of the Impost and it is not to be intended that the King by any Impost will prejudice the cause of Merchants for the Trade in general is to him more beneficial then any particular Impost the case of the 11. and 14. H. 4. of Aulnageor is not to be compared to this Case for there the King had made a grant to a subject and it was also of a thing which was granted before to a Maior and also of a commoditie within the land and not transported and for the case of Darcy for the monopoly of Cards it is not like for that is of a commoditie within the land and betwixt the Patentee and the King and not between the King and the subject and as to the exception taken to the Information that it is Vsitar and doth not prescribe this needeth not for it is a prerogative wherein lieth no prescription for every prerogative is as antient as the Crown and as to the conclusion of the Information it was objected that it is not good for the informer ought to pray the forfeiture but this belongs to the Court to Iudge of what shall be lost or forfeited the offence being a contempt and therefore the conclusion good enough and so for all these reasons judgement shall be given for the King Flemming chief Baron touching the exceptions to the Information they are of no force for the first Vsitat c. it hath been well said that the King needs not prescribe in any prerogative for it is as antient as his Crown is 2. E. 3. and for the conclusion viz. that he in contempt c. that deserves no other answer but that which hath been given before for it is enough without doubt warranted by infinite presidents but for the Bar it is an increase of the Defendants contempt and no sufficient matter to answer an indigested and confused tale with an improper and disobedient conclusion and there is in it multa non multum but the conclusion is without president or example for he saith that the imposition which the King had laid is indebite injuste et contra leges Angliae imposita and therefore he refused c. in the case of Smith for Allom the conclusion was moderate and beseeming a subject judgement if he shall have Impost by his grant and in the case of Mines the Defendant being a great Peer of the Realm concluded upon his grant and interest in the soyl and that he took the Mettal as it was lawful for him and did not confront his Soveraign with terms of injuste indebitè and the like and the King as it is commonly said in out Books cannot do wrong and it the King seise my land without cause I ought to sue to him in humble manner Humillimè supplicavit c. and not with such terms of opposition in the Information and all his matter had been saved to him then as well as now or he might have pleaded his matter and said wherefore he refused as it was lawful for him but for the matter it is of great consequence and hath two powerful objects which it principally respecteth the one is the King his power and prerogative his Treasure and the Revenues of his Crown and to impair and derogate from any of these was a part most undutiful in any subject the other is the Trade and Traffick of Merchantdise transportation in and out of the land of commodities which further publick benefit ought much to be respected and nourished as much as may be the state of the question is touching a new custome Impositions or customs are duties or summs of money newly imposed by the King without Parliament upon Merchantdise for the augmentation of his revenues all the questions arising in the case are aut de personis de rebus vel de actionibus viz. form and proceeding the persons are first the King his power and authoritie Secondly not Bates the Defendant nor the Venetians but all men who import Currants the imposition is properly upon Currants and for them and is not upon the Defendant nor his goods who is a Merchant for upon him no imposition shall be but by Parliament The things are Currants a forraign commoditie and a Victual the 5. s. for impost which is said to be great the action formed or Process is the command by the great Seal and the word therein are Petere et recipere if they be sufficient and if good without Proclamation or other notice and how notice shall be given and if it be good without an ad quod damnum and the case of Mines in Plowden which is the sole case in the printed Books of Law to this purpose hath in it foure reasons of the judgement First the excellency of the King or his person Secondly the necessitie of Coyn for his state Thirdly the utillitie of Coyn for commerce Fourthly the inconvenience if the subject should have such royal possessions and these reasons are not extracted out of the Books of Law but are only reasons of policy for Rex est legalis et politicus and reasons pollitick are sufficient to guide Iudges in their arguments and such cases and presidents are good directions in cases of judgement for they are Demonstrations of the course of antiquitie where upon my judgement shall consist upon reasons politick and presidents the case in Dyer 1. Eliz. fo 165. was not like to the case in question but only a conference and the case there was for an impost upon cloath a domestick commoditie in this case are recited their Grievances but it was paid and it is denied here but there was no resolution thereof at the same time was the impost of Wines increased and paid and no petition or complaint thereof and the custome of Englands commodities were at the first imposed by the Kings will for no Statute giveth them viz. for Wool Woolfels and Leather and it was called the great custome and that it was paid it will not be denied and yet now it is doubted if the King can impose it upon forraign commodities the King may restrain the person as it is in Fitz. Nat. Br. à fortiori he may restrain the goods there was no custom for home Commodities
Baron answered that he should have them of right see Bartues case in Dyer but the Lord Treasurer said that he saw no reason to satisfie himself thereof Doillie against Joiliffe DOillie Plantiff against Joiliffe in an Action upon the case for false imprisonment of the Plantiffs wife the case was that Leonard Lovies was formerly Plantiff in an action in the Common Pleas against Julian Goddard a feme sole and in this action the Plantiff and Defendant were at issue and a venire facias was awarded and before the return thereof the said Julian took to husband Doillie now Plantiff and after upon a special verdict found in the suit judgement was given in the Common Pleas for the said Julian against th◠said Leonard upon which judgement Leonard brought error in the Kings Bench and a scire facias was awarded against Julian by the name of Julian Goddard as a feme sole and she appeared by Attorney as a feme sole and this as the Defendant said in his answer was by the consent of her husband now Plantiff and after judgement was given to reverse the judgement in the Common Pleas and the entrie of that judgement as it was pleaded by the Defendant here was quod praedict Leonard Lovies recuperet c. versus praedict Julianam c. and costs and damages were taxed c. upon which judgement the said Lovies sued a Capias ad satisfaciendum against Julian Goddard and by vertue of that writ the Defendant here the Sheriff or Devon took the said Julian being the Plantiffs wife and imprisoned her until the Plantiff paid 10. l. which was the cost taxed by the Kings Bench for her deliverance upon which imprisonment the husband only hath brought his action against the Defendant being Sheriff Davenport of Grayes Inne argued for the Defendant and first he thought that between the parties to the error and the first action in the Common Pleas there is an estoppel and admittance that the said Julian continued a feme sole for the process in all the proceedings ought to be as it was in the Original and he vouched 18. Assise pla 16. by which book it appears that if a man bring an assise for lands in the Countie of O. and the Tenants plead a Common recovery of the same land in the Common Pleas this doth conclude the partie to say that the lands did lie else where c. also if an original be depending and before the first Capias or process awarded the Defendant intermarrieth and after a capias issueth against her as a feme sole this is well awarded lib. 5. E. 4.16 and also 5. E. 3. fo 9. and 10. also he said that such a thing as is done between the plea and not after the judgement is not material to alter the proceedings in that course it was begun for the same partie against whom judgement is given shall error have against him for whom the judgement is given except she had married after the judgement for then he agreed that the writ of error shall be brought by the husband and wife in case judgement had been given against the wife while she was sole 35. H. 6. fo 31. and 12. Assise pla 41. and it also appears by 18. E. 4. fo 3. if Trespas he brought against a married wife as against a feme sole and she appears as a feme sole and judgement is given and execution accordingly this is good until it be reversed by error and the Sheriff in such case never ought to examine if it be evil or nor no more then if Trespas be brought against A. my servant by the name of B. and A. is taken in execution the Master shall not take benefit of this misnaming admitting that A. should punish the Sheriff for it also he vouched one Shotbolts case 10. and 11. Eliz. Dyer and 15. Eliz. Dyer 318. in the Earl of Kents case which prove that the Sheriff is to be excused for taking me by a false name and if the Iudges admit this false name yet this judicial writ ought not to be examined by the Sheriff and it was adjourned Shoftbey against Waller and Bromley SHoftbey brought an action upon the case against Waller and Bromley and declared that the Defendants conspired that the said Bromley should commence a suit against the Plantiff and that the Plantiff was then worth 5000. l. and that he was then dwelling in Middlesex and that the Defendants knowing thereof maliciously and falsely agreed that the said Bromley should lay his action in London and prosecute it until the Plantiff were outlawed in the said suit to the intent that his goods should be forfeited to the King and after in performance of the agreement aforesaid the Plantiff suggested that he was dwelling in London and laid his action here which was prosecuted until the Plantiff here was outlawed to his damage c. Tanfield chief Baron thought that if the suggestion was by Bromley to make the process into a wrong County it seemed that the Action should lie against him only but in regard it is shewed in the Declaration that the said suggestion was made by him in performance of the precedent agreement that the action lieth against both which the Court granted Godfrey in this action moved in arrest of judgement and that for two causes the action lieth not upon the matter here it appears by the 4. Eliz. Dyer 214. that a man may say his action wherein an outlawry lies in London and then by the Statute of 6. H. 8. cap. 4. proclamation shall issue into the Countie where he dwelleth therefore the suing of him in another Countie is no such act wherefore an action should be brought no more then if before the Statute of W. 2. cap. 12. a man had brought an appeal Maliciosè yet no remedy before the said Statute as appears in the 13. H. 7. in Kellawaies case because it was lawful to bring an appeal and so notwithstanding the said Statute no action did lie against him who brought an appeal if it abated 9. H. 5. cap. 1. also the Statute of the 18. H. 6. provideth remedy for false appeals or judgement in another Countie maliciosè c. by action of the case whereby it appeareth that in such case the Common Law allowed no action also the Statute of the 18. H. 6. provideth another remedy then that Statute and therefore no action lies against us no more then in the case aforesaid at the Common Law Secondly here is no issue joyned if the Defendants be guiltie of the execution of this practice but only if they be guiltie of the agreement and this is found for the Plantiff but clearly such agreement without execution giveth no cause of action and the word Practizatione comprehends only the going about and not the executing of this conspiracy and therefore the issue should have been general if the Defendants be guiltie or not and therefore he prayed judgement might be stayed and he cited Owen
adjudged in the Exchequer chamber and in this case the scire facias ad audiendum errores and all the writ and this scire facias in our case ought to have been made against the said Julian as against a married woman and the writ of execution which is the warrant to the Sheriff is not in such words as the judgement in the Kings Bench is upon which it is founded viz. that he should take the aforesaid Julian c. but that he take the said Julian Goddard then the Sheriff shall not say in his defence that all the proceeding in the writ of error was against the person and aided himself by entrie in the roll of the Court viz. quod praedict Julianum capiat c. but he ought to rely only upon the writ and if in this case he would save himself then he should have inquired upon the delivery of the writ unto him by Lovies who was that Julian Goddard and if thereupon Lovies had informed him that it was Julian Doillie then the Sheriff should have an action upon the case against Lovies upon this false information viz. if A. prosecute a replevin to replevy his Cattle and thereupon he cause the Sheriff to deliver unto him the Cattle of B. for this here B. hath his remedy against the Sheriff and the Sheriff against A. for this false information also he said that if a fieri facias cometh to make execution of the goods of B. if the Sheriff take others goods in execution a Trespass lieth and therefore to secure himself he ought to impannel an inquest to finde if they be the goods of B. or not and then as he conceived it is good but the opinion of the Iudges in the Kings Bench in Mich. 5. Jac. in Trespass between Rookwood and Beal was to the contrary for there a Trespass was brought by Rookwood and the Defendant justified the taking and so forth as Sheriff by vertue of a fieri facias as of the goods of Edward Rookwood father of the Plantiff and upon the execution of this writ the Defendant impannelled a Iury who found the goods to be the goods of the said Edward Rookwook for which c. the Plantiff in the replication Traversed that they were his goods absque hoc that the Iury found that they were the goods of Edward Rookwood c. whereby it seemeth that the finding of the Iury in this case is not material and so the Court then conceived therefore quaere the opinion of Tanfield chief Baron in that point and see the 17. E. 2. pl. 373. and 31. E. 3. Assise pla 378. and 7. H. 4. fo 27. Trespass pla 279. what acts a Sheriff may justifie by reason of a commandment and authoritie from the Court which commanded him Snig Baron seemed that the action did lie for the writ of capias ad satisfaciendum maketh no mention that Julian Doillie is the same person against whom judgement was given in the Kings Bench by the name of Julian Goddard and although that the entrie in the Roll is against the said Julian c. yet the writ is directed that he should take Julian Goddard and then the Sheriff had not done according to the writ in the taking of Julian Doillie and he said that if A. binde himself by the name of I. and judgement is given against him by the name of I. without appearing in person and execution is granted against him by the name of I. in this case an action lies against the Sheriff if he take the said A. in execution for it appears not to him that it is the same person but for the other cause it seemeth that the Plantiff shall not have judgement for the Sheriff is no such person who ought to be priviledged here and therefore the Plantiff should have his remedy else where and he said that such a case hath been reversed in the Exehequer Chamber for error for the under-Sheriff is but an Attorney for a partie priviledged that is for the Sheriff but all the Clarks of the Court and the other Barons were against him in that and also all the presidents Altham Baron had never heard it argued before and therefore he respited his opinion till another day at which day he said that the arrest is not justifiable and so for the matter an action well lieth for by him the arrest ought to be in this case with a special recital that whereas judgement was given and so forth as in the 1. and 2. H. 6. if an Abbot hath judgement to recover and after he is deposed a scire facias lieth not against him as Abbot to reverse this judgement and see 10. E. 4. a capias against A. the son of R. c. see the 19. of H. 6. fo 12. Summons against Iohn S. c. see 18. H. 8. fo 1. a replevin was brought in the Countie Palatine against A. widdow and after she married D. and the plaint was removed into the Common Pleas mentioning her marriage c. and so here the scire facias ought to mention all the special matter and thereupon the writ of execution upon the reversal of the judgement ought to be against Iulian Doillie and not being so the Sheriff is punishable c. but it seemed to him that in this action the wife ought to have joyned with her husband for the false imprisonment or at the least if the husband had brought the action alone there ought to have been a special mention of the loss which the husband particularly had sustained as per quod consortium uxoris suae amisit or otherwise clearly it lieth not for the husband alone and he resembled this case to the cases in the 9th of E. 4. fo 51.22 Assise pla 87.46 E. 3. fo 3. where husband and wife ought to joyn in an action or at the least the declaration ought to be special as aforesaid and so are the books of the 20. H. 7. and Kellaway to be intended and for this cause he thought the Plantiff shall not have jugement here Tanfield chief Baron as I conceived said unto him that the writ ought to have been with a special averment but a surmise ought to have been made against Iulian Doillie as she now is for as the writ is the Sheriff may safely return she is not to be found and thereupon c. quaere if he intended the writ of scire facias ad audiendum errores or the writ of execution awarded upon the judgement in the Kings Bench for he did not mention any particularity of the writ but it seemeth that he intended the writ of execution and then the surmise whereof Tanfield spoke ought to be made upon the roll of the judgement given upon the writ of error and Tanfield chief Baron said as to the joyning in action that clearly for a battery made upon the wife the husband and wife ought to joyn in the action as the books are cited before by Baron Altham and so
of the wife of the devisor is not determined until the issue should have come to the age of 18. years and so none of the other points came now in question and judgement was given as above-said Nota that in Mich. 6. Jac. upon a motion made by Mr. Nicholas Row of the Inner Temple it appeared that an inquisition was returned in this Court by force of a commission whereby it was found that one A. was seised of the Mannor of D. and so being seised of the said A. was attainted of Treason in the Kings Bench and of this should be a double matter of Record to intitle the King so that the owner of the land shall be forced to his Petition it was the question and by the Court in regard that the record of the attainder is not in this Court here is not in judgement of Law a double matter of Record but if the attainder he removed into this Court then that and the inquisition would make a double matter of Record and the Attorney general moved that when an office findes the attainder that the party ought to plead no such record Worselin Mannings case AN Information of intrusion was brought against Worselin Manning and others and upon the opening of the evidence at the Bar it appeared that Worsely Manning was an alien born and that he was made a denizen by the King and the Charter of Denization had this Proviso usual in such Charters of Denization that the Denizen should do legal Homage and that he should be obedient and observe the Lawes of this Realm and after by vertue of a Commission under the great Seal an office found that the said Worselin after the Denization purchased the land in question and it was found also by the same office that the said Worselin never did legal Homage and that he was not obedient to all the Lawes of this Realm and there was an offer of demurrer upon the evidence if the Prviso makes the Patent of Denization conditional and so for the not performance thereof the Charter of Denization shall be void and Harris thought clearly that this proviso for the performance and observation of the Lawes doth not make the Patent conditional but the intent only was that if he do not observe them then he shall forfeit the penalties therein appointed to which the Court inclined and after resolved accordingly At another day it was moved in Mr. Rowes case that the possession shall be awarded to the King and in this case Tanfield gave a Rule that Mr. Row ought to plead to the inquisition but no possession should be taken from him for although that the attainder make a double Record yet if the indictment of Treason be taken before Iustices of the peace more then a year after the Treason committed as in this case it was and the partie is outlawed upon this indictment and the inquisition findes this outlawry generally yet this is no double matter of Record for the outlawry is meerly void upon the said indictment because the indictment it self is void and to prove that when an indictment is void that is void as to all purposes be vouched Vauxes case Cook lib. 4. fo 44. and 11. R. 2. and after in this case the Barons awarded proces to plead but not to dispossess the partie Vaux against Austin and others AN Information by Vaux against Austin and others that they did ingross a 1000. quarters of Corn upon not guiltie the Iury found one of the Defendants guiltie for 700. and not guiltie for the residue and found the others not guiltie for all Prideaux moved that judgement may be given to acquit the Defendants in this case and he vouched the 9th of E. 3. fo 1. and 14. E. 4. fo 2. where an Information was brought for forgery and proclaiming false deeds and he was found not guiltie of the proclaiming and 3. Eliz. Dyer 189. in the Lord Brayes case put by the way and therefore he said that if there be an information upon the Statute of Vsury against two and the Iury found the contract to be but with one of them both shall be acquitted and also he vouched Treports case in lib. 6. where a man declared of a lease made by two where in Law it was only the lease of one and the confirmation of the other and therefore evil 8. R. 2. tit brief and if judgement in this case should be given against one being in a joynt information he could not plead it in Bar of another information for the same thing and then he should be twice punished for one fault Hitchcock to the contrary the Defendants plead that they nor any of them are guiltie and issue was joyned thereupon and by him this case is not to be resembled to the cases which have been put of joynt contracts for here the parties commit several wrongs and he said if in a decies Tantum against divers if one be acquitted the other shall be condemned and so in an action of Trespas 37. H. 6. fo 37. touching maintenance and if in Trespas against two one is found guiltie for one part and the other found guilty for the other part and 40. E. 3. fo 35. and 7. H. 6 32. in trespas the Defendant pleads that John S. infeoffed him and R. S. and the Plantiff saith that he did not infeoffe them and the Iury found that be infeoffed the Defendant only in this case judgement ought to be given if either of them be guiltie and therefore there is a difference between that and Wain-wrights case for the information was for the joynt buying of butter and Cheese but here the information is for ingrossing by way of buying and so he prayed that judgement may be given for the King Tanfield chief Baron if upon the Statute of Champertie a man declares upon a joynt demise by two and it is found that one only made the demise it was adjudged good and by him this proves the case in question and the Barons agreed it to be clear that if a contract be alledged to be made with one of them no judgement for usury ought to be given but in the principal case all but Tanfield agreed that several judgements may be given for it is like unto a Trespass and accordingly judgement was given in the principal case against him who was found guiltie Nota by Tanfield chief Baron and all the Court that where the Statute of the 23. Eliz. appointeth that if any will inform against A. Recusant and the Recusant be thereupon convicted that the informer shall have one moitie and the King shall have another yet if a recusant be convicted according to the form of the Statute of 28. Eliz. by indictment an informer can never have any advantage upon an information exhibited after for the Statute of the 28. Eliz. altereth the course of Law which was upon 23. Eliz. and no informer can have any advantage upon a conviction of Recusancy by indictment after the Statute
therefore he had done well to shew the special matter as he had done and not to confess it as it is in the in formation nor to traverse the said demise because it is matter in Law 5. H. 7. and Vernons case Cook lib. 4. he needs not traverse absque hoc that the lease was made for and in satisfaction of Dower and to shew the special matter viz. that it was a conditional lease and so leave it to the Iudges for the matter in Law if it be a joynture or not also it seemeth to me that it is sufficient for the Bar to say that the Commission was not returned by Hammond and Porter for that is a Traverse to the information and it cannot be intended to be returned by any other of the Commissioners in regard that those two only did execute it for the taking of the acknowledgement as the information mentions but he said nothing in this case if this Commission may be returned by those Commissioners who took not the acknowledgement also by him and Snig Bromley absent sigillo suo ratificat is good enough without saying sigillo suo sigillat contrary to Baron Altham also the Defendants have shewed the time in their Bar when the first lease was intolled so that it is certain but it seems to me that admit the matter in Law was for the King yet upon this information we cannot give judgement for him for the information is for the mean profits incurred before the inrolment and this is clear that the King cannot have them without doubt admit that the Bishop had been living yet the inrolment cannot relate as to the mean profits although it should be admitted to be good to make the lease good at the time of the inrolment and so upon all the matter he agreed that judgement ought to be given against the King and so it was Tanfield chief Baron said that if a man take a lease of my land from the King by Patent rendring rent this is not an Indenture to compel him to pay the rent for the King had nothing to grant whereupon a rent might be reserved to him Altham Baron said that the King shall have the rent here as by estoppel between common persons but it was adjourned It was said by Tanfield chief Baron that a Collector of a fifteenth may levie all the Tax within one Township upon the goods of one inhabitant only if he will and that inhabitant shall have aid of the Court to make each other inhabitant to be contributory which was granted by the Court Bromley being absent Tanfield chief Baron said that if a man had judgement against A. upon an Obligation who dieth and another Obligee of the said A. assignes his Obligation to the King the Executors of A. satisfie the said judgement it is good against the King in respect the debt now due to the King was not upon Record before the death of the Testator which was granted by the Court. Levison against Kirk THis Term the case between Levison and Kirk which was opened the last Term was adjudged and the case was that Levison brought an Action upon the case in the office of Pleas against Kirk and declared that whereas the Plantiff was a Merchant and 13. Martii 40. Eliz. intended to go beyond the Seas to M. to Merchandise and the same day and year at D. he acquainted the Defendant with his determination and then in the same place appointed and trusted the Defendant being his servant to receive for him all such Merchandise and goods which should be sent over or carried or conveyed by the Plantiff in the same voyage and to pay for the custome of them and to dispose of them and convert them for the profit and commoditie of the said Plantiff and thereupon conveyed divers goods to the Defendant and that the same day and year the Plantiff took shipping and sailed to M. and that within five dayes following 20. pieces of Velvet were brought into the Port of S. consigned by the Plantiff to the Defendant in the absence of the Plantiff and that the Defendant on purpose to deceive the Queen of her custome and to make the Plantiff to allow custome unto him did take of the said goods so consigned and land them on the land at S. aforesaid the custome not paid whereby the Plantiff lost his goods as forfeited for default of payment of custome to the damage of c. and upon not guiltie pleaded a venire facias was awarded to the the Sheriff that he should cause to come 12. from the Venue of D. and those c. viz. from the place where the trust was reposed and from the place where the trust was broken and thereupon the Defendant was found guiltie and damages 50. l. and in Pasch Chibborn Serjeant moved in arrest of judgement that the Action did not lie for every fault against the servant although it be such a misfeazance for which the Plantiff receives prejudice and therefore if you will have an Action in this case you ought to shew a special trust reposed and a breach of that trust by the servent or otherwise an Action upon the case lieth not and that is not observed here for although that you shew that the Defendant being your servant was appointed and trusted for the goods to be consigned in the said voyage yet you did not shew that these goods were not consigned in the said voyage neither do you shew that he was such a servant generally used to be imployed in trading for your goods neither do you shew that you have allowed or delivered moneys to him to make him able to pay the custome and to say that by the sale of the goods themselves he may pay it himself and you appointed him to dispose them at his pleasure yet hereby you do not inable him thereunto for he ought to pay the custome before he sell them and them peradventure he had not money to discharge the custome wherefore there is no cause of your Action as this Declaration is and therefore he prayed that judgement may be stayed George Crook prayed that judgement may be given for although it bâ— not expresly shewed that the Plantiff continued beyond the Seas in the said voyage at the time of the coming of the goods to the said Port yet the intendment ought to be so of necessitie in regard it is shewed that within five dayes after his departure and in his absence these goods were consigned c. and his return cannot be intended in so smal a time and he vouched 21. E. 4. fo 13. also it is not material in the case to shew that the Master hath left where withal to pay the custome for here the Action is brought in respect of deceipt and fraud in the Defendant and this is inferred divers wayes the first that the Defendant ought to receive my goods Secondly that he should pay the custome Thirdly that he should dispose of them at his pleasure for
the profit and comoditie of his Master the Plantiff and it is shewed that he intended to deceive his Master and the Queen also and where a wrong is made to another in my name whereby I am damnified there I shall have an Action and if in this case the Defendant had left the goods in the ship then the Plantiff had suffered no loss and therefore his taking them out of the ship is the cause which occasions the loss to the Plantiff and therefore it is reasonable that he should render us damages and he vouched the writ of deceipt in F. N. B. and divers cases therein put and 21. E. 4. that if a man bring an Action in London and the Defendant to delay my Action brings a writ of priviledge be shall have an Action upon the case and he vouched the like case to be adjudged in the Kings Bench 40. Eliz. between Byron and Sleith upon an Action of the case brought by the Defendant because he sued a scire facias against a Bail in a Court where he ought Bromley Puisne Baron said that the Plantiff shall have judgement First it shall be intended that the Plantiff was beyond the Seas at the time in respect of the Minute of time between his departure and the landing of the goods Secondly he said that it needs not be expressed that the Master had left moneys wherewith to discharge the custome for it shall be intended in this case because the Defendant had taken upon him to meddle according to the appointment of the Plantiff wherefore c. and so he departed to the Parliament Altham second Baron agreed that the Statute for the paying of custome appointeth that if the goods of any man be laid upon the land the custome not paid that then the goods shall be forfeited and therefore here he shall not lose his goods by reason of this Act made by the Defendant so that if the Defendant be a meer stranger to the Plantiff without question an Action of Trespass lies for this taking then in the principal case by reason of this trust an action of the case lies and if a stranger drives my Cattle upon your land whereby they are distrained by you I shall recover against the stranger for this distress by you in an action against him for by reason of this wrongful Act done by him I suffer this loss and he vouched 9. E. 4. fo 4. a case put by Jenney Snig third Baron to the contrary I agree that if a stranger put in my Cattle to the intent to do hurt to me a Trespass lieth but here is an Action upon the case and that lies not because it appears not sufficiently that the Defendant was servant to the Plantiff to Merchandise but generally his servant and therefore an Action of Trespas rather lieth generally for in an Action upon the case he ought to hit the bird in the eye and here it is not shewed that the goods were for the same voyage nor that the Defendant is a Common servant in this imployment also the Declaration is not good because he doth not shew that the Defendant had moneys or means from the Master to pay the custome and he is not compellable to lay out money of his own besides he cannot dispose of the goods until the custome be paid wherefore c. Tanfield chief Baron there are two matters to be considered in the case First if here you charge the Defendant as your special servant or if as a stranger Secondly if as a stranger then if an Action upon the case or a general Action of Trespass lieth and as to the first if in this case you have shewed him to be such a servant as a Bayliff or Steward and he hath misbehaved himself in such a thing which belongs to his charge without any special trust an Action upon the case lieth but if he be taken to be your general servant then he is to do and execute all Acts and lawful commands and against this general servant if his Master command him to do such a thing and he doth it not an action upon the case lieth but yet this is with this diversitie viz. if the Master command him to do such a thing which is in his convenient power or otherwise not and therefore if I command my servant to pay 100. l. at York and give him not money to hire a horse an Action lieth not for the not doing of this command but if I furnish him with ability to do it and then he doth it not an action lieth well against him and in the principal case it is shewed that the Plantiff appointed the Defendant being his servant generally to receive c. and to pay all customes c. then it is examinable if the Plantiff sufficiently inabled this Defendant to do this command and the woâ—ds of the command seem to be all one as if he had commanded the Defendant to receive the Wares paying the custome and therefore the Defendant needs not to receive them if he had not money to pay for the custome and so it is not within the Plantiffs command to receive the Wares and then if he doth receive them not paying for the customes this is another thing then the command anâ— therefore it is no misfeazance as my particular servant but being my general servant he had done another thing then I commanded him whereby I receive some damage and by consequence is in case of a stranger for if my general servant who is not my horse keeper take my horse out of my pasture and ride him this is a thing which he doth not as a servant but as a stranger then as to the second matter the Defendant being as a stranger if an action upon the case or a general action of Trespass lieth for this is as if my general servant take my horse and rides him without my appointment a general action of Trespass lieth but if by reason of his riding my horse die an action upon the case lieth and so it is in the case here the Defendant had laid the goods upon the land by reason whereof they were forfeited it is collourable that an Action upon the case lieth but if a man take my goods and lay them upon the land of A. a Trespass or an Action upon the case lieth against him who took them by the better opinion but it is good to be advised and it was adjourned and at another day Altham Baron said that an Action upon the case or a Trespass generally did lie well enough and he vouched F. N. B. that if a Bailiff arrest one without any warrant I shall have Trespass generally or an Action upon the case at my election and so in the like case 18. E. 4 fo 23. Trespass or Action upon the case lies also by F. N. B. if Executors be outed by the Testators Lessor there they may have an Action upon the case if they will or Trespass generally and in
Slade and Morleys case a case was put which proves it to be according Snig Baron agreed that Iudgement ought to be given for the Plantiff and by Tanfield if I take your goods and detain them until I have caused you to pay me 10. l. a general Action of Trespass lieth and not an Action upon the case and it is cited 7. H. 4. or 7. E. 4. to be accordingly but yet he agreed that judgement should be entred and so it was appointed to be done but then Chibborn for the Defendant said that here is a mistrial for if this trust be not material because it is not effectually shewed in the Declaration as you have argued then the Venue shall come only from the parish where the Wares were laid upon the land and not from the parish also where the appointment or trust was made by the Plantiff and therefore the trial also being from both parishes is a mistrial and the Court agreed that this is a mistrial upon that reason for now the appointment or Trust is but an inducement and therefore needs not to be shewed within what parish it was made and therefore a new Venire facias was granted and upon that a new trial and damages more then before and judgement was given accordingly Arden against Darcie NOta a good case of Attornament which was decreed in the time of Baron Manwood betwixt Arden and Darcie and it was this one Arden was seised in fee of divers lands in the County of c. and made a lease for years and after made a feofment with words of Grant of those lands to A. and B. to the use of the feoffor and his wife for their lives the remainder to Arden his son in tail and after the feoffor said to the Lessee that he had conveyed his land which the Lessee held in lease to the uses aforesaid and the Lessee said I like it well and after he paid his rent to the feoffor generally and it was decreed in the Exchequer Chamber that this is no Attornament because the Attornament ought to be to the feoffees and it appeareth not that the Lessee had notice of the names of the feoffees and therefore it cannot be said to amount to an Attornament but notwithstanding that Decree Arden the same to whom the remainder was limited had his Action depending in the Kings Bench to trie the point again as he said to me also this Term a point concerning the said Decree was in question upon another Bill exhibited in the Exchequer Chamber by Sir Edward Darcie against Arden and the case was as followeth Sir Edward Darcie exhibited his Bill here in the nature of a scire facias against Arden to shew cause wherefore the said Edward Darcie should not have execution of a Decree made in the time of Baron Manwood and the Defendant shewed that Darcie in his first suit supposed by his Bill that he had a grant of the land then and now in question from Queen Elizabeth rendring rent as it appears by the letters Patents and in facto there was no rent reserved upon the Patent and that the Defendant gave answer to the said Bill and admitted the Iurisdiction of the Court and after a Decree was made against the Defendant and the Defendant now having shewed this special matter demurred upon this Bill in respect that by his pretence the Court had not jurisdiction to hold plea in the first suit and here it was shewed that the first decree was made upon a matter in Law not properly examinable by English Bill and that in facto the Law was therein mistaken and therefore the Defendant prayed that the decree may be re-examined Tanfield chief Baron it is usual in the office of Pleas that if an action be brought as a debtor of our Lord the King this is good although that de facto no suggestion be made thereof if it be not shewed on the other side and therefore a writ of Error for this falsity shall not cause the judgement to be reversed as it was resolved in a case in which I was of Councel and so here as it seemeth Altham Baron here we are in equity wherein we are not tied to so strickt a course as if it were in the office of pleas Brock of the Inner Temple for the Defendant in a Court of equity it is in the discretion of the Court to deny Execution of a decree if good cause be shewed and in 18. E. 4. fo 1. judgement was given against a married wife by the name of a feme sole and reversed although she did not shew in the first suit that she was married and in 8. E. 4. judgement was given in the Kings Bench in a suit and by writ of error was reversed although the Defendant had admitted the Iurisdiction of the Court and the chief Baron and all the Court inclined that Arden may exhibit a Bill to reverse this Decree made against him and may shew what point in Law the Iudges mistook in the Decree or otherwise we should not do as Law and Iustice requireth for it is not expedient to be examined by way of Bar to this Bill in the nature of a scire facias and after Arden according to the Decree of the Court and their direction did exhibit his Bill in the nature of a writ of error Comprising how the first decree was erroneously made and prayed that the said decree might be reversed and in his Bill he shewed the point in Law which was decreed and that upon divers long conveyances appears to be thus and so it was agreed by Councel on both parties that Arden the father was seised of the Mannor of Cudworth in the County of c. and was also seised of the Mannor of Parkhal in the same County and of Blackclose c. which was parcel of the Mannor of Cudworth but lying neer unto Parkhal and alwayes used and occupied with it and reputed parcel thereof but in truth it was parcel of Cudworth and that Arden the father made a Conveyance of the Mannor of Parkhal and of all the lands thereunto belonging and reputed as parcel thereof or occupied with it as part or parcel thereof and of all other his lands in England except the Mannor of Cudworth to the use of Arden his son that now is Plantiffe here and if Blackclose will pass to the son by this conveyance or if by intendment it shall be excepted by the exception made it was the question here and was decreed in the time of Baron Manwood that it is excepted by the exception but all the Barons now thought it to be a strong case that Blackclose is not excepted by the exception of the Mannor of Cudworth and so the first decree was upon a mistake out of the Law and Tanfield chief Baron said that the point is no other but that I infeoffe you of Blackacre parcel of the Mannor of D. exceyt my Mannor of D. this doth not except the King
by express terms quaer if in this case there was any land occupied with Parkhal which was not parcel of Cudworth nor of Parkhal for if so then it seems that Blackclose will be within the exception in regard that the words and lands occupied therewith viz. Parkhal are well satisfied Harris Serjeant said that the case is to be resembled to the point in Carter and Ringsteeds case concrrning the Mannor of Odiam where a man was seised of of a Mannor within which the Mannor of D. did lie and is parcel thereof and he by his will devised the Mannor of D. excepting the Mannor of Odiam where the Mannor passeth by the devise and is not excepted Snig and Altham Barons agreed that this proves the case in equity but by the chief Baron Tanfield because this is a rare case that we should reverse or undo a decree made by our predecessors in the very point decreed by them it is good to be advised and therefore they directed Arden to finde presidents if he could by search made for them in the said case and therefore the Attorney general who was of Councel for Darcie had demurred upon the Bill which was exhibited by Arden and that he being not present day was given until another term to hear Councel on both parts at which day the Attorney said that he conceived it a strange case and without president that a Court should impeach and reverse the decrees given in the same Court and that if it should be suffered the subjects would be vexed and troubled without any end or quiet and this stands with the gravity of every Court to maintain their own judgements and therefore several Statutes were made to reverse judgements upon erroneous proceedings and judges of other Courts constituted to examine them which proveth that before the Statutes aforesaid and without aid of them the Iudges would not reverse their own Iudgements and so here Harris to the contrary it is not without presidents that in a Court of equity one and the same decree in the same Court hath been reversed by decree of the same Court upon some consideration had of the erroneous misprisions of Law and it is no dishonour to a Court of justice so to do for matter in Law but otherwise it were for matter of fact for then that betrayeth an Ignorance in the Iudges which would be a dishonour to the Court but for Law men are not Angles and for that point there may be errour to prove that the Court of equity may do so he vouched the Book of 27. H. 8. fo 15. Martin Dockwraies case which is our very case ruled in the Chancery and so he said that in this Court 3. Jac. a decree made in the time of Baron Manwood was reversed upon the like reason and Tanfield chief Baron said to Serjeant Harris that if it appear by your president that if the same matter in Law which was decreed was reversed in the same point in Law then this proveth for you but if it were for matter of fact otherwise it is and therefore we will see your president Kent and Kelway KEnt and Kelway entred Hil. 6. Jac. Rot. 722. in the Exchequer in the case between Kent and Kelway which was debated Pasc 8. Jac. the Iudges pronounced in the Exchequer Chamber that judgement ought to be affirmed notwithstanding their opinion before to the contrary as it appeareth and therefore I demanded of Mr. Hoopwel Clark of the Errors what was the reason of their opinions and he told me that the case was debated by them this Term at Serjeants Inne and then they resolved to affirm the Iudgement and the reasons as he remembred were as followeth and he also delivered unto me the case as he had collected it out of the Records and delivered it to the Iudges which was that the Plantiff in the Kings Bench declared that one Benjamin Shephard was indebted to him in 300. l. and that he sued out of the Kings Bench an Alias Capias directed to the Sheriffe of N. to the intent to compel the said Benjamin Shephard upon his appearance to put in Bail according to the custome of that Court for the Recovery of his debt which writ was delivered to John Shaw Sheriffe of the said County to be executed the Sheriffe made his warrant to the Bailiffe of the liberty of the Wapentake of Newark and the Plantiffe himself delivered it to James Lawton Deputy of the Lord Burley the Kings chief Bailiâ—e of that liberty to be executed and the Deputy Bailiffe by vertue of the said warrant arrested the said Benjamin Shephard whereupon the Defendant with others made an Assault and rescued the said Benjamin Shephard out of the custody of the said Deputy Bailiffe whereby he lost all his debt and damages were assessed at 172. l. and cost 10. l. and in this case the Iudges agreed that notwithstanding the Defendant had rescued the said Benjamin Shephard out of the hands of c. when the said Benjamin Shephard was arrested upon an Alias Capias out of the Kings Bench which writ is only in nature of a plea of Trespass yet the party who rescued him shall answer in this action damages for the debt because the Plantiffe by this means had lost his debt And yet it is not shewed that the Rescuer knew that the Plantiffe would declare for his debt but if in this case the Sheriffe or Bailiffe had suffered a Negligent escape they should be charged only with the damages in the same plea as the writ supposeth and no for the debt and so a diversity also they agreed that the Declaration is good enough to say that he was rescued out of the hands of the Deputy Bailiffe and the course in the Kings Bench was alwayes so upon the return of a rescue notwithstanding the Book of the 7. Eliz. Dyer fo 241. also it was resolved that the Declaration was good saying that he sued an Alias Capias without mention of any latitat before sued also it was agreed that the arrest was good made by the Deputy Bailiffe by vertue of a warrant delivered to the Sheriffe but quere if they should not examine if the Bailiffe had a power given to make a Deputy by his Patent for this appears not in the case Bently and others against Leigh in Trespas Hill 45. Eliz. Rot. 1231. Trin. 7. Jac. in the Exchequer TPe Iudges affirmed a Iudgement this Term between Leigh Plantiffe in a writ of Error and one Bentley and others Defendants and the matter assigned for Error was because the Trespass was brought in the year 45. Eliz. for a Trespass made in the 42. Eliz. and the judgement upon the verdict was against the Defendant and the Margent of the Roll it was entred quod Defendens capiatur where it ought to be pardonatur as he pretended for the general pardon which was in 43. Eliz. had pardoned the fine to the King for the Trespass and this is a thing whereof the Iudges
certain place from whence the Venue should come c. Walter of the Inner Temple it seemeth that the plea is good First this plea although it is but to the writ yet it is peremptory as other pleas to writs are see l. 5. E. 4. fol. as to the conclusion of the plea it is but matter of form which the Clark ought to amend and therefore upon your general demurrer you shall not take advantage of it and by the Court this is but matter of form and not being alledged for one of the special causes agreed that notwithstanding the demurrer be special yet the Court ought to apply the conclusion alwayes as the matter of pleading will bear it and therefore if a man plead to the Iurisdiction of the Court and demand judgement of the writ yet it is good by Newton 7. H. 6. for if the Bar be good the writ is not maintainable and it was said by Popham in a case in the Kings Bench 34. Eliz. that one c. had two issues in one plea. First if one thing be once repeated in a plea repetition thereof will supplie all the residue for avoiding infiniteness in repetitions Secondly one c. will serve to supplie the defect in matter of form as here and as to the Objection that the plea is not good because no certaintie is shewed where the entrie was it seems to me the plea therein is good because here is no need in our case to mention the certainty in the Declaration for here by our plea we offer two things issuable viz. the entrie or not entrie Secondly if it be parcel of the premises or not and when divers things issuable are specified it is not necessary to shew the place of any for it is time enough to shew it in the rejoynder 3. H. 7.11.3 H. 6.8.41 E. 3.8.10 H. 6.1.14 H. 6.31 And therefore it was agreed in the Kings Bench that if one pleads in Bar divers matters issuable the Replication ought not to take issue upon any of them but leave it to the rejoynder to the intent that the place may be shewed therein and so here Secondly here a place is sufficiently shewed by awarding of a venire facias for it is certain enough to shew it to be parcel of the Mannors as it was resolved in Bailies case Trin. 7. Iac. in the Court of Wards then by the same reason it is good enough to shew it to be parcel of all the three Mannors for the Venue shall come from all as it shall be to trie the issue of all and by the demurrer here it is admitted to be parcel of all and therefore c. Thirdly he said that the omission of the place is but matter of form and such a thing is within the Statute of 27. Eliz. and ought to be specially set down or otherwise the partie who demurreth shall take no advantage thereof and to prove that it is but matter of form he vouched the case of Hall and Goodwin in the Kings Beuch Hill 31. Eliz. and he said that a Replication makes not the plea good which is evil in matter of substance and yet a Replication made to a Bar which wanteth a place maketh the plea good which proveth it to be but form also he vouched the case of 34. H. 6.2 in debt the Defendant pleads the receipt of parcel hanging the writ and 34. Eliz. in the Kings Bench between Noy and Midldeton such a plea was in Bar. Stephens the plea is not good in matter for the place where the entrie was made after the last continuance ought to be shewed for alwayes the most certainty ought to be observed for the Venue to arise as 6. H. 7. if Trespass be brought upon the Statute of R. 2. for entring into the Mannor of D. in D. the Venue shall come from the Ville and so here if the place be not parcel of any Mannors yet if it lieth in any Towns mentioned in the Declaration the Venue shall come from the Ville and not from the Mannor 32. H. 6.15 three several places are mentioned and one pleaded a deed dated at the place aforesaid it is not good also here it seemeth if the party will plead and not demur the want of place ought to be shewed in the rejoynder as it hath been conceived on the other side but if he will not replie but demur upon the Bar the plea in Bar is not good Trin. 40. Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 1023. an Action of Covenant was brought by a Bishop of a Lessee and no place alledged where the assignment was made and a demurrer thereupon and adjudged that the plea was not good and there it was also agreed that it was not matter of form and so here see after Tanfield chief Baron excepted to the form of an entrie for the King which was that Postea the Iustices of Assise Deliberaverunt Tenorem placiti c. for by him the Presidents in the Kings Bench are quod deliberaverunt recordum praedictum which as he thought was the best but after upon the view of a President shewed where an exception was taken in Baron Manwoods case upon a writ of error in the Exchequer Chamber after judgement given here and the entrie then allowed to be good and upon the view also of divers Presidents shewed by Turner Master of the pleas the chief Baron and all the Court agreed and resolved that the entrie of Tenorem placiti or Tenorem recordi is as good or better then recordum praedictum c. and therefore nothing was spoken to that exception see the President of pleading in Stradling and Morgans case Plowden where it is Tenorem placiti Sir Anthony Ashleys case IT was agreed by all the Court in Sir Anthony Ashleys case that if the King be intitled to the profits by an outlawry and after B. assigns a debt to the King and the King had granted the profits which accrued by the outlawry to Ashley yet the lands of Ashley may be extended for this debt for the King had no interest in the land but only the profits for the outlawry and therefore it may be extended for debt per Curiam quaere if so for a common person Hill 8. Jac. in the Exchequer Ewer against Moil Hill 8. Jac. in the Exchequer THe case was this that a Commission issued out of the Chancery to Baron Sotherton and others and this was in 7. Iac. to inquire what lands and Tenements the late Prior of Bister in Com. Oxon. had in Caversfield in the County of Bucks and to inquire if a rent reserved upon a grant made to Banbury of the lands of the Priory be arrere or not and by vertue thereof the Iury of the County of Bucks found that the Church of Bister in the County of Oxon. was founded by the name of the Church of Saint Mary and Saint Egbert and that Thomas Banbury Prior in the year c. made a lease to one Banbury of the moitie of
Heir except that judgement be given against the Ancestor and for that see 40. E. 3. Executors 74. and 41. Ass pl. 15. and 15. Eliz Dyer 322. And also if a Recusant had been convicted upon the Sat. of 23. Eliz. and dyed before judgement cleerely this forfeiture shall never be charged upon the Heir for the words are that a Recusant shall forfeit 20. l. a moneth and if he doe not pay it then appoints the recovery by Bill Plaint or Information and this ought to be alwaies in the life of the party then the Stat. of 28. Eliz. maketh not a new debt or Forfeiture but gives a penalty for the non-payment of that which was a debt within 23. Eliz. and that the intent of the Stat. of 28. Eli. was but such this is proved by the Title of the Act. viz. for the more speedy and due execution c. 2. It is proved by the first words of the Act for the avoiding of all delaies c. so that it appears that this Act is but as a penalty meerly Also he said that this Stat. of 28. Eliz. dispenceth with the conviction as to the penalty but doth not take away the Conviction also he said that conviction without Iudgement maketh not a Debt Also he who is convicted by proclamation and dieth is discharged Also he said that our Case hath been compared to a Debt upon an Obligation but this is not like for the Stat. stands not indefinite but hath reference to 23. for otherwise a Recusant may be doubly charged that is upon both the Statutes for there is no means to recover the Debt but by this Statute of 23. Eliz. See Sir Edward Walgraves case Dyer 231. Wentworth and others against Stanley WEntworth and his Wife and Rich and his Wife brought an Ejectione firmae against Stanley and shewed in their Declaration how one Edward Stanley was seised in Fee and infeoffed the Earl of Darby others to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the Plantiffs wife for 100. years and died and the Plantiffs entred and the Defendant ejected them c. and this Feofment was made in 40. Eliz. the Defendant saith that long before one Richard Stanley was sesed in Fee and gave it to the said Edward Stanley in tail and that he so seised made a Feefment to the uses as is alledged and died and the Plantiffs entred and the Defendant as issue of the Feoffor re-entred and so by his pretence his is remitted whereupon it was demurred and upon the opening this case the Barons were clear of opinion that the issue in tail is remitted and came paramount the lease and so the lease for years is gone also by the chief Baron and Baron Snig there needs no Traverse to be alledged by the Plantiffe because it was but of a fee gained in an instant by the feofment of a Tenant in tail and a fee-simple gained in an instant needeth not to be Traversed 5. H. 7. and 2. E. 4. wherefore the Court said that judgement ought to be given against the Plantiffs but yet at the desire of the some the Court gave day to the Councel on both parts to argue the case at which day came Heneag Finch for the Plantiffs and he argued to the matter in Law and therein he said that by the feofment of Tenant in tail the use to himself for life the remainder to his daughters for years without limiting the residue of the use that in this case the residue of the use shall be in the feoffes and not in the feoffor for by him there is a difference between a feofment by him who had a fee with limitation of an use as above and a feofment made by him who derives an estate out of a fee for when Tenant for life or Tenant in tail makes a feofment and limits an use for part of the estate as above there the residue of the issue shall be to the feoffee and he vouched Castle and Dods case adjudged in the Common Pleas 8. Iac. that if Tenant for life grant over his estate without limiting of an use it shall be to the use of the grantee more strong here in a tortious act as our case is but if Tenant in tail will levy a fine with limitation of uses as above there the residue of the use shall be to the use of the Conusor Secondly admit that the residue of the use in this case shall he to the feoffor yet he shall not be remitted to the use as it seemeth the words of the Statute of 27. H. 8. are that cestuy que use shall have like estate in the land as he had in the use and therefore it is clear that the first taker of the use shall not be remitted as it is resolved in Amy Townsends case in Plowden and although the words of the Statute mention not heirs or issues yet by the intent of the Statute they are in equal degree but the Books which are against this opinion are two viz. 33. H. 8. Dyer fo 51. but there it is not expresly said that the issue is remitted but 34. H. 8 Br. remitter 49. is expresly against me but the same year in Dyer fo 54. it is there made a quere and in Bevils case it is only said that the first taker of the use cannot be remitted but of my opinion was Baldwin and Shelley in 28. H. 8. Dyer 23 24. and in Sanages case and 29. H. 8. it is resolved that if a man hath land by Act of Parliament there shall be no remitter and so here wherefore c. and he said if Tenant in tail be the remainder in fee and Tenant in tail makes a feofment to the use of himself in tail the remainder to him in remainder in fee in this case he in the remainder in fee shall not be remitted for then the first taker should be remitted to the pleading it seemeth that the bar is not good and first the general demurrer here doth not confess the matter of fact no more then in Gawins case in 29. H. 8. fo 40. by Brown a demurrer upon account in an appeal is no confession of the fact and in 44. Eliz. in Crisp and Byrons case accordingly see Sir Henry Browns case before a good case to this purpose then as to the Bar it seems it is not sufficient for want of a Traverse of a seisin in fee alledged in the feoffor who was Edward Stanley for it is a rule that two affirmatives cannot be allowed in a Declaration and the Bar without Traverse of that which is mentioned in the Declaration is not good except there be cause of some impossibilitie or inconvenience but yet this is to be understood where the affirmatives are express and not by implication as in Moiles case if the Defendant in his Bar confess a fee determinable he needs not Traverse the fee alledged by the Plantiffe but in our case here is an allegation made by the
was in a Formedon in remainder and it was moved now by Serjeant Harris if the partie against whom it was given may sue in the Exchequer Chamber by Bill or petition to the King in the nature of a writ of false judgement for the Reversal of that judgement Tanfield seemed that it is proper so to do for by 13. Rich. 2. if a false judgement be given in a base Court the partie grieved ought first to sue to the Lord of the Mannor by petition to reverse this judgement and here the King being Lord of the Mannor it is very proper to sue here in the Exchequer Chamber by petition for in regard that it concerneth the Kings Mannor the suit ought not to be in the Chancery as in case a Common person were Lord and for that very cause it was dismissed out of the Chancery as Serjeant Harris said and Tanfield said that he was of Councel in Pettishals case in the time of the Lord Bromley where it was debated at large if such a judgement ought to be reversed by petition in the Chancery in case where a Common person was Lord and at last it was decreed that it should be as in that case of Patshal and for the same reason here the King being Lord and therefore day was given till the next Term to shew their errours and Serjeant Harris said that the errors are in effect no others then were in the case 9. Eliz. Dyer fo 262. and in Godmanchesters case and it was adjourned Scot and his wife against Hilliar SCot and his wife Plantiffs against Hilliar for these words spoken of the wife viz. she would have cut her husbands throat and did attempt to do it Hutton Serjeant in arrest of judgement said that these words are not actionable for the will or attempt is not punishable by our Lawe and he vouched Cockains case Cook lib. 4. cited in Eaten and Allens case but by the Court an Action lies for the attempt is a cause for which the husband may be divorced if it were true and it is a very great slander and Baron Snig said that in the same Term a judgement was given in the Kings Bench and was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber upon a writ of error for these words He lay in the high way to rob me and therefore let judgement be entred for the Plan̄tiffe but it was adjudged in the principal case that for the words she would have cut her husbands throat no Action would lie Gooches Case A Coppyholder surrenders into the hands of the Customary Tenants to the use of Anne his Wife and after before any Court the said Coppyholder surrenders the Land into the hands of other Customary Tenants to the use of the said Anne for her life the remainder to Percie in Fee upon condition that he in remainder his Heirs should pay 20. s. per annum at Michaelmas for ever the first payment to commence immediacely after the death of the said Anne viz. at the next feast of St. Michael and this to be paid in the Church Porch or D. to the Church Wardens of D. in the presence of four discreet Parishioners or otherwise that a stranger should re-enter and at the next Court both these surrenders were present and the Steward admitted the said A. according to the second surrender and she dyed and now upon pretence that the rent of 20. s. was not paid by the Heirs of him in remainder the Heir of Gooch who made the surrender had entred and thereupon an Action was brought and upon the evidence the Jury to the County of Bedford now at the Bar These matters were moved by Serjeant Nichols That a surrender into the hands of Customary Tenants cannot be Countermanded and therefore the second surrender void and the admittance shall work to such uses as the first surrender was made as in Anne Westwicks Case Cook Lib. 4. And to prove that a surrender into the hands of Customary Tenants is not countermandable he said that it is not countermandable by death nor surrender Cooke lib. 4. in his Coppyhold Cases That a presentment in the Court may be after the death of the surrenderer and the admittance thereupon is good and he compared it to the Case of the delivery of a Deed as an Escroll which may be delivered as his Deed after the death of the Maker as it is in Jennings and Braggs case Cook lib. 3. which was not denyed by the Court Serjeant Dodderidge said that when a surrender is made upon condition that he shall pay a summe of money to a stranger these words make an estate conditionall and give power implyedly to the Heirs of the party who did surrender to re-enter for non-payment and the words which give power to a stranger to re-enter are meerely void neverthelesse the precedent words shall stand and make the estate conditionall Tanfield Littleton saies that such a re-entry is void for a re-entry cannot be limited to a Stranger Nichols Serjeant said that if a surrender be made that he shall pay so much money that this makes the estate conditionall and gives a re-entry to the Heirs of him who did surrender But when it goes further and doth not leave the condition to be carried by the Law in such case all the words should be void because it cannot be according to the intent as in the case of a reservation of rent the Law will carry it to the Reversion but if it be particularly reserved then it will go according to the reservation or otherwise will be void and so here Tanfield Admit that here was a conditionall estate by vertue of the Surrender last made and this condition is also to be performed to a stranger which generally ought to be taken strictly yet as it is here he who will take advantage thereof ought to prove a voluntary neglect in the party in the not performance of the Condition and inasmuch as there is no certain time appointed when the payment of this Annuall rent should be made but generally at Michaelmas next after the death of the said Anne thereby in this case the Chuch-wardens ought to notifie the death of the said Anne before the first day of payment by reasonable space or otherwise the condition is not broken and also it is appointed here to be paid in the presence of four discreet Parishioners by the party who should perform the condition yet by intendment he hath no notice who are discreet or who are not especially he being an Infant as in our case he is and therefore although the condition is to be performed to a stranger which generally ought to be performed strictly according to 12. E. 3. Yet this is to be intended only in such cases where the party had certain notice of all circumstances requisite for payment thereof and therefore he directed the Iury that for want of knowledge of such circumstances they should give a Verdict that the condition was not broken And Dodderidge
by seisure of two parts of the land c. then when a Statute gives a new thing which was not at the Common Law and limits a course and means whereby it shall be levied that course ought to be pursued and it cannot be done in any other manner the Statute of 8. H. 6. cap. 12. makes the imbesting of a Record Felony and that this shall be inquired by Iury whereof one halfe shall be Clarks of some of the same Courts and that the Iudges of the one Bench or of the other shall hear and determine it and the case was that part of the offence was done in Middlesex and part in London so that the offence could not have such proceeding as the Statute appointed and therefore it was holden that it should not be punished at all Mich. 41. et 42. Eliz. Betwixt Aggard and Standish the Statute of 8. Ed. 4. cap. 2. inflicts a penaltie upon him that makes a retainer by parol and moreover it is thereby ordained that before the King in his Bench before the Iustices of the Common Pleas Iustices of the Peace Dyer and Terminer every man that will may complain against such person or persons doing against the form of this ordinance shall be admitted to give information for the King and it was holden that the informer could not sue for himself and the Queen upon this Statute for an offence done in any Court not mentioned in that Statute the Statute of 35 Eliz. cap. 1. appoints that for the better and spedier levying and Recovering for and by the Queens Majestie of all and singular the pains duties forfeitures and payments which at any time hereafter shall grow due or be payable by vertue of this Act and of the Act made in the 23 d. year of her Majesties Raign concerning Recusants that all and every the said pains duties c. may be recovered to her use by Action of debt Bill plaint or information or otherwise in any of her Courts of her Benth Common Pleas or Exchequer in such sort in all respects as by the ordinary course of the Common Lawes of this Realm any other debt due by any such person in any other case should or may be recovered wherein no essoin c. Note that this Statute extends not to any penaltie upon the Statute of 28. Eliz. cap. 6. also the Common Law doth not give any means to levie a debt upon a trust and as to the general point it seems that no land can be seised after the death of the Recusant 23. Eliz. cap. 1. enacteth that every person of the age of 16. years which shall not repaire to some Church c. but forbear the same contrary to the Tenor of the Statute made in the first year of her raign for uniformity of common prayer and being thereof lawfully convicted shall forfeit to the Queen for every moneth which he or she shall so forbear 20. l. And that statute doth give no forfeiture at all for Lands And also it giveth no penaltie without conviction so that the death of the party before conviction dischargeth all and so without question it was at that day This last Point seems to be remedied in part by the Statute of 28. Eliz. cap. 6. for thereby if the party be once convicted he shall alwaies pay after without other conviction and this Statute gives also a Seisure but before any seisure Three things ought to concur 1. Recusancy 2. Conviction 3. Default of payment And the last of these was the tâ—ue cause of the seisure viz. That is the contempt of not payment Therefore it was adjudged in Sir William Greenes case that this seisure shall not go in satisfaction of such debt but the King shall hold it as a penalty for the contempt untill the debt be paid so that when a Statute imposeth a penaltie for a contempt as the contempt is personall so is the penalty And therefore the death of the party before that it be excuted or turned in rem judicatam dischargeth all and I shall prove it by the different plea in an Action upon a penall Statute and other common Actions and therefore in debt not guilty is no plea but in debt upon a penall Law it is a good Plea for in truth untill it be adjudged it is no debt but a contempt Michaelmas 41 42. Eliz. betwixt Car and Jones and in debt upon the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. not guilty was adjudged a good plea Trin. 42. Eli between Morley Edwards 2. It may be proved by the different forms of judgment for in common actions the judgment is Quod quaerens recuperet c. But in informations the usuall form is Quod defendens foris faciet 41. Ass which implies that it is not perfect untill the Iudgement and before it is only a contempt and if so then by the death of the party it is discharged Thirdly I shall prove it by Authority that the death of the parties before Iudgement dischargeth aswell the contempt as the penaltie of a penall Law 40. Ed 3. Executor 74. debt lies not against the Executors of a Iaylor who suffers Prisoners to escape 15. Eliz. Dyer 322. in the like Case the opinion of the Court was that an Action did not lye against the Executors of the Warden of the Fleet. but there ought to have been a Iudgement against him in his life time for the Offence is but a Trespass by negligence which dies with the Person 18. Eliz. Dyer An Action brought against the Heire and ruled that it doth not lie for it is a Maxime that no Law or Statute chargeth the Heir for the wrong or trespasse of his Father Also it is to be observed in the Principall Case that the Statute limits the seisure to be by Proces out of the Exchequer so no seisure can be without Proces as it may be upon some other Statute But a judiciall course is hereby prescribed whereupon the Partie may plead with the King for his Land and therefore if that course be not pursued in the life of the party it is too late to pursue it after his death Also the words are that he shall seise all the goods and two parts of the Lands of such Offendors But after his death the goods are not his but his Executors and the Lands are not his but his Heirs and a seisure by way of penalty relateth no higher then to the time of the seisure also the words of the subsequent Proviso explame it further for it it be demanded when the King shall seise two parts it is answered at the same time when he leaveth the third part and when must be leave the third part it is auswered in the life of the Recusant That it may be for the maintenance of his Wife Children and Family and after his death he hath neither Wife Children nor Family for in a Writ of Dower the Demandant shall say that she was Wife and not that she is Wife As to the
Greyhound and è conversò and this was ruled to be an imployment for it was whereby or wherewith a Priest was maintained although it was not whereof and Mich. 21. Eliz. the Kings head in Breadstreet now Fishstreet was given to finde a Priest and a rent-charge granted in performance of the Will and this was adjudged an imployment of the house and so where the assignment is good a small thing will make an imployment And it seems that the Liverie is good and as to that that no Livery can be made without ousting of the Lessor and by his consent and therefore 9. Eliz. It is ruled that a Feoffement with a Letter of Atturney to the Lessee to make livery is good and no surrender and Eides and Knotsfords case 41. Eliz. Lessee for years remainder for life remainder in fee he in remainder in fee makes a Feoffement to the Lessee for years and makes Livery and it was adjudged a good Feoffement because it was not a surrender in respect of the meane estate for life and no ouster nor consent will serve for then it would be a disseisin which cannot be upon the possession of the Lessee for years for his possession is also of him in the remainder for life and I put these Cases that there ought to be a consent or ouster but I agree that the Queens possession cannot be defeated by entry or ouster as it is 4. Mar. Dyer 139.8 Ass 21.18 H. 8.16 But the Kings Ward may make an estate 1. H. 7. But if the King be not in possession but a remainder only in him and the Lessor makes a Feoffement rendring 12. d. rent this estate in the King doth not priviledge any other in possession and so judgement was given for the Plaintiff against the opinion of Altham Mrs Chamberlains case IN 22. Eliz. York recovered by Indicement in the Kings Bench against Allen upon an Assumpsit York being thus interessed of the debt after that is in May 26. Eliz. was outlawed upon a mean Proces at the suit of I. S. and in the same year and moneth was outlawed after judgement at the suit of the same I. S. and after a generall pardon came 27. Eliz. in which pardon after the pardon of all contempts for outlawrie there are words also purporting a Grant bounty and liberality whereby the Queen granted all montes forfeited or come unto her hands by reason of any such outlawry with other words in the same pardon and Provisoes therein contained necessary to be observed And after in 28. El. York was outlawed again after judgement at the suit of I. S. and then Yorke died but he lived a full year after the pardon 27. Eliz. and did not sue any Scire facias against the party at whose suit he was outlawed after Iudgement and after the death of Yorke another pardon came 29. Eliz. to the same effect with the pardon in 27. And after the Queen grants this debt to Anger for the benefit of Mrs Chamberlain who was the Wife of Yorke and Anger sued in the Queens name to have an extent out of this Court against Allen who was the party against whom Iudgement was given and all this was drawn into a Case and delivered to the Barons of the Exchequer to consider upon viz. If execution may be sued in the Queens name against Allen and this case was argued at the Barre at which I was present And now it was argued at the Bench by Bromley Puisne Baron and concluded that Anger may well sue execution in the Queens name but he had almost made an end of his Argument before I came into the Court and three points seemed to be considered of in the Case The 1. was unanimously resolved and agreed by all the Barons that either of the pardons will advantage Allen who was debtor to the party outlawed for although that the words of the pardon unport a pardon of all debts and sums of money accrued to the Queen by reason of the outlawry yet comparing all the parts of the pardons together it will plainly appear that the intent of the pardon was only for the advantage of him who had committed the forfeiture by the contempt and extends only to him by way of restitution And another construction would be repugnant to all the Causes contained in the Act By Tanfield as a Will ought to receive construction by due consideration of the intention of the Testator collected out of all the parts thereof so the meaning of an Act of Parliament ought to be expounded by an examination of the intention of the makers thereof collected out of all the causes thes therein so that there be no repugnancy but a concordancy in all the parts thereof and therefore if a man by will devise Bacre to A. and his heirs and by another cause in the same Will he devises B acre to B. and his assignes it shall not be void in any part insomuch that if both had been placed together A. and B. should be Ioyntenants and therefore the Law will make such a construction and so if a man devise B. acre to A. and after he devises a Rent out of it to another both shall stand Brett and Rigdens case Plowden Also this Debt was due by Allen 2. It was resolved by Tanfield and Bromley that Yorke should take no advantage by the Pardon in 27. Eliz. to have his goods restored which were forfeited by the outlawry after judgement for by them all the Statute for the pardon of the outlawry after judgement was penued in such a form as it is but conditionall for it is in effect provided that the pardon shall not extend to the party outlawed after judgement untill he shall pay or agree with the party at whose suit he was outlawed and this payment ought to be in the Court or in such manner that the Court may be satisfied by the suing of a Scire facias and an acknowledgement of the party at whose suit c. for a bare payment in the Country is not sufficient But when the party outlawed hath once lawfully satisfied the party at whose suit he was outlawed then the pardon will relate ab initio to avoid all intervenient matters if the satisfaction be made in convenient time and therefore if the King had granted the goods forfeited by outlawry after judgment meane between the pardon and the suing of the Scire facias yet if the party outlawed sue this Scire facias within convenient time the pardon shall have such relation as it shall defeat the grant of the goods and therefore Tanfield compared the words in the pardon of the outlawry after judgement to the words in the Statute of 27. H. 8. of intolments for there it is provided that nothing shall passe by bargaine and Sale except the Deed be inrolled within six moneths after but if it be not inrolled otherwise it is Beckets case R. B. seised of Lands in fee 36. Eliz. levies a fine c. and
Bent and another for a Close it was ordered and an Injunction accordingly awarded that the Defendant should suffer the Plaintiffe to injoy the said Close with the appurtenances until c. and contrary to this order the Defendant had put his Cattle into the Close and thereupon an Attachment issued to answer this contempt and he said that he put in his Castle for a title of Common and it was ruled that this was no breach of the Injunction because the Common was not in question in the Bill but only the title of the Close wherefore he was discharged of the contempt and with the appurtenants doth not include the Common to be taken in the said Close Henry Clares case UPon a motion made by Serjeant Barker it appeared that one Henry Clare was indebted to the King and was seised of a third part of certain lands in Norfolk and that Mr. Richardson of Lincolns Inne was seised of other two Acres of the same laud as Tenant in Common and the beasts of Mr. Richardson pastured promiscuously upon all the land and Henry Clare put more Cattle in and upon proces to levy this debt for the King the Sheriffe took the Cattle of Mr. Richardson and sold them and it was now ruled that in regard it was lawful for a Tenant in Common to put in his Cattle upon all the land and that if they depasture all the grass the other hath no remedy and for that cause the Sheriffe could not take those Cattle for the debt of another Tenant in Common but otherwise it would be if the Cattle had been levant and Couchant upon the land of the Kings debtor and in the principal case the Sheriffe was ordered to restore the monie to Richardson for which they were sold and that if they were worth more yet the Sheriffe should not be charged therewith except it could be made appear some fraud in the sale or that sufficient suerties were to pay and discharge the dutie but if my Cattle are levant and Couchant upon the land of the Kings debtor the King may distrain them damage Feasant but he cannot distrain them for the debt by Tanfield chief Baron and Altham clearly to which Baron Bromley consented but Snig said beware of that Smith and Jennings case VPon evidence to a Iury it was said by Tanfield that if a man make Charter of Feofment of lands in two Towns and a Letter of Attorney to make livery and before livery made by the Attorney the Feoffor himself maketh livery of the land in one Town this is a Countermand of the Letter of Atturney and so livery cannot be made by the Attorney in the other Town and quere if the Towns were in several Counties Bacon the Kings Solicitor said that if a man make a Charter of Feofment of two several Acres whereof one is in lease for years and the other in demeasne and the Feoffor makes a Letter of Attorney to make livery and before that be executed the Feoffor himself makes livery now although that one Acre cannot pass by this livery because it is in lease yet this is a Countermand and revocation of the authoritie given by the Letter of Attorney for his intent is manifest so to be to which Tanfield and all the Court agreed Hobert Attorney general said that in this case although that one of the Acres was in lease yet in regard it appeareth not that the Lessee was in actual possession therefore he conceived that it should be construed that the Lessee was not in actual possession at the time of the livery made by the Lessor in the name of all and in respect there was no house upon the Acre in Lease it may be intended that the Lessee should be in actual possession but for that cause he rather conceived that it should be construed that the Lessee was not in possession and so the livery might well operate to pass it Tanfield and all the Court denied that the livery was good to pass it although that the Lessor was in actual possession but where Mr. Atturney alledged further that before the livery made an Infant had a Term for years in this Acre in lease and that the Feoffor at the time of the livery was gardian to the Infant and thereby had a possession therein and therefore the livery made in the other Acre in the name of all should be good to pass all to which the Court agreed and thereupon directed the Iury to finde the livery and seisin to be made of all and in this case the Court inclined that because this Feofment was made but ten dayes before that the Feoffor committed Treason and in asmuch as it was made to the use of the son being an Infant and not upon consideration of marriage that therefore the Feofment should be fraudulent and void as to the King but the Atturney general said that this Feofment was made in performance of a precedent agreement viz. it was agreed that the Feoffor should make such a conveyance to an use c. and that the wife of the Feoffor also being an Inheritrix should make such a conveyance of her land which was done accordingly and upon proofe of this agreement the Court inclined that it was no fraud and in this case it was ruled by the Court if parties have matter of evidence by the Records of this Court they ought to produce the Records themselves for Copies of them are not allowable It was said by Altham and agreed by the Court that if an Information be exhibited for intruding into a Close the 24th day of March and for the asportation of 9. Cart Loads of Wheat betwixt the 24th of March and the first of October the which the Detendant converted c. and upon not guiltie pleaded the Jury found that the Defendant took three Cart Loads of the said Corn upon the 24th day of March and after before the first of October they took also three Cart Loads more and damages were assessed for all that here no judgement shall be given upon this verdict for the Information doth not charge the Defendant with the taking of any part upon the 24th day of c. and then in regard that damages are more judgement can be given for no part of it see Cook lib. 5. Plaisters case but this case being moved at another day Tanfield said that he having inspected the Record he found the verdict insufficient for another cause because the Jury found that as to one Cart Load of Wheat to the value of 20. l. the Defendant was guiltie and doth not mention to what damage viz. to the damage of 100. s. or otherwise and by him ad valentiam is not sufficient without shewing also to what damage and for that cause by him a venire facias de novo ought to be awarded and so it was done by the Court. Edwards case EDwards case was that an erroneous judgement was given in a Coppihold Court where the King was Lord and this