Executor And of late times our Law for the encreasing of the credit and for the inforcing of the Probate do disallow actions brought before the Probate vide the Case upon which it was principally insisted 22 23 Eliz. Dyer 272. a. Isted against Stanley If an Executor dies before Probate and if the residue of the Goods be devised to him then Administration shall he committed to his Executor or otherwise to the next of the blood of the first Testator for now he dies intestate And although it be one dying intestate of the first Testator in Law yet if being the reall and speciall matter it agrees well with his Writ and is matter in Law scil to some purposes he dies intestate and to others not for he had power to release to pay Debts and to take a release vide Dyer 367. a It seems that his Executor shall have his Legacy But the Count is cuâ—bred with the Administration committed to Armiger and it doth not appear how it was dischrrged for it is only that the money was not paid to him late Administrator and it is good and the action is brought according to the Letters of Administration to him which were of the Goods not administred by John Talbot nor by Armiger which was Administrator Coppledick versus Tansey Linc. FRancis Coppledick Plaintiff in a Quare impedit against Samuel Tansey Clerk Sir Philip Tirivint Baronet Quare impedit and Richard Bishop of Lincoln Quod permittant ipsum presentare ad Ecclesiam de Ulceby and count that one Francis Coppledick was seised of the Advowson in Fee and that it was holden in Socage Tryall where no such Town is pleaded And that the said Francis so being seised devised it in tail and intitle himself as Heir in tail Tansey plead that he is Parson imparsonee of the presentment of the said Sir Philip and demand Oyer of the Writ and plead that at the day of the Writ purchased there was no such Richard Bishop of Lincoln in rerum natura and demands Iudgment of the Writ Sir Philip plead that there is no such Church called Ulceby in the County of Lincoln and demand Iudgment of the Writ The Plaintiff â—emur upon the plea of the Incumbent and as to the plea of Sir Philip he reply that there is such a Church called Ulceby in the County of Lincoln and this plea being tryed at Lincoln before Baron Bromley it was found for the Defendant for there was an union of the Church of Fordington to Ulceby and it was called Ulceby cum Fordington And it was said that Institutions and presentments were to Ulceby and Ulceby was the greater and Fordington was the lesser Church and united and therin had lost its name It was agreed that it being known by the one or by the other name had been sufficient to have found for the Plaintiff Serjeant Harris moved in Arrest of Iudgment that it being tryed Per Venire facias de vicineto de Ulceby it was mis-tryed for when Nul tiel vill is pleaded it shall be tryed per Corpus Commitatus 8 H. 6. 38 H. 8. 24 E. 4. 4 Fitz. visne 27. And he vouched 45 E. 3. 6. where such an Issue was tryed but it did not appear how the Venire was awarded And at the first time of this motion it appeared prima facie to be a mis-tryall Bawtry at another day moved it and said that the Writ is Quod permittant presentare to the Church of Ulceby and the Count according therwith it is to be intended a Town or Parish And he resembled it to the case of an Appeal against one by the name of I. S. of Dale Carpenter and he traversed that he was not dwelling at Dale and it was a good tryall from Dale And of in and at are all one but said that in the Count it is said that Edward Coppledick died at Ulceby And all the Court agreed that it is a good tryall and that it is admitted that there is such a Town and the Writ implies it And Iudgment for the Defendant Smith versus Linsey Scire facias A Scire facias against Michael Linsey late Sheriff of Kent by Smith reciting that wheras he had recovered a hundred pounds against Sir Richard Potham and had sued a Scire facias the Defendant being Sheriff returned that he levyed sixty and three pounds which he had ready at the day Scire facias against a Sheriff to have execution against him of money returned levied by him and yet he did not bring the moneys into Court and after it was removed de son Office and to know why he should not have Execution against him of the said summ with which he had charged himself by his return and the Defendant demurred and upon reading of the Record Iudgment for the Plaintiff according to the case 9 E 4 50. vide F.N.B. 165. 34 H. 6. 36. a. and 5 E. 3. 53. Fitz. Execution 101. And between Richards and Speak it was adjudged in this Court that Debt lies against the Sheriff that hath charged himself by his return that he hath levied the money Replevin Annuity for life to commence after 8. years mentioned in the Will where there is no mention made therof Cony versus Cony Linc. PAragrin Cony awows in a Replevin brought by Sir Thomas Cony his Brother for twenty marks per annum granted to him by the will of his Father for life to commence after the end of eight years contained in the Will and in the Will no mention is made of any eight years and that was averred and by the opinion of the Court it ought to commence presently Trin. 17 Jacobi Smith versus Sir John Boucher Mich. 16 Jac. Rot. 3339. London 1. EDward Smith brought a Writ of Annuity against Sir John Boucher Annuity and Thomas Jones de placito quod red ei 120 l. and Count that the Defendants by their Deed shewn in Court reciting that wheras the King by his Letters Patents had granted to them A grant of an Annuity out of the profits of Allome and to one William Turner certain Priviledges and Licenses concerning the making of Allome within this Realm and within the Realm of Ireland for twenty seven years for the Councell given before by him to the Defendant he being Counsellor at Law concerning the drawing of the Letters Patents And for his Councell to be given afterwards granted to him the said annuall summ of 40 l. for 26 years next payable at Midsomer and Christmas The Defendants plead that the King granted the sole making of Allome to them as in the Letters Patents and confesse the grant of the Annuity to the Plaintiff by Deed indented one part wherof sealed with the Seal of the Plaintiff they show c. But further said that the said Annuity was granted Percipend extra clara lucra proficua which accrue to them by the making of Allome And they aver that no clear gaines or
profits have accrued to them or any of them by the making of Allome since the making of the said Indenture wherupon the Plaintiff demur 1. And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for it is one good Grant of an Annuity to charge their persons And so of a Grant of an Annuity to be paid out of such Coffers or Bags vide 9 H. 6. Margery Parkers case vide 22 H. 6. 12. 2. Also the limitation is to perceive of the clear gaines and plead it by the Counter-part of the Indenture and that ought not to be but they should have demanded Oyer of the Deed and then either demur or plead that the same Deed was granted over c. 3. It is not averred that no other person received or made any clear gain but only that the Defendant made no clear gain Burglary MEmorand At the Assises holden at Winchester in the last Circuite before the Lord chief Baron Tanfield it being the third Circuite which I went with him It was a question whether one which had a Shop in the dwelling house of another and he which had the Shop work'd therin in the day but never lodged there and yet he had a house out of the Shop to the Street if this Shop be broken in the night and divers Goods stoln out therof if it be Burglary Burglary And the Lord chief Baron and I resolved that it was no Burglary because that by the severance therof by Lease to him which had it as a Shop and his not inhabiting therin it was not any Mansion house or dwelling house ergo no Burglary but ordinary Felony Mich. 15 Jac. Adavis versus Flemming Case AN action of the Case was brought for these words Thou hast forsworn thy self before the Councell in the Marches innuendo in the Marches of Wales in a Suit which I have there and I will sue thee for Perjury Words And after issue of Not guilty pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Chibborn that the Common Law takes no notice of any such Councels and they are to meddle according to instructions and if it be not warranted therby then no Oath wherupon any remedy And therfore it was adjudged that if one say another is forsworn or perjured in Canterbury Court no action lies for we cannot take any notice of any Court in Canterbury which hath power to administer an Oath But Serjeant Harris said that this Councell of the Marches is established by 27 H 8 cap 32. and have power to examine Witnesses and to administer an Oath and is also mentioned in the Statute 5 Eliz. that Perjury committed before the Councellors of the Marches shall be punished by this Statute And the Court was of opinion that the action well lies for the Councell of Marches without innuendo is sufficient for there is no other Councell of Marches And as the Court take notice of the Court of requests for if one saies another is perjured there it is actionable so of this Court which is established by Statute and concern the King and therof the Iudges ought to take notice Iudgment for the Plaintiff And by Lord Hobart if one saies another is forsworn in the Common place an action lies Mich. 17 Jac. Bayshaw versus Walker Case AN action of the case was brought for saying Thou art a filtching Fellow and didst filtch four pounds from me And after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the words were not actionable And so the Court resolved for the word siltching is dubious and may be by Cousenage by shifting by deceit and is not Felony but by Implication and it is not good to enlarge actions for words Plaintiff Nil capiat per breve Green versus Harrington Case Assumpsit lies not for Rent PEter Green brought an action upon the case against Thomas Harrington and counts that wheras the Defendant such a day was indebted to him in ten pounds for the rent of one House and land which he had demised to him for one year then past the Defendant promised to pay it upon request and upon issue Non Assumpsit it was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Chibborn that no action lies upon this promise because it is Debt for the rent for Land and the Assumpsit is of a lesse nature as if one he indebted upon an Obligation and that being forfeited he promised to pay it no action lies for the Debt is due upon the Obligation Albanies case And the opinion of the Court accorded This was ruled in Albanies case of Lincolnâ— Inne in Banco Regis Trin. 17 Jac. Rot. 1849. Castilion versus Smith AN action of Covenant was brought by Sir Edward Castilion against Thomas Smith as Executor Covenant Iudment against Executors for Covenant broken by them shall be De bonis testatoris Iohnson and Barker a breach assigned by act done by the Executors and after Verdict it was moved if Iudgment should be De bonis propriis by reason the breach was made by the Executors And it was resolved that it should be de bonis testatoris And where the Writ is in the Detinet only there the Iudgment shall be de bonis testatoris vide the like Iudgment Hil. 33 Eliz. Rot 1143. between Johnson and Barker Pies Case PIe exhibited an Information upon the Statute of the 35 of Eliz. for converting of a house in London into many dwelling houses and upon Not guilty pleaded the Defendant is found guilty But be cause the said Statute is discontinued by the 43 Eliz Costs against an Informer and there is now no such Statute the Court upon motion in Arrest of Iudgment award that the Defendant eat inde sine die And whether the Defendant in this case shall have costs upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. was the question The words of the Statute are if any Informer willingly delay his Suit or discontinue or be non-suited or shall have the matter or the tryall passe against him by Verdict or Iudgment in Law he shal pay costs 1. Object It was objected that this Statute doth not extend but only to penall Statutes which then were in Esse Answ To which it was answered by the Court that this Statute was a perpetuall direction to all Informers 2. Object It was objected that if there be no Statute then there is no Informer 3. Object In this case Verdict is sound for the Informer and he may be presumed to be ignorant And there is no reason that he shall pay costs for default of his Councell 4. Object There is no Iudgment against him but that the Defendant eat inde sine die and that is no other then an exception in stay of Iudgment Keldridges case And a President was cited by Henden 25 Eliz. Banco Regis there upon an Information against Keldridge and another upon the Statute of 35 H. 8. for not
Plaintiff to have execution against the said Thomas Elme and so was aiding and assisting unto the said Thomas Elme Wherupon the Defendant demurred and it was adjudged by the Court that this prosecution of a Writ of Error to discharge himself of an erroneous Iudgment is no breach of the Condition no more then if the Plaintiff had released and he had brought an Audita Querela And it shall be intended in this case of a Suit to be solely commenced by the said Thomas Elme and if he will restrain him that he joyn not in a Writ of Error it ought to be precisely contained in the Condition and shall not be taken by a large Exposition to the forfeiture of an Obligation by a generall and ambiguous sentence It was urged that the Defendants had power to have severall Writs of Error 11 H 6. 9. But the Court resolved that being the Costs were joynt they ought to joyn vide Coke lib 6. fol 25. but the release of one will not bar the other vide 34 H 6. 42. 35 H 6. 10. that this Suit is in discharge of the Defendant and not to charge the Plaintiff and therfore the Condition is not broken vide Dyer 253. A Condition to suffer a Lessee quietly to enjoy the word suffer guide all the sentence in favour of the Obligor and Iudgment cannot be reversed in part and stand for the other part or be reversed against one and stand in force against the other except in speciall cases As where Infant Tenant for life and he in remainder of full age levy a Fine that shall be reversed as to the Infant and stand for the remainder for it is no other then as a Conveyance Mich. 18 Jac. Powell versus Ward AN action of the case was brought for these words Case Words I have matter enough against thee for Iohn Halden hath found forgery against thee and can prove it And after Verdict it was resolved by the Court that the words are too generall will not maintain an Action no more then if one said that another had forget a Warrant for it might be a Warrant for a Buck and this is not right Affirmative Sherley versus Underhill A Quare impedit brought by George Sherley Baronet Quare Impedit Error in Quare Impedit against Underhill and Bursey for presenting to the Vicaridge of the Church of Nether Elington and count of a Nomination as appendent to the Mannor of Elington and Issue therupon for they pretend it to be appendent to the Rectory of Elington And it was found for the Plaintiff at Warwick Assises and Iudgment there for him and a Writ to the Bishop and therupon a Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench and it was to remove a Record which was between George Sherley Knight and Baronet and the truth was that Sir George is not neither was named Knight by all the Record And therfore the opinion of the Court was that the word Knight is part of the name and so no Record was removed And it is so materiall that the addition where there is none or the omission where it is Knight makes it no such Record and they perceiving it discontinued their Writ Memorand That though Iudgment was given at the Assises the Writ of Error was directed to the Lord Hobart and the Record is demurrant in the Court of Common Berich And now it was moved that the Iudgment might be amended for it was Quod recuperet presentationem suam ad Ecclesiam praedictam And the value sound of the Church aforesaid And it should be Quod recuperet praesentationem ad vicariam Ecclesiae valorem vicariae Ecclesiae And it was urged that it was not the mis-prision of the Clerk but of the Court and Iudgment erroneous in point of Law is not amendable for if it be Quod capiatur where it should be Quod sit in miserecordia it is not amendable But it was resolved and so awarded by the Court that it should be amended And the reason is because the Verdict is generall and they found for the Plaintiff and the Iudgment ought to agree with the Verdict But it is solely mis-prise by the default of the Clerk for the Record precedent is in every part and in the Issue and Verdict Vicariam Ecclesiae And by the Statute 8 H. 6. cap. 15. that is amendable for the mis-prison of the Clerk in the Record shall be amended though it be in the Iudgment Wilde and Woolfe Mich. 33. 3â— Eliz 230. vide Dyer 258. Also Mich. 33. 34 Eliz Rot 230. between Wilde and John Woolfe Ideo considerat est quod praedictus Thomas Wild recuperet versus praedictum Thomas Woolfe where it should be John and Error was brought and it was amended Stepney and Woolfe 42 Eliz Rot 693. An action of the case by Stepney against John Morgan Woolfe Id. consid quod recuperet versus praedictum Morgan Woolfe and there was no such Defendant but John Morgan Woolfe and it was amended upon Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber And vide Coke lib 8. fol. 164. Blackamores case more cases upon this learning where the mis-prison of the Clerk in the entry of the Iudgment of a thing which is apparent and not of necessity shall be amended as in Mis-prision of the summ of Arrerages before and pending the Writ of Annuity shall be amended vide 9 Eliz Dyer 258. Mich. 18 Jac. Sir Thomas Wentworths Case Replevin SIr Thomas Wentworth brought Replevin the Defendant avowed for a Rent granted Demand of Rent with a Nomine poenae after Issue joyned upon other matter and a Nomine poenae and shews not any Demand of the Nomine poenae But the Issue was tryed and found upon other matter viz. Non concessit And now it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that he avowed for a Nomine poenae and did not alledge any demand therof yet Iudgment was given for the Avowant For it is matter confessed and the Action is a request viz. the Avowry for he is there the Actor And it is but a Circumstance collaterall to the right And in Actions upon the Case founded upon a promise after request a Licet saepius requisit shall be a sufficient Allegation of a request Davies Case Statute-Merchant without day of payment ONe Davies acknowledged a Statute-Merchant at Glocester in three hundred pounds and the Statute did not limit any day of payment and yet an Extent was sued And upon motion by Serjeant Harris a Supersedeas was awarded for that is no Statute for they had not pursued the Authority given by the Statute For the Statute of Acton Buanell 11 E. 1. saies if the Debt be not paid at the day And though Debt upon an Obligation is payable presently if the day be not expressed yet there the Statute appoint a day certain Pasch 15 Jac. Rot. 1714. Cartwright versus Underhill Trover and Conversion AN action of Trover and
Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon a new Statute and after divers terms Hall died and after the Plaintiff was non-suited without mention made of his death Tadcaster brought two Scire facias against Hobs and upon two Nihils had Iudgment Hobs brought an Audita Querela alledging the death of Hallowell before Scire facias and before Capias and it was adjudged that the Audita Querela well say and Hil 4 Jac Rot 975. between Timberley and Calverly Scire facias brought against the Bail and he pleaded that the Principall died before Capias returned against him And Iudgment upon argument given against the Plaintiff The like Iudgment between Iustice Williams and the Sureties of one Vaughan Hil. 19 Jac. Rot. 312. or 3125. Walrond versus Hill London Debt WAlrond brought an action of debt upon an Obligation of three hundred pounds against William Hill with Condition that if Thomas Harris and Elizabeth his Wife One bound to levy a Fine before such a day who shall do the first act before the end of Easter Term next shall levy a Fine before the Iustices of the Common Pleas by due course of Law to the use of the Plaintiff that then c. the Defendant pleaded that before the end of the said Easter Term the Plaintiff did not purchase any Writ of Covenant pro fine leuand wherupon a Fine might be levied according to the course of Law The Plaintiff replyed that the fifteenth of April the said Thomas for money enfeoffed another of parcel of the Land that was to be conveyed by the Fine And that the said Thomas and Elizabeth his Wife have not any Estate or Interest in the said parcell so conveyed wherof they may levy a Fine And upon this Replication the Defendant demurred And upon argument at Bar by Serjeant Harvey for the Plaintiff and Serjeant Henden for the Defendant the first question was If the Bar be good Intant que le Defendent est oblige That Thomas Harris and Elizabeth his Wife shall levy a Fine he ought to procure that to be done at his perill semble al 4 H. 7. 3 H. 6. Condition that John S. a stranger shall take Alice D. to his Wife before Mich. If I. S. refuse the Obligation is forfeited And therfore it was urged that he ought to procure a Writ of Covenant at his perill But the Lord Hobart held that the Plaintiff ought to procure the Writ of Covenant to have made himself capable of the Fine And he put this case if I. S. be obliged that I. D. shall enfeoff I.N. the Obligee such a day I. N. ought to be upon the Land or ought to make a Letter of Attorney to receive the Livery or otherwise the Obligation is not forfeited And when a Covenant is to levy a Fine he which is to do the first act c. vide Palmers case Coke lib 5. fol 127. 4 E. 3. 39. 18 E. 3. 27. 11 H. 4 18. 21 E 4. 2. The second question was whether this Obligation be ferfeited being that the said Thomas Harris had made a Bargain and Sale of part of the Land to another before so that he was disabled at the time to levy a Fine And we all agreed that the Condition was impossible and is all one as if he had disabled himself afterwards as in Maynes case Coke lib 5. 21. where the Covenant was to make a new Lease upon surrender of the former Lease there if he which ought to make the new Lease disables himself to make a new Lease and to accept of the Surrender by granting the Reversion for years he ought not to do the first act viz. Surrender but the Covenant is broken And in this case it is all one as if one who had granted the Reversion for years or for life Covenant that he upon Surrender will make a new Lease he had broken this Covenant being disabled at the time And it was said and agreed by the Court that the Fine to be levied ought to be an effectuall Fine which might operate to convey the Land according to the Covenant Burnell and Brook One case was vouched in this case to be between Burnell and Brook where the Condition was that he should acknowledge a Iudgment and a good Bar that the Plaintiff had not purchased an Originall Writ for he ought to make himself capable of Iudgment acknowledged to him vide 34 E. 1. Fitz Debt 164. A Condition that if he present the Obligee to a Benefice that then c. Though the Obliges taken Wife by which he is disabled to take it put he ought to present and offer him to the Ordinary to refuse him Vide 28 E 4. 6. where parcell of the Land was recovered yet Debt lies for entry Damages recovered in a Court of ancient Demeasn which case was then vouched but it is not much to the purpose And afterwards we all agreed that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment Hord versus Cordery A President was shewn which was thus IN the County of Wiltes Richard Hord Clerk Vicar of Chute Case brought an action upon the Case against William Cordery and Bridget his Wife and Dorothy Cox Conspiracy for one malicious confederacy of charging the Plaintiff with the felonious Raye of the said Dorothy Cox and procured him to be examined before Sir Anthony Hungerford a Iustice of Peace and therupon was bound in a Recognizance to appear at the next generall Sessions of the Peace at Devises and from thence was bound over to the Assises And there the Defendants An 15 Jac before Sir Thomas Flemming and Tanfield Iustices of Assise preferred one Bill of Indictment of their malice aforesaid and by the procurement of the said William and B. the said Dorothy shewed to the grand Inquest whether it were true or false And the Iury perceiving the malice and the falsiâ—y did not find it to be true and gave their Verdict by Ignorance Vpon Not guilty pleaded by William and Bridget and non informatus by Dorothy the Iury found for the Plaintiff and after a Writ of Error An 15 Jac and 20 marks costs for the delay Ego vidi recordum est bien pleivement aver que il ne ravish le feme est ent Hil. 10 Jac. Rot. 92. 1. 1. Trin. 20 Jac. Hawkins versus Cutts HAwkins brought an action upon the case against Cutts Case and declared that he was of good Fame c. and for the space of eight years last past had used the Art and Mystery of a Baker Pandopatoritae and had gained his living by buying and selling the Defendant said of him He is a Bankrupt Knave And not guilty Words it was found for the Plaintiff And in Arrest of Iudgment it was moved that it is not shewn that he was a common Baker neither had used the Trade but used the Art and Mystery of a Baker And there is as Serjeant Hobart said as much skill
and art used by Bakers of Bread in private mens houses as by common Bakers And every â—ooman which bake in private if she be a good Housewife use the art and mystery of a Baker And if a man had said generally that he had gained his living by buying and selling and not shewn what Trade he had used it is not good Therfore the Trade ought to be alledged and so sufficiently that the Court may judge him such a person as is within the Statute of Bankrupts Also Winch said that it is not alledged that he gained his living by buying and selling any thing which concerne his Trade And I was of the same opinion and relyed upon the case of 11 H. 4. 45. An nation upon the case against an Inn. keeper and shewed that he was lodged there and his Horse was stoln And the Defendant pleaded a plea that he delivered to him the Key of the Stable c. And by the Court the Writ shall abate because he did not shew that he was a common Hostler And therfore Iudgment arrested And the Court agreed that if the Count were good the words would maintain an action for a Baker is a Trade mentioned in the Statute 5 Eliz. but it ought to be a Common Baker Trin. 20 Jac. Whiteguift versus Eldersham Second deliverance JOhn Whiteguift brought a Writ of second deliverance against Richard Eldersham for taking of his Cattle at Clanding in quodam loco vocat Corles Paud. The Defendant makes Conuzance as Bayliff to Sir Francis Barrington because that the place c. was parcell of the Mannor of Curles and that John Curles was seised before the time Avowry c. therof and held it of Sir Francis Berrington as of his Mannor of Clanding by Knights servies viz. by Homage Fealty survitium scuti and by the Rent of ten pounds payable yearly at two Feasts of which Rent the said Sir Francis was seised by the hands of the said John Whiteguift as by the hands of his very Tenant in his Demsn as of sea and Avow put Homage infect wherupon the Plaintiff demur And shew for cause that the Defendant had not shewn any Title to have Homage of the said John and that the Cognizance is repugnant and no sufficient Seisin alledged of the Services and that the shewing of the Seisin is not formall vide Bevils case Coke lib 4. fol 6. Seisin of Rent is the Seisin of the Services and he might have traversed the Tenure and the other party ought to shew whether he had done Homage before vide 44 E. 3. 41. when an Avowry is upon the Baron for the Homage of the Feme it is sufficient Avowry without shewing that he had Issue by her and yet if he had not Issue he could not avow upon the Baron but that ought to come on the other party vide 5 E. 2. Fitz. Avowry 209. A man avow for Homage and alledge Seisin of Esenage without Homage and good And after upon motion this Term Iudgment was entred for the Defendant Trin. 20 Jac. Sherwells Case MAry Sherwell brought a Writ of Dower Dower and in But therto it was pleaded that the Father of the Husband of the Demandant was seised of one house and sixty acres of Land in Fire and made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life and after to the use of the Husband and the said Mary for their lives Joynture which bars Dower for the Ioynture of the said Mary the remainder to their Heirs And that afterward the Father died in the life of the Husband and aftre the Husband died And adjudged that this is no Ioynture to bar Dower according to the opinion in Varnons Case because that the Estate of the Wife at the Commencement take not effect immediatly after the death of the Husband Et quod abinitio non valet tractu temporis non convalefeit And if a Feoffment to the use of the Baron for life the remainder to I. S. for years remainder to the Feme for her Ioynture this is not a Ioynture he bar Dower Trin. 20 Jac. Francis Curle versus James Cookes AN action of the case was brought and Count Case that the King by his Letters Patents An 12 Jac. reciting the Statute of 31 H. 8. for erecting of the Court of Wards and the Officers therof and that two persons shall be named by the King and his Successors who shall be Auditors of the Land of the Kings Wards And reciting the Statute of 33 H. 8. for the making of the Master of the Wards and Liveries and his power had made him the Plaintiff one of his Auditors and granted to him the Fees due and accustomed to be had and 40. Marks fee and gave power to him as one of his Auditors according to the said Statute and to exercise it with the Fees in as ample a manner as others had used And averred that at the time of the Patent made and at all times after the erection of the said Court the Auditors had engrossed all the Accounts of the Feodaries and that they had taken therfore two shillings and shewed that he was sworn and exercised that Office and shewed the Oath specially and that he had by vertue therof ingrossed divers Accounts of the Feddaries and had taken therfore two shillings and that the Defendant having conference with the Plaintiff concerning his Office and his bone gesture therin said to him You have received money for ingrosement of Feodaries innuendo the said Fees for ingrosement of the Accounts of the Receivers Feodaries and other Officers aforesaid which I will prove is Cousenage And then and there spoke further You are a Couseâ—er innuendo the said Francis decepisse Dominum Regem 8. subditor in executione officii praedicti and you live by Cousenage deceptionem dicti Domini Regis subditorum shorum in executione officii ful Non Culp verdict pro Plaintiff and Damages thirty three pounds It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Attho that first it is alledged that the Fee of two shillings is lawfull and that he said You have received monies for ingrossement of Feodaries which I will prove is Cousenage innuendo the Fees aforesaid which are lawfull and then by his own shewing it is not Cousenage 2. It is insensible Ingrossements of Feodaries for they cannot be ingrossed but their Accounts 3. That Ad tunc ibidem for the other words are for other words spoken at another time of the same day and they are not actionable for they do not relate to his Office Also the words will not maintain action for the word Cousenage is generall and of an ambiguous interpretation and therfore no action lies for that And he resembled it to Sir Edmund Stanhops case He hath but one Mannor and hath got it by swearing and forswearing Midlemore and Warlow And to the Case of Midlemore and Warlow An. 30 Eliz. Thou art a cousening Knave and hast cousened me
are not Affirmative or Positive but a supposition only as if he had said Nowels case I will indite him for such a matter it was vouched to be adjudged 51 Eliz. in Nowels case that to say of an Attornaâ—â— That he was Cooped for forging Writs maintain an action And 14 Eliz. He is infected of the Robbery and he smelleth of the Robbary adjudged actionable In balls case There is never a Purse cut in Northamptonshire but Ball hath a part of it will not bear action But the Court would not declare their opinion Quia sub spe Concordiae Griggs Case GRigg which is the Examiner at Chester preferred there this Bill in the Chancery vocat the Exchequer Prohibition â—i Chester against one which inhabite within the same County and another which inhabite in London being executors to one to whom the said Grigg was indebted by Obligation which Obligation was put in suit in the Court of Common Pleas and there proceed to processe before the Bill exhibited and the Bill concern equity of an Agreement that the Testator had promised that one Robert Grigg should assign a lease of Tithes to the Plaintiff in consideration of his entry into the said Obligation and if he could not procure it that then the Obligation should not be prejudiciall to him and he which was distributing in Chester answered therto And an Order was made by Sir Thomas Ireland Vice-Chamberlain that Processe should be awarded to him which dwelleth in London And an Inquisition was granted to stay the proceedings at Common Law And afterwards upon the motion of Serjeant Hitcharâ— Sir Thomas Ireland was in Court and shew all that he could to maintain the Iurisdiction viz. That the Contract was made in the County Palatine and that the priviledge pursued the Plaintiff and ipse qui est reus non potest eligere c. Yet it was resembled to ancient Demesn and Guildable And by Lord Hobart he which inhabit at Doveâ— by this way may be inforced to come and answer to a Bill in Chester which would be infinite trouble and the matter is transitory And it was resolved that the Court of Chester had not power in this case but it belonged to the Chancery of England And a Prohibition was granted Hil. 20 Jac. ONe case was in the Kings Bench viz. Trespasse Baron and Feme brought in action of Trespasse Quare clausum fregit Trespasse by Baron and Feme for breaking the Close of the Baron for the Battery of the Wife and for Battery of the Feme the Defendant pleaded a License to enter into the Close made by the Baron and not guilty as to the Battery And the Court was moved in Arrest of Iudgment because the Husband and Writ could not ioyn for the weaking of the Close of the Baron the Writ shall abate for all But the Lord chief Iustice and Iustice Dodderidge were of opinion that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment And it seems that the Law is clear accordingly vide 9 E 4. 51. Trespasse by the Husband and Wife for the Battery of them both the Iury found so much for the Battery of the Husband and so much for the Battery of the Wife and so Damages assessed severally because the Wife could not soon with the Husband in an action for the Battery of the Husband for that part the Writ shall abate and for the Battery of the Wife they shall recover for for that they ought or joyn in an action vide 46 E 3. 3. Baron and Feme brought Trespasse for the Battery and Imprisonment of the Wife and the Writ was ad damnum ipsorum and yet good vide 9 H 7. in the case of Rescous and 22 E 4. 4. there is a good diversity when the Writ is falsified by the shewing of the party himself and when it is found by Verdict And Iustice Haughton and Iustice Chamberlain were of opinion that the Writ should abate for it is apparent that as to the Trespasse Quare clausum fregit the Wife had no cause of action But this case being debated at Serjeants Inn in Chancery Lane at the Table the Lord chief Baron was of opinion that Plaintiff should have Iudgment for that part and he held the Writ good in part and Reddenda singula singulie Meâ—enest issint as it seems no more then in the case of 9 E 4. for there the Writ shall avate for part And if an action of forgery of Deeds be brought against two for forging and publishing and found that one forged and the other published the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment Howell versus Auger Trespasse IN an action of Trespasse brought by Noy Howell against Auger for breaking of a house and five acres of Land in Fresham upon Non Culp pleaded the Iury gave a speciall Verdict Devise of a Fee after a Fee Robert Howell seised of the Land in Question and of other Land by his Will in writing devised this Land to Dorothy his Wife for life and devised this Land to Thomas Howell his younger Son to him and his Heirs in Fee under the Condition which shall be afterwards declared And the other Land was also devised to Dorothy for life and to the Plaintiff and his Heirs in Fee under the Condition hereafter limited If Dorothy died before the Legacies paid then he will that they shall be paid by Noy and Thomas his Sons portion-like out of the Houses and Lands given them And if either of my Sons dye before they enter or before the Legacies paid or before either of them enter Then I will that the longer liver shall enjoy both parts to him and his Heirs And if both dye before they enter then his Executors or one of them to pay the Legacies and to take the profits till they be paid and a year after and made Dorothy his Wife and Christopher Roys his Executors and died Dorothy entred the Plaintiff Noy by his Deed In 33 Eliz. in the life of Dorothy released to Thomas all his right c. with Warranty Release of Lands devised before they be vested Thomas by his Will devised the Land for which the action is brought to Agnes his Wife and died in the life of Dorothy and before Legacies paid Dorothy died and Agnes entred and took to Husband Henry Ayleyard who leased to the Defendant upon whom Noy entred and the Defendant re-entred And Si super totam Materiam c. And this Case was well argued at Bar in two Terms and the first question was If this Devise of a Fes after a Limitation be good or not much was said for it and they relyed upon a case which was adjudged in the Kings Bench between Pell and Brown of such a limitable Fee Pell and Brown And many Cases put that this operate as a future Devise Executory as well as one may by his Will Devise that if his Son and Heir dye before he marry or before that he come to the age of
Demandant proceeds with the Issue And at the Nisi prius the Tenant relying upon the Non-suit it appeared not by whom the Petit Cape is awarded And now upon motion by Serjeant Henden who relyed upon the Non-suit and that the Essoin was allowable by the Statute of Westminster 2. post exitum habeat unicam Essoniam but it was ruled and the Prothonatories all said that it had been the constant use that no Essoins are allowed in Dower which is festinum remedium vide Stat. 12 E 2. cap 1. hath tolled the Essoin of the Service of the King in many cases and given to the Demandant in many cases power ad callumpniand Essoniam And the words of the Statute are Non jacet in breve de dote quia videtur deceptio prorogatio juris vide Dyer 324. There after the Issue joyned Essoin at the day of the Venire facias though no Venire facas be sued out but only awarded upon the Roll. Mich. 21 Jac. Linleys Case An Information against an under Sheriff for taking of 30 s for making of a Warrant upon a Capias ad satisfaciendum AN Information was exhibited against Linley under Sheriff to Sir Gny Palmes Sheriff of York vpon the Statute 32 H 6 and it was shewn that he being under Sheriff a Capias ad satisfaciendum was delivered to him to Arrest one Francis Lancaster upon a Iudgment for a hundred and three pounds The Defendant Colore officii took of the Plaintiff thirty shillings for making of a Warrant upon this Writ against the form of the Statute wherby he hath forfeited forty pounds Vpon not guilty pleaded and Verdict against the Defendant it was alledged in arrest of Iudgment that the making of a Warrant upon a Capias ad satisfaciendum which is for Execution is not within the Statute because the Statute speaks first of Fees to be taken upon the Arrest of the party when he is bailed viz. twenty pence to the Sheriff and four pence to the Baily then appoints that the Sheriff lets to Bail every one that is taken upon Bill or Plaint besides them which are taken for execution Outlawry c. and then comes the clause That nothing shall be taken for making of any Precept or Warrant but four pence and provision for the Obligation Condition and Fee and that all Obligations taken by any Sheriff Colore officii that these shall be void and that for every offence committed against the Statute he shall forfeit forty pounds The Lord Hobart inclined that this making of the Warrant upon the Capias ad satisfaciendum and the taking of thirty shillings is within this Statute and he resembled it to Dive and Maninghams case in Plowden where an Obligation taken of one in Execution is void by this Statute vide that the clause in this Statute for the Obligation is absolute without any restraint but that all obligations taken by colour of his Office with any other Conditions are made void This taking of thirty shillings for making of a Warrant upon a Capias ad satisfaciendum is extortion at the Common Law for which he may be indited but whether it be within this Statute or no is doubtfull Another Exception was taken to this Information That it doth not appear by this that this Writ of Capias was directed to the Sheriff of York or to any other Sheriff And then admitting this to be a Capias ad satisfaciendum directed to the Sheriff of Lincoln and it is delivered by an ignorant hand to the Sheriff of York to make a Precept therupon and he makes a Precept and takes thirty shillings this is not within the Statute also Colore officii will not serve for it is generall and it ought to be shewn that it was a Capias and to whom it was directed And although that all Processe should be generally directed to the Sheriff yet some may be to the Coroners or some by the mis-prision of the Clerks may be omitted as Jacobus Dei gratia c. tibi precipimus and say not Vice-Comiti Eboracensi salutem And an Information ought to be certain to all common intents and it is like to an Indictment And in an action upon the case against an Attorney because that he Corruptive and in deceit of the Plaintiff and in his name had acknowledged satisfaction to his damage and saies not wheras Revera non fuit satisfactus that is not good And the Court was of opinion for this cause that the Plaintiff should not have his Iudgment Bickner versus Wright AN action upon the case was brought by Richard Bickner against John Wright Case Prescription for the making of a Cony-borough in damage of his Common The Plaintiff prescribe to have Common omni tempore anni and saies not Quolibet anno And after Verdict adjudged good Trin. 22 Jac. Goldenham versus Some GGoldenham brought a Writ of Dower against John Some Dower Judgment in Dower upon Voucher who vouched the Heir of the Husband who entred into the Warranty and said that he had no Assets The Demandant had Iudgment for her Dower because nothing is said to the contrary against the Tenant with a Cesset executio untill the Warranty be determined And the Tenant which vouched when the tryall was at Assises made default but it was said that it should be the default of the Vouchee for he was dead before the Assises And now it was moved that the Demandant might have execution And by Henden it was said that the Voucher is not determined for he might vouch the Heir of the Vouchee But it seemed that the Voucher was determined and that he shall have the benefit of his Warranty by Scire facias out of the Iudgment but the Court doubted if the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment against the Vouchee conditionally if he had Assets if not against the Tenant or absolutely vide 3 H 6. 17. Dyer 202. there it is conditionall vide Dyer 256. there the Iudgment is against the Tenant upon Vouchee of the Heir in Ward to the King and that presently with a Cesset executio vide 46 E 3. 25. If the Vouchee be Counter-pleaded the Demandant shall have Iudgment presently vide 48 E 3. 5. Br Voucher 38. the Iudgment shall be against the Heir conditionally which is vouched in Dower vide 2 H 4. 8. there upon the Voucher of the Heir which makes default upon the Summons sequatur suo periculo the Iudgment is against the Heir conditionally if not against the Tenant and so Iudgment against one not party to the Suit and which never appeared And in this case the Iudgment against the Tenant with a Cesset executio may be good because that it doth not appear by any of their Pleas but that the Demandant is confessed to have her Dower none of them say that he is ready to render her Dower as the Heir ought when he enter into the Warranty This Term Serjeant Finch moved the case
Yelverton and I were opinion that the Debt is gone for it is at the suit of the King and Iudgment is given for the King And there shall be an answer to the King And we relyed upon the cases vouched by the Lord Coke but Iustice Harvey and Crook to the contrary And upon conference with all the Iustices of Serjeants Inne it was resolved that this action was at the suit of the party for he might be Non-suited vide 25 H 8. Br. Non-suit that the Informer may be Non-suited vide 6 E. 2. Fitz Non-suit 13. when the Iury come again to deliver their Verdict the King cannot discharge them and be Non-suited and the King cannot discharge this action And his Attorney reply not as in an Information Clotworthy versus Clotworthy Amendments Debt SImon Clotworthy brought an action of Debt against John C. Cosin and Heir of Bartholmew C. And the Imparlance Roll is Quod cum praedictus B. cujus consanguineus heres idem Johannes est viz. filius Johannis Clotworthy fratris praedicti B. C. And upon the Plea Roll upon which Iudgment is given this space was perfected and Iudgment for the Plaintiff and now the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and it was moved to be amended And if the Imparlance Roll shall be amended which is the foundation of the subsequent Rolls is the question For it is commonly holden that the Plea Roll shall he amended by the Imparlance but not e converso Hil. 18 Jac. Rot. 67â— Walker versus Worsley Amendments WAlker brought an action of Debt against Worsley Debt as Son and Heir of Thomas W. in the Imparlance Roll which was entred Mich 18 Jac Rot 576. the words which bind the Heir were omitted viz. Ad quam quidem solutionem obligasset se Heredes suos but they were in the Plea Roll And after Iudgment that was assigned for Error in the Kings Bench and it was amended in the Common Bench by the Court vide there that it was by the fault and mis-prision of the Clerk who had the Obligation and so amendable by the Statute of 8 H 6. cap 15. 1. Hil. 9 Jac. Rot. 516. Govard versus Dennet GOvard against Dennet and Iudgment and the name of the Attorney viz. Henry was omitted in the Imparlance Roll and it was in the Plea Roll Henry and after Error brought it was amended Mich. 16 Jac. Rot. 581. Arrowsmith's Case THe Imparlance Roll Trin 16 Jac Rot 1727. Debt for three hundred pounds against Arrowsmith for part sur emisset and the other part sur in simul computasset And in the Imparlance Roll both parcells did not amount to three hundred pounds but wanted six pounds therof and after Error brought it was amended Pasch 12 Jac. Rot. 420. Godhow versus Bennet REplevin by Godhow against Bennet divers spaces in the Imparlance Roll were supplyed in the Plea Roll after Verdict Hil. 12 Jac. Rot. 420. Parker versus Parker THe Imparlance Roll was Mich 12 Jac Rot 547. Parker against Parker in Trover and Conversion the Imparlance Roll wanted the day and year of the possession and conversion but the Issue Roll was after the Verdict and motion in Arrest of Iudgment amended Mich. 2 Car. Crocker versus Kelsey JOhn Canterson and Agnes his Wife Tenants in speciall tail had Issue a Son Lease made by Feme in speciall tail viz. John and John the Father died John the Son levied a Fine with Proclamations to the use of himself in Fee Agnes leased to John Herring and Margaret his Wife Lessors to the Plaintiff for one and twenty years rendring Rent c. by vertue wherof they entred Agnes died John the Son entred and afterward the said John Herring and Margaret his Wife entred And the said John the Son made his Will in writing and by that devised the Land to Kelsey the Defendant and another in Fee and died John Herring and Margaret leased to Crocker the Plaintiff who entred and being ousted by Kelsey brought Ejectione firmae And this speciall Verdict being found Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and now affirmed upon Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber Mich. 2 Car. Franklin versus Bradell FRanklin a Woman servant brought an action upon the case upon a promise against John Bradell Consideration in an Assumpsit ex post facto And count that wheras she had served the Defendant and his Wife and done to them loyall service the Defendant after the death of his Wife in consideration of the service which the Plaintiff had done to the Defendant and his Wife promised to pay her thirteen shillings four pence upon request and alledged request and non-payment And after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment upon the Book of 13 Eliz. Dyer that this is no sufficient consideration because that it is not alledged that the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant had served him Also it was not sufficient because that it was done after the service performed And it was answered that it was a good consideration and that the service was to the benefit of the Defendant And therfore in consideration that the Plaintiff had married the Daughter of the Defendant he promise to pay twenty pounds it is a good consideration and so in consideration that you have been my surely to such a man for such a Debt I promise to save you harmlesse And in consideration that the Plaintiff was Baile for the Defendant he promised to give him a Horse this is good And in consideration that I.S. being a Carpenter had well built my house I promise to give him five pounds And Iudgment for the Plaintiff Hil. 2 Car. Hearne versus Allen. Entred 22 Jac Rot 1875. Oxford 1. RIchard Hearne brought an Ejectione firmae against John Allen Ejectione firmae for two acres of Land in Langham upon a Lease made by Anne Keene which was the Wife of Edward Keene and upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was found Richard Keene was seised of an house in Chippin-norton Devise and of two acres of Land there in Fee and of two acres of Meadow in Langham in Fee used with the said Messuage which were holden in Socage And by his Will in writing dated the 20. May 30 Eliz. he devised the said house Cuni omnibus singulis ad inde pertinentibus vel aliquo modo spectantibus to Tho. K. and his Heirs for ever And for want of Heirs of him the said Thomas then to one Anne K. the Daughter of the Devisor and her Heirs for ever And for default c. then to Iohn K. his Cosin and his Heirs for ever And by the same Will devised his Goods and all his Lands to Eliz. his Wife during her Widow-hood and died Elizabeth his Wife entred Thomas the Son entred upon the Wife and disseised her and having enfeoffed one Edward K. in Fee died and Tho. K. also died without Issue Edward K. by his Will devised
it is not deminâ—tion of his Honor to be sworn concerning that which he would not have to be put upon his Honor. Also it is a good Rule Testi non jurato non est credend in judicio And Princes are sworn to all their Leagues and Confederacies which is called Jeramâ—ntum confirmationis Hil. 2 Car. Winsmore versus Hobart Trin. 27 Eliz. Rot. 850. Wilts IN an Ejectione firmae brought by Thomas Winsmore against Michaâ—l Hobart upon a Lease made by Edward Long the Iury gave a speciall Verdict Habendum to parties not named in the Deed. William Lord Sturton seised of the Tenements in the Count in Fee by Indenture demised them to Thomas Hobart habendum to the said Thomas Hobart and to the said Michael Hobart Iohn Hobart and Henry Hobart Sons of the said Thomas for their lives and the life of the Survivor of them successively By vertue wherof the said Thomas entred and was seised for life And the Lord Sturton granted the Reversion to Thomas Long in Fee to whom Thomas Hobart attorned Thomas Long devised it to Edward Long in tail Edward Long died seised and the Reversion descended to Edward his Son the Lessor of the Plaintiff Thomas Hobart and Henry died Michael and Iohn survived Michael entred Thomas Long entred upon him and made a Lease to the Plaintiff who entred and was possessed untill the Defendant ousted him And Judgment was given for the Plaintiff The Habendum was void as to all them which were not parties to the Deed. Pasch 3. Car. Hartox and Cock's Case Entred Pasch 2 Car. Rot. 1761. Hertf. A Quare Impedit was brought by George Hartox and Cocks against the Bishop of Lincoln Advowson in grosse for life Lord Keeper of the great Seal Mary Hewes and David Dublin Clark for the Church of Essington The Issue being joyned by the Incumbent upon the Appendancy the Evidence given to the Plaintiff to prove it was such Henry 6. was seised of the Mannor in Fee and granted it to Mary his Consort for life Habendum una cum advocatione of the said Church The Queen Mary presented and after there was a Presentment by Laps then the said Queen presented again And afterwards Edward the fourth seised of the said Mannor presented and then Henry the seventh and Henry the eighth And the King Edward the sixth granted the Mannor and other Mannors and the Advowson to Sir Iohn Pawlet in Fee reserving Tenure in Capite for the Maonnrs and Socage Tenure for the Advowson And the said Sir Iohn Pawlet granted the Mannor and the Advowson to William Tooke in Fee who presented the last Incumbent and under this Title the Plaintiffs entitle themselves The Defend said that the said Wil. Took was seised of the said Advowson and it defended to William Tooke the Son and granted the next avoidance and it came to Mary Hâ—wes who presented the Defendant Dublin and the Evidence to prove that it was in grosse was Henry the third being seised in Fee of the Mannor of Essinton made a Lease therof to his Brother for life and excepted the Advowson and then upon the expressing of the Advowson upon the Grant of Edward the sixth and the reservation of severall Tenures And this was their Evidence And Serjeant Henden maintained that by this exception of the Advowson when it was granted for life made it to be in grosse for ever And he vouched 38 H 6. 13. Quare Impedit by the King against the Abbey of Sion and the Incumbent there by the Exception of the Advowson it was become in grosse and there one said at least during the Estate for life and that is all which is implyed by the Book for the Iudgment is for the King because that it being not appendant is passed not by the Grant by the Habendum una cum c. And though that the Court unement agreed that it is but in grosse for the Estate for life and that it is all one as if the King had granted the Advowson which is appendant for life and the Grantee dies and the Advowson is appendant again and yet he insisted and persisted to have a speciall Verdict found therupon And I moved my Brother Yelverton that before we admit of a speciall Verdict as it hath been used in former times to go to the Iudges of the Kings Bench and to put the case to them to know their opinion and when he came again and declared it we put it upon the Iury to try the matter and they came in and found for the Plaintiff And after that the Demurrer which was joyned for the other Defendant Mary was by consent entred for the Plaintiff vide Dyer 34 in appeal vide 7 H. 6. 37. Chidley's Case CHidley brought a Quid juris clamat and had Iudgment against the Defendant and the Plaintiff had made a Warrant to his Attorney for the receiving of his Attornment Quid juris clamat and the Defendant would have attorned but would not do his Fealty And the Presidents were that he ought to be sworn in Court and the entry of the Iudgment is that he did attorn And fecit fidelitatem and so he was sworn in Court vid. 37 H 6. 14. If he refuse to attorn being in Court he shall be committed for contempt Moyle said that that is Attornment but Prisot said that he should not have a Writ of Wast nor arraign an Assise untill he assent Trin. 3 Car. Rot. Humbleton versus Buck. Lincoln SImon Humbleton brought an action upon the case against Buck Case Assumpsit in consideration of defending Suit in maintenance of a Title of Common and counted that wheras a Controversie was between the Inhabitants and Tenants of Fletam and one Palmer for and concerning the having of Common in one parcell of Land which was a Sea-bank in which they had Common of Pasturs for taking by Cattell and also by taking and cutting the Grasse And wheras the said Palmer had brought an action of Trespasse against the now Plaintiff for entry made by him in the said close and for taking his Grasse pretending that the said Land in which he claimed Common was his severall and free from their claim of Common the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff had given to him a Iugg of Beer and that he at the request of the Defendant would prosecute and defend â—he said Suit for the maintenance of their Common against the said Palmer untill the determination therof he promised to pay to the Plaintiff one moyety of his charges and over and besides twenty pounds and that therupon he defended the said Suit and pleaded Not guilty and at the tryall therof Palmer was non-suited and that that was for the maintenance of the Common and that he expended in defence and prosecution of the said Suit forty pounds The Defendant confessed all the Inducement and also a promise sub modo and sayd that the said Palmer had brought Trespasse to which the Plaintiff had
pleaded Not guilty absque hoc that the said suit and tryall was for the said Common And Issue being joyned it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages to twenty pounds And in Arrest of Iudgment it was moved that now it appears that it was not for the maintenance of the Title of Common that it could not be for the tryall therof because he did not plead the Title of Common which had been the proper apt way for the tryall therof And when the Iury find that which is contrary and repugnant to Law that is repugnant and not good And this case was strongly argued by Serjeant Davenport in Arrest of Iudgment and by Attho for the having of Iudgment And first he said That although there was a Parlance and Communication concerning the Common yet the promise is to defend this action brought by Palmer and is pro defentione of the Common not generally but against Palmer and the promise is to pay the Moyety of the Charges if he prosecute the said Suit untill the determination therof so that if it had been found against the now Plaintiff the now Defendant ought to have paid the Moyety of the said charges And it is not agreed that he shall plead title by Prescription for the Common but that he should prosecute it untill the determination of the Suit for the maintenance of the Common And the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff for it might be for the maintenance of their Common against Palmer for if he had not the Soil therof but had inclosed it as part of his Wasts the Plaintiff could not plead the Title to Common without admitting the Soil and Free-hold to be in Palmer And if one had been of councell and to advise a Plea if he had not discovered that Palmer had no Title he would have advised him to have pleaded Not guilty for if the said Palmer had no Title to the Soil which the now Plaintiff could not know it should be found against him and so this Plea might have been in maintenance of Common And the Lord Richardson who at first doubted now concurred and sayd that he was fully satisfied Trin 3. Car. Chapman versus Chapman Debt REbecca Chapman brought an action of Debt against Henry Chapman upon an Obligation with Condition to perform the Covenants contained in certain Indentures The Defendant pleaded a generall performance the Plaintiff replyed and shewed that she made a Lease to the Defendant of certain Cole-pits rendring eighty pounds Rent and that the Defendant did not pay the Rent at the day Obligation conditioned for the payment of Rent demand is not necessary to be alledged after generall performance pleaded wherupon the Defendant demurred And it was adjudged upon Argument for the Plaintiff but the matter upon which the Defendant justified came not in question viz. If the Plaintiff ought to have demanded the Rent And that the Obligation had not altered the nature of the Rent it being generall to perform all Covenants and the reason is apparent for when the Defendant plead performance of all the payments that is intended an actuall payment for he cannot now rejoyn that he made tender for that shall be a departure from his Plea And that was the reason of the Iudgment which was Pasch 43 Eliz. between John Specot Plaintiff Specot and Shere and Emanuel Shere Defendant upon the like case in debt upon an Obligation wheras the Defendant had granted an Annuity or Rent of six and twenty shillings eight pence to the Plaintiff for one and twenty years the Condition was that if the said Shere perform all the Covenants c. conteined in the said Writing so that the Plaintiff may enjoy the Rent according to the intent therof then c. the Defendant recited the Deed and pleaded performance the Plaintiff replyed that the Defendant had not paid the said eight and twenty shillings eight pence upon such a Feast wherupon the Defendant demurred and adjudged for the Plaintiff And the Lord Coke in his private Book as the Lord chief Baron said had shewn this reason If the Defendant had pleaded specially That he was upon the Land and ready to pay and to make tender but the Plaintiff did not come to demand it then the Plaintiff ought to shew that he did demand it which seems to be agreed 14 E 4. 4. 2 H. 6. 57. 11 E 4. 10. 21 E 4 42. but Brook 6 E 6. Tender makes this diversity when the Condition is expressed to pay the Rent that alters the nature of the Rent But otherwise when it is to perform Covenants And the Iudgment given in the Kings Bench was affirmed Trin. 3 Car. Stephens versus Oldsworth IN a Quare Impedit brought by Stephens and Cross against Oldsworth and Holmes for the Church of Lechamseed the Incumbent pleaded Quare Impedit Tenure that he was Parson Imparsonee to the Church of the presentation of the King and confessed the Seisin of Sir Anthony Greenwood under whom by the grant of the next avoidance the Plaintiffs claim but said that the said Sir Anthony held the said Mannor of the King per redditum ac wardam Castri Dower to be paid yearly 8 s. 1 d. ob q. And among other matters which I omit it was resolved that it was Socage Tenure for a Rent for Castleguard is Socage vide Littleton 26. Coke lib 4. fol 6. 5 E 4. fol. 128. F.N.B. 256. a Mich. 3 Car. Young versus Young Formedon in Descender Act of Court shall be amended IN a Formedon in the Descender brought by Young against Young the Demandant was within age and was admitted to prosecute by his Guardians and that appears by a generall admittance before Iustice Jones And this admittance was first entred in the remembrance of Gulstons Office and afterwards in the Plea Roll And the Demandant which is admitted by the Court viz. per Guardianos ad hoc per Curiam admissus and there the Concessit per Curiam quod prosequatur per Gardianos is entred and so is the Roll upon the View And in the Philizers Roll the recitall is That the Demandant per Gardianos admissus obtulit se And in this Roll the Concessit per curiam of admitting the Demandant to prosecute by his Guardian is not entred And after Verdict and Iudgment for the Demandant a Writ of Error was brought and that assigned for Error And it was moved that it might be entred upon the Philizers Roll. And it was resolved by all the Court that it should be supplyed and entred upon the Philizers Roll and the principall reason was because that this admittance by his Guardians is the act of the Court and not like to the entry of the Warrant of Attorney nor to the Essoin Roll vide Dyer 330. otherwise it is of Admission by Prochein ami Where an Infant ought to appeare by Gardian and where by Prochein amy vide Rawlins case Coke lib. 4. fol 53. The
Defendants disturbed her The said Bishop died and the Defendant plead that he is parsona imparsonata ex presentatione Domini Regis nunc And said that Sir Thomas Chichley was seised in Fee of the said Advowson and also of the Mannor of Preston and divers other Lands in the County of Cambridge which Mannors and Lands were holden of King James in Capite by Knights-service and being so seised he died and that this Advowson and the Mannor descended to Thomas Chichley his Son and Heir who at the time of his death was within age And that afterwards by force of a Writ of Diem clausit extremum this matter was found wherby the King seised the body and was possessed of the Mannor and of the Advowson and that the said King James died the King which now is suscepit regimen hujus regni and was possessed and the Church became void And the King by his Letters Patents under the great Seal presented the Defendant Thompson and traversed the Grant made by Sir Thomas Chichley to Thomas East and Edward Anger of the said Advowson as the Plaintiff had alledged The Plaintiff replyed protestandâ— that the Defendant is not Parson Imparsonee and that the Plea is insufficient Pro placito dicit quod non habetur aliquod tale recordum talis inquisionis post mortem praedicti Thomae Chichley militis modo forma prout wherupon the Defendant demurred And after many Arguments at Baâ— by Attho Henden Davenport and Hedley it was adjudged for the Defendant And that the Title of the Plaintiff being traversed brought to have been maintained and not to traverse other matter alledged by the Defendant for Traverse upon Traverse is only when the matter traversed is but Inducement Also it appears fully that the King is entituled to this Presentation though there was not any Office vide 21 E 4. 14 H 7. and then all the Titles of the King should be answered and therfore the deniall of the Office is not materiall for if he dies seised the King may present without Office vide Bendoes case 21 Eliz Rot 1378. Crachford against Gregory Lord Dacren when the King is entituled by Office to an Advowson though the very Title be in a stranger yet if the Church be void and he which hath Title present this is but Vsurpation Vide 17 H 7. Kel 43. 11 H. 8. ibid. fol. 200. vide 21 E 4. 1. 5 E 4. 3. or 13. of things which lye in Grant the King is in actuall possession Crachfords case 20 E 4. 11. Stamf. fol 54. 2. R 3. issue 7. 28. 23 H 8. Kel 97. new Book of Entries fol 130. vide there that Traverse is allowed to be taken upon Traverse vide for that 9 H 7. 9. 10 E â— 49. Dyer 107. 10 E 4. 2. 3. 6 E. 3. â— When two Titles appear for the King as here the dying seised of the Advowson of Sir Thomas C. who also died seised of the Mannor of Preston holden in Capite that is a good Title and the Office found is another Title and â—oth ought to be answered in case of the King vide for that matter 37 H 6. 6. 24 H 3. 27. 46. E. 3 25 9 H 6. 37. 39 H 2. 4. 40 E 3. 11. In case of severall charges to the King although the King be not party yet they ought to be answered Hedley Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that the presentment of the King tolls all the right of the Plaintiff and therfore only ought to be answered and he ought not to traverse the Title of the Plaintiff which by the Plea was toll'd but notwithstanding that he answered not the dying seised of the Advowson and the Tenure by which the King is intituled upon the Office and therfore all is one And the Plaintiff had waved his Title and not maintained it And therfore Iudgment was given for the Defendant Pasch 4 Car. Congham's Case Rescous by the Plaintiff in the primer action IN an action upon the Case against Congham and his Wife That wheras the Plaintiff hath recovered in Debt against one and had a Writ of Capias ad satisfaciendum directed to the Sheriff of Cambridgeshire and the Sheriff had arrested the party and had him in Execution for the Debt the Defendants rescued the party and he escaped Vpon Not guilty pleaded the Feme was found guilty of the Rescous And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Aleph that this action lies not because that Debt lies against the Sheriff And the Sheriff shall have an action for the Rescous vide F N B. 102. And properly this action of Rescous lies where it is upon mean processe and that is for the delay by the Rescous and damage may be greater or lesser accordingly And the Rescous is according to the condition of him which is arrested for if he may be easily taken again and that he becomes not more poor that then the damage is the lesse vide 16 E 4. fol. 3. But after divers motions at Bar Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And the Lord Richardson held strongly that it lies And this Tort may be punisht at the Suit of the party who had damage therby viz. the party the Sheriff or Baily And Harvey and Crook agreed but Yelverton and my self doubted therof because that it is an immediate wrong to the Sheriff or Baily and the party had no prejudice in common presumption because that his action is transferred to the Sheriff who hath more ability to satisfie him Farrington versus Caymer LIonell Farrington qui tam pro se quam pro c. brought an Information against William Caymer Information where it shall be brought upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 4. against Ale-brewers and Bear-brewers for selling Bear at higher prises then were assessed by the Iustices upon Not guilty pleaded the Plaintiff had a Verdict at Norfolk Assises And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Information was brought in the Common Bench and yet it was brought and tryed in the proper County where the Offence was committed wheras by 33 H. 8. cap 10. 37 H 8 cap 7. 21 Jac cap 4. it ought to be brought in the Country and not in the Common Pleas. And upon grand deliveration and hearing of councell of either part the Court resolved that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff And first it was agreed that wheras by the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 4 which appoint that the Iustices of Peace assesse the prises of Barrels and other Vessels of Beer and that they which sell against that rate forfeit six shillings c. to be recovered by action of Debt Bill Plaint or Information in any Court of Record in which no wager of Law c. and gives one Moyety to the party which will sue and the other to the King no action may be brought in any Court of Record but onely in one of the four Courts of Record at Westminster
reasons the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff And Serjeant Ward argued well and vouched divers good Cases The Writ of Detinue supposeth properly in the thing demanded vide 50 E. 3. 6. Cook versus Cook WIlliam Cooke alias Barker brought an Action of Wast against George Cook alias Barker and count against him as Tenant for life How a Writ of Wast shall be where there is a lease for life remainder in fee. of the Lease of George Cook and intitle himself to the Reversion Ex assignatione of the said George and shews that George Cook being seised in Fee and the Ter-tenant in Socage devised the Land to the Defendant for life the remaineer in tail to the Plaintiff And upon the Count the Defendant demurred And the Question was how the Writ should be where a Lease is made for life the remainder in Fee for it cannot be Quod de ipso tenet And it seems that the Writ shall be speciall upon the Case as a Fine levied to one for life the remainder in Fee the Writ shall be speciall upon the Case And it seems that it shall never be Ex assignatione but where the Reversion is granted over vide 38 E 3. fol. 23. the direct Case and vide 38 H. 6. fol. 30. in the Writ of Consimili casu vide F N B fol 207. in the Writ of Consimili casu qui illud tenet ad vitam D. ex Assignatione praedicti B. quam I. filius heres R. qui quidem R. illud praefat D. demisit ad eundem terminum inde fecit praefat B. c. The Estate for life with a Remainder over is but one Estate and it was a question at Common Law if he in remainder shall have an action of Wast vide 41 E 3. 16. 42 E 3. 19. 50 E. 3. 3. Reg. 75. But at this day the Law is cleer that he in remainder shall have an action of Wast F N B fol 207. but these Books prove that the Writ of Wast ought to be Ex divisione non ex assignatione Mich. 6 Caroli Case Words AN action of the case was brought for these words Thou art a Theef and hast stoln one Passions Lamb and marked it and denied it And upon Not guilty pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff Serjeant Ashley moved in Arrest of Iudgment because that it is not shewn whose Lamb for Passions is no word of any signification without the name of Baptisme And the Court was of opinion that the Count was good for it had been sufficient to call him Theef and then the subsequent matter and words aggravate and contain matter of Felony And it is a generall Rule that when the first words are actionable the latter words which toll the force therof ought to be such as do not contain Felony Babbington versus Wood. BAbbington brought an action of debt against Wood upon an Obligation of 600 l. the Condition was That if Wood resign a Benefice upon request that then the Obligation should be void A Condâ—tion to resign a Benefice upon request And the Condition was entred the Defendant demurred and Iudgment in Banco Regis pro querente And upon Error brought Iudgment was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber for this Obligation is not voidable by the Statute of 14 Eliz. which makes Obligations of the same force as Leases made by Parsons of their Gleaves viz. Per non residency And it doth not appear by the Plea of the Defendant that it was not an Obligation bona fide which might be lawfull As if a Patron which hath a Son which is not yet fit to be presented for default of age and he present another with an agreement that when his Son comes to the age of 24. years be shall resign it it is a good Obligation And this Case viz. an Obligation with Condition to resign had been adjudged good in the case of one Jones An 8 Jac. And the Councel said that he who is presented to a Church is married therto Jones Case and it is like as if a man who hath married a Wife should be bound to be divorced from her or not co-habit with her these Conditions are void But these resemble not our Case Wilson versus Briggs WIlson brought an action of Account against Briggs as Bayly of his Mannor in the County of Cambr. Tryall of an action of Account upon receit in two Counties and also as Bayly to another Mannor in the County of Suff. And this action was brought in the County of Cambr. and found for the plaintiff and Iudgment to account and found in the arrearages and Iudgment given And now the Defendant brought a Writ of Error Iudgment was reversed because it was mis-tryed for it should be tryed at the Bar by severall Ven. fac to be directed to the severall Sheriffs First it is agreed that a writ of Account against one as Bayliff of his Mannor cannot be brought in another County but only in that County where the land lies vi 8 E. 3. fol 46. Fitz. Acc. 93. see there that two actions of Account brought against one for receit in two Counties And there it is said that it being upon a day that he may have one writ and count in the two Counties But to that it is said that that proves not but that he might have two Writs wherby it might be awarded that he should answer But in this case it was resolved that it was a mis-tryall for it ought to be by two Ven. fac and tryed at Bar and it is not aided by the Statute of 21 Jac cap 13. Trin. 8 Car. Purnell versus Bridge Hil. 6 Car. Rot. 1235. Fine to two and the heirs of one to the use of them two in fee. HEnry Pernell brought Replevin against William Bridge Robert Bridge and two others William Bridge plead Non cepit and the other made Conusance and upon Demurrer the case was such Richard Braken was seised in Fee of sixty acres of arrable Land and forty eight acres of Meadow and Pasture wherof the place in which c. was parcell And he the sixth of Febr. An 18 Eliz. by Deed granted an Annuity or Rentcharge of thirteen pounds six shillings out therof to Edward Steward in Fee payable at the Feast of Saint Peter or within eight and twenty daies after And if it be arrear for eight and twenty daies after the said Feast that then he forfeit for every Fine after forty shillings with a clause of Distresse as well for the said Rent as for the said forty shillings if it shall be arrear Edward Steward seised of the Rent died wherby it descended to Ioan Iermy Wife of Thomas Iermy Daughter and Heir of the said Edward Steward and they being seised therof in the right of the said Ioan An. 41 Eliz. in Crastino animarum levied a Fine of the said Rent to Robert Brook and Isaac Iermy and to the Heirs of Robert which Fine was to the
this Arraingnment the Iudges assistant sate with their heads covered as the ancient use hath been But the Serjeant at Armes was commanded to make Proclamation That the Iudges and all the Lords not being his Peers and all of the Privy Councell should be covered and others not And this was only in relation to the precedent usage and the right which appertain to the Iudges For in Parliament they being called by Writ use to be covered as oft as the Lord Chancellor or Keeper of the Great Seal which is Speaker puts on his Hat But now it is used that they put not on their Caps untill they have been requested by the Lord Speaker And when they are called into the Star Chamber or to Errors in the Exchequer Chamber they set covered with their Caps Pasch 7 Car. Risam versus Goodwin Mich. 5 Car. Rot. 2512. IN a Writ of Scire facias brought by William Risam against John Goodwin and Richard Peat Administrators of Thomas Cammon the Case was such The Court of Common Bench award not execution upon a Judgment given in grand Sessions in Wales The now Plaintiff William Risam recovered against Thomas Cammon a hundred pounds Debt and ten shillings Costs at the Grand Sessions holden at Carmâ—rthen and execution awarded and Nulla bona returned And upon Surmise that the said Thomas Cammon was dead and that the now Defendants had taken Letters of Administration a Scire facias issued against them and Nichil returned and after a Writ of Execution and that afterwards being returned by the Sheriff of the County Nulla bona testatoris a Writ issued to the Sheriff of the County of the Town of Carmarthen who returned Devastavit And because that the now Defendants had not Goods within the said County or within the County of the Town of Carmarthen or Jurisdiction of the Grand Sessions the Plaintiff procured a Certiori to the Justices of the Grand Sessions who certified the Record to the Chancery and by Mittimus it came to the Common Bench with directions Quia executio judicii praedicti adhuc restat faciend Mandant quod at the prosecution of the Plaintiff Vos fieri faciat de more secundum legem consuetudinem regni nostri Angliae fuit faciend Wherupon a Writ of Scire facias was awarded to the Sheriff of Hereford against the said Defendants to which they appeared And after many Imparlances they demurred upon the insufficiency of the Writ of Scire facias And this case was argued by Berkley for the Plaintiff and by Henden for the Defendant And the Cases put by Berkley were F N. B 243. a. b. 39 E. 6. 3 4 Ass in ancient Demesne and for the Damages surmised that he had nothing within ancient Demesne 21 E 3. 49. 21 H 7. 33. 8 Ass 27. 30 H 6 7. 3 H 4. 15. 1 Justitutes 59. in Frankalmoigne That Wales is parcel of England 1 E 3. Jurisdiction 45. 22 H 6. 58. 47. E 3. 6. 3. E 3. Quare Impedit 38. 35 H 5. 30. 19 H 6. 12. 52. vide the Statute of 34 H 8. for Wales and Writs of Error Henden argued to the contrary and his first reason was 1. That this Court of the great Sessions is an inferiour Court 2. The Record it self comes not but a Transcript 3. The Statute of 34 H 8. hath appointed the Execution and that should be pursued 4. This Innovation is perillous and never put in practice And he relyed upon the diversity When Iudgment in a peculiar inferiour Court comes into the Kings Bench or into this Court by Writ of Error and is affirmed then the Superiour supplies it and add strength to the Iudgment But when Iudgment is given in a Court of a Corporation and that is removed by Certiorari and sent by Mittimus that shall not be executed there vide 45 E 3. 25. Formedon in London vide 14 E 3. Tryals 23. 15 E 3. Record 35. New Book of Entries the last case in Writ of Error vide 8 E 3. 10. 26 H 6 8. 3 H 6. 16. 7 H 4. 8. 14 H 4. 25. H 5. 11. And he relyed upon 21 H 7. 35. and the case of 39 H 6. 3 4. and the case of ancient Demesne 7 H 9. 18. 37 H 6. 16. Dyer 369. And upon this Case the Iudges consulted and agreed that the Writ was insufficient And so Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff But it was said that upon this Iudgment so sent to this Court the Plaintiff might bring an action of Debt and so have execution But to make this Court an Instrument to serve an inferiour Court and to extend their Iurisdiction by this way as it were by a Windlace it is not lawfull Hil. 7 Car. Napper versus Sanders Pasch 6 Car. Rot. 1148. IN an Ejectione firmae brought by Robert Napper against Henry Sanders upon a Lease by Deed indented made by John Napper and Elizabeth his Wife and Francis Sanders upon Not guilty pleaged Remainder where it shall be said Contingent the Iury gave a speciall Verdict wherupon the Case was such Margaret Sanders seised in Fee makes a Feoffment to the use of her self for life without impeachment of Wast and after to the use of the Feeoffees for eighty years if one Nicholas Sanders and Elizabeth his Wife should live so long and if the said Elizabeth survive Nicholas her Husband then to the use of the said Elizabeth for life without impeachment of Wast and after the decease of the said Elizabeth to the use of Postumus Sanders Son of the said Nicholas and Elizabeth in tail And for default of such Issue to the use of Elizabeth Wife of the said Iohn Napper and Dorothy Sanders and the said Francis Sanders one of the Lessors and to the Heirs of their bodies remainder to the right Heirs of Margaret the Feoffor And there was a clause in the said Indenture that the intent of the Estate for years to the Feoffees was that the said Elizabeth Sanders might have the profits and not Nicholas her Husband who was a Prodigall Margaret Sanders dies and Dorothy dies without Issue the Feoffee enter Elizabeth Sanders dies Nicholas is yet alive and Posthumus dies without Issue Iohn Napper and his Wife and the said Francis entred and were possessed untill the Defendant as Son and Heir of the said Margaret entred and ousted them Et si super totam Materiam c. And the sole question was whether the remainder in tail to Posthumus and the remainder in tail to Elizabeth and Francis were contingent or executed And it was resolved by all the Court that the remainders were not contingent in the Estate for life which was to come to Elizabeth Sanders the Wife of the said Nicholas but were vested presently And it was agreed that the Estate for life if she survive her Husband was contingent and when that had hapned being by way of Limitation of an use it shall be interposed when the Contingent
the said Francis was seised in Fee and before the time of the Trespasse supposed viz. 8 Jac in consideration of a Marriage to be between the said Francis his Son and the Plaintiff for her Ioynture made a Feoffment therof to the use of the said Francis and Rachel the Plaintiff and to the Heirs of the said Francis upon the body of the Plaintiff begotten the remainder to the Heirs of Francis in Fee and shewed the marriage and that by force of the Statute of 27 H 8. they were seised ut supra is limited Absque hoc that the aforesaid Francis Tayler the Father of the aforesaid Francis the Son died seised of the Tenements aforesaid with the Appurtenances de nova assignat in his Demesn as of Fee Modo forma prout praedictus defendens superius allegavit hoc paratus est verificare c. unde c. wherupon the Defendant demurred Vide 3 H 6 Brook Traverse 30 H 6 7. Brook Traverse 359. In Trespasse the Defendant plead his Freehold the Plaintiff plead the dying seised of his Father and that he is Heir and entred and that the Defendant disseised him the Defendant traversed the Disseisin and not the dying seised of his Father and good vide the said Book of 30 H 6. 7. by Prisot if I in Assise plead that my Father died seised in Fee that I entred as Son and Heir to him and was seised untill by R. disseised who enfeoffed the Plaintiff upon whom I entred here the Disseisin is not traversable but the dying seised vide 33 H 6. 59. Wangford put this case In Assise if the Defendant plead that his Father was seised and died seised and give colour to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff ought to traverse the dying seised and not the possession of the Father which is the cause of the dying seised Vide 30 H. 6. fol 4. Entry in nature of an Assise the Defendant plead that W. was seised in Fee and enfeoffed him and give colour the Plaintiff replies that W. was seised in jure Uxoris and that he had Issue and his Wife died and he was Tenant by the Curtesie and made a Feoffment sans ceo that W. was seised modo forma and Issue taken and there it is said that the Issue is well taken This case was adjudged for the Plaintiff because that no dying seised is pleaded so that it might be traversed but with a Sic scisitus obijt Also the matter only traversable here is the seisin in Fee modo forma for by the Replication Seisin joyntly with the Plaintiff and to the Heirs of the body of the said Francis with a Fee-simple in him is confessed and that is good with the Traverse Memorand That this Case was moved by Serjeant Hitcham Trin. 10 Car. And Serjeant Hedley moved for the Defendant and vouched 5 H 7. 7. and the Record was read and all the Court agreed that it was a good Traverse And that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff Pasch 10 Car. Dawe versus Palmer Case JOhn Dawe Plaintiff against William Palmer in an action upon the Case and count that wheras he was a Fuller and had used the Trade of Falling and therby acquired his livelyhood and was of good Credit Words c. The Defendant said of him Trust him not for he owes me a hundred pound and is not worth one Groat And at another day he said He is a Bankrupt Rogue And upon Not guilty pleaded the Iurors found for the Plaintiff and gave entire Damages And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the first words were not actionable and then the Iury having given entire Damages the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment for any part vide Osbornes case Coke lib 10. But in this case after many debates it was resolved by the Court that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment For the first words are actionable at Common Law before the Statute Trust him not he is not worth one Groat Go not to buy of I.S. a Merchant for he will deceive you Of an Inne-keeper Go not to such an Inne for he is so poor that you can have no good entertainment Of an Atturney Use him not for â—e will cousen you All these words are actionable He will be a Bankrupt within seven daies And for the other words That he is a Bankrupt Rogue that is resolved Coke lib. 4. to be actionable And it was a Case Pasch 10 Car. in a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber upon Iudgment given in the Kings Bench between Dunkin and Laycroft Dunkin and Laycroft for words spoken of a Merchant who had been at Hamborow in partibus transmarinis and there hâ—d used the Trade of a Merchant and Factor Thou innuendo the Plaintiff camest over from Hamborow a broken Merchant And adjudged actionable and so affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber And upon all these Authorities the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Mich. 10 Car. Deanes Case DEane being robbed in an Hundred in Kent brought an action upon the Statute of Hue and Cry and a speciall Verdict being found tâ—â— Dourt intended was If one be assaulted to be robbed in one Hundred Hue and Cry and he escape and flye into another Hundred and the Theeves instantly pursue him rob him there if the Hund. in which he was robbed should be solely charged And the opinion of the Court was that it should but upon reading the Record this appeared not to be the Case And the Court was informed that the Sheriffs had taken the Goods of one in execution who was not inhabiting within the Hundred at the time of the Robbery committed but came afterwards And the Court was of opinion that he was not chargable Mich. 10 Car. Knight versus Copping RObert Knight brought an action upon the case against Valentine Copping one of the Attorneys of this Court count Case That wheras one Edw. Loft had brought an action of debt for 30 l. against him And therupon such processe was that a non pros was entred costs of 30 s. assessed for the now Plaintiff An action of the case for â— entring Judgment after non pros the now Defendant being Attorney for the said Ed. Loft having notice therof unduly and maliciously procured a judgment to be entred for the said Ed. Loft against the now Plaintiff sued execution against him wherby he was taken and imprisoned untill he was delivered by a writ of Supersedeas The Defendant Protestando that there was no such Iudgment for the said Edward Loft against the said now Plaintiff nor that he was taken in Execution therupon for plea saith that there is not any Record of the said Non pros The Plaintiff replies that at the time of the said Iudgment entred for the said Edward Loft And when the now Plaintiff was taken in Execution and imprisoned therupon the said Iudgment of Non pros against the said Edw. L. and
as Servant to the Bishop of Durham Absque hoc that he was guilty at the Castle of York or any where else c. And this Case was long depending and the first point was if the Defendant had confessed any conversion for that is the ground of the action and ought to be traversed or else confessed and avoided It was agreed that the Conversion is the ground of the Action Brook 1 Mar. Trespass 121. and the Inducement ought to be such as contain sufficient matter with the Trespasse vide 9 E. 4 5. 19 H 6.30.22 Then it was agreed H. 6. 35. 8. that when one takes a Distresse and such an action is brought that is no plea for that is not any conversion vide 27 H. 8.22 Coke lib. 10. fol 46 47. Request and refusall to deliver is good evidence to prove conversion but if it be found specially it shall not be adjudged Conversion and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff because the Defendant did not claim any property and did not answer to the point of the Action for a Distresse is no Conversion Hil. 15 Jac. Coble versus Allen. Norf. Trespasse COble brought an action of Trespasse against Allen for breaking his Close at Barningham and by the new Assignment divers parcels were assigned the Defendant as to part pleads that he was seised of an House and thirty acres of Land in Colby and prescribe to have a way over them to his Common in Barningham Prescription for a Way and no place to which c. Issue joyned upon the Prescription and for the other parcels prescribe that he and all those whose Estate he hath in the said house in Colby used to have for themselves and their Families one way for Pack-horses over the said other parcels of Land in Barningham unto the Kings high way leading to the City of Norwich And Issue was joyned upon these two Prescriptions and found for the Plaintiff But it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Venue was from Barningham and Colby and that in the Plea there is not mention of any place where the Common lies and therefore there is not any tryall but it was adjudged that the tryall was good for though that the proper use of a way is to some end and that ought to be shewn yet if it be only that he had a way over the Closes of the new Assignment and no place or end therof is pleaded for what cause or to what other place and Issue is taken upon the Prescription and found the Prescription is good And another reason was there by Implication it is indifferent whether the way lies in B. or in another Town and by intendment rather it may be taken to lye in B. and then if by one intendment the tryall may be good it shall so be intended But when it appears that the tryall shall be in three Towns and the Ven fac is but in two this is not aided for it is a Mis-triall and there must be a Venire facias de novo but in this case no new Venice can be awarded and then it is but a Jeofaile for not pleading in which Town the way lies and then it is aloâ—â— and also unto the Kings high way may be taken that this Kings high way is contigue adjacent to these Closes where the way is by Prescription And for these reasons and causes Iudgment given for the Plaintiff Harding versus Bodman RObert Harding Plaintiff against Bodman Defendant Case in an action upon the Case recites that wheras the Plaintiff brought an action upon the Case against one Lenning for calling of him c. the Defendant upon the tryall being produced for the Defendant as a Witnesse gave evidence upon his Oath to the Iury Action upon the Case against one foâ—giving evidence that the Plaintiff was a common lyar and so recorded in the Star Chamber by reason of which Evidence though the Iury found for the Plaintiff yet by reason hereof they gave but small Damages to the Plaintiff And upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and upon motion in Arrest of Iudgment it was adjudged that this is a new invention and that no action lies for it First because that it is impossible to be known whether the Iury gave greater or lesse Damages for that or not Also by this means every man which is produced as a Witnesse by one way or other may be subject to an action upon the Case and also by any thing which appears to the Court the Evidence was true for it was not averred that Revera that the Plaintiff was not a common lyar that he was not recorded for a common lyar in the Star Chamber And for these reasons the Plaintiff Nil capiat per breve c. Trin. 15 Jac. Rot. 1968. Speake versus Richards South HUgh Speake brought an action of Debt against Edward Richards Debt for 523 l 17 s 8 d and declare that Anthony Hall and Henry Paramour 22. June 13 Jac. became obliged to the Plaintiff by Recognizance in the Chancery in 2000 l and that they did not pay it wherupon the Plaintiff had two Sci. fac.'s to the Sheriff of Middlesex Debt for money returned levied by the Sheriff who returned Nihil wherupon Iudgment for the Plaintiff and a Levari facias awarded to the Sheriff of Southampton returnable 15 Mich. which Writ was delivered to the Defendant being then Sheriff to be executed The Defendant before the Return levied by vertue of the said Writ the said 523 l 17 s 8 d of the Lands and Chattels of the said Henry Paramour parcell of the said Debt and at 15 Mich. returned that he had levied the said 523 l 17 â— 8 d parcell c. which summ he had ready at the day to deliver to the Plaintiff in part of satisfaction c. And that the Defendant although often required therto refused to pay the said 523 l 17 s 8 d by cause wherof this action accrued nor brought it into Chancery and to have the parties c. The Defendant as to three hundred and eight pounds part therof pleaded Nil debet to two hundred and fifteen pounds seventeen shillings eight pence residue therof Actio non For he said that after the Writ directed and before the return viz. 31 Augusti 14 Jacobi the Defendant at Westminster paid it to the Plaintiff upon the receit wherof the same day the Plaintiff gave an Acquittance for the same which he pleads and therby acquitted and discharged the Defendant and demands Iudgment if against his own Deed of acquittance he shall be received to demand the said money wherupon the Plaintiff demurred And it was argued by Serjeant Richardson for the Plaintiff and by John Moore for the Defendant An exception was taken that he could not plead Nil debet because that it is a Debt upon Record for he is charged by the return He is not estoppled to plead payment
that the Plea is not good Harris argued for the Defendant for three reasons 1. Because by the Lease this was included vide 21 H 6. 61. grant of Conuzance c. gives power to make a Steward tempore E. 1. Fitz. 41. 2 E. 2. Bar 237. grant to fish in a Pond yet he cannot make a Trench 2. The Coles are the Inheritance and the bettering of them is the bettering of the Inheritance 3. For the profit of the Common-wealth 14 H 8. 18. 20 Eliz Dyer 361. Altams case Trench to make a Meadow the better is no wast vide 22 H 6. 6. digging of certain Loads of Gravell for the amending of the Land vide 12 H 4 5. And for telling this ought not to be answered any other way then by justifying of the Imployment and the Plaintiff may reply upon the sale if he will and the case is long debated 5 E 4. 10. vide Dyer 37. Malenders case And the last day of this Term the Lord Hobart declared that we were all of opinion that the Plea is not good for there though the Lease be of Mines and by vertue therof the Lessee might open new Mines as in Sanders case Coke lib 5. fol. 12. there it shall be intended of new Mines which in themselves is wast if it had not been by speciall words And the digging of a Mine is an impairing of the Inheritance and a great benefit to the Lesses and therfore if Lessee for years build a new house if he cut Trees off the same Lands for the making therof it is wast 17 E 2. Fit wast 118. And no more then one may make a Brick Kilne and burn Brick or a Lyme Kilne and burn Lyme with wood growing upon the ground and sell the Brick or Lyme no more may the Defendants in this case cut down wood for the making and supporting of these Mines for Coles which they sell vide 41 E 3. 17. And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Edmonds Case MEmorand That at the Assises holden at Winchester in Lent 15 Jac. one William Edmonds was indicted of Burglary because that he Burglariter and feloniously did break the house of one Richard Heydon in the night at Ramsey Burglary and the Iury gave a speciall Verdict We find that Richard Heydon and Christian his Wife were both in Bed and at rest in an upper Chamber in the Mansion house of the said Richard Heydon and that the said William Edmonds then was and yet is the Servant and Apprentice of the said Richard and that he then lay in another Chamber of the said house remote from the Bed-chamber of his said Master and Dame and that there was a Door with a Latch at the Stairs foot of the said Bed-chamber of the said Heydon but none at the Stair-head being the entrance into the said Bed-chamber of the said Heyedon We find that the said William at the said time in the Indictment drew the Latch of the Stair-foot door and opened the said door being then latched and went up the Stairs and entred into the Bed-chamber of his said Master with an intent to murther the said Heydon and that he did then and there with an Hatchet with an intent to murther his said Master strike and grievously wound him and gave him fifteen wounds on the head and other parts of his body And if upon the whole matter c. And this speciall Verdict was shewn by the Lord chief Baron Tanfield unto all the Iudges of Serjeants Inne in Chancery Lane viz. Iustice Warburton Crook Baron Bromely Iustice Dodderidge Houghton Winch and Hutton And they all besides Winch which doubted agreed that it was Burglary and afterwards in the same Term at a meeting in Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet it was shewn to Mountague Hobart and Denham which concurred Mich 16 Jac. Staffords Case FAlse Imprisonment was brought by Sir John Stafford the Defendant justifie Matter of Record tryed by the Country that Bristoll is an ancient City and that time wherof memory c. there hath been a Court holden there before the Sheriffs c. and justifie that there was a Plaint levied and Iudgment and that the now Plaintiff was taken in execution The Plaintiff replyed Quod non fuit aliqua querela levata according to the custom and requires this Quod inquiratur c. And it was tryed at Bristoll and found for the Plaintiff and damages twenty six pounds And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that this being matter of Record viz. the entry of the Plaint in a Court of Record it shall be tryed by the Record and not by the Country And it was adjudged that the tryall was good because that it is not meerly Record but whether it was according to the Custom And Non prosecutus est ullum breve is tryable by the Country Quaere if the King grant by Patent to hold plea under forty shillings if it be a Court of Record Sir Walter Rawleys Case MEmorand that on Friday the 23. of October upon conference between all the Iustices of England whether a privy Seal was sufficient it being directed to the Iustices of the Kings Bench to command them to award execution against Sir Walter Rawley which was attainted of Treason at Winchester Mich. 1 Jacobi How Prisoners which are attainted of Treason set at large shall be brought to execution before Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer or how they should proceed before execution be awarded It was resolved by all that he ought to be brought to Bar by Habeas Corpus to the Lieutenant of the Tower and then demanded if he could say any thing why execution should not be awarded for the proceedings against him being before Commissioners they are delivered only into the Court of Kings bench or they might have remained in a Bag or a Chest and no Roll made therof and so long time passing it is not a Legall course that he should be commanded by a privy Seal or great Seal to be executed without being demanded what he hath to say for he might have a pardon or he might say that he is not the same person As if one be Outlawed of Felony and taken he shall not be presently hanged but he shall be brought to Bar and so demanded c. And upon this resolution a privy Seal came to the Iustices of the Kings Bench commanding them to proceed against him according to Law And therupon a Habeas Corpus was awarded and Octob 28. he came to the Bar being brought by the Lievtenant and there he was demanded of whether he had any thing to say why c. and there he shewed that the King had imployed him as Generall of a Voyage and hath given him power De vita membris upon others And whether this did amount to a pardon or no he knew not The Attorney-generall said that the King pardoned no Treasons by any Implication but it ought to be by speciall words Then he said
to the charges But to offer any particular summ is not necessary because they know not what summ is disbursed and that is to be assessed by the Commissioners And the words for the charge of the Commission is to be extended to all charges arising in suing forth the Commission and in execution and defence therof Also it was resolved that at any time before the distribution made they may come and pray to be joyned But after the four months passed and any distribution made though it be but of part then they come too late For by this means the distribution which is made and wherby some of the Creditors shall receive more shall be utterly avoided and another proportion made which was not the intent of the Statute Pasch 18 Jac. Mason versus Thompson Case AN action upon the case was brought for these words I charge thee with Felony for taking money forth from Iohn Spaci's Pocket and I will prove it Words Henden moved in Arrest of Iudgment that these words were not actionable First because that it is not any direct affirmative that he is a Felon and for that he vouched a case as he said adjudged in the Kings Bench Masters bear Witnesse that he is a Theef The second reason was because that the matter subsequent do not contains matter which must of necessity be Felony but stands indifferent For if it be not privily and secretly it is not Felony and it may be by way of sport or trespasse For as one said That he is a Theef and stole his Timber it is not actionable for it might be Timber cut or Timber growing so to say That he stole his Corn or his Apples or his Hope For in Mitiorem partem verba sunt accipienda And it seemed to the Lord Hobart that the first words viz. I charge thee with Felony are actionable for the Constable if he be there present ought to apprehend him therupon and it is a plain Affirmative I arrest thee of high Treason Iustice Winch prima facie held that the words were actionable and not qualified by the subsequent words as it should be if he had said For thou hast stoln my Apple Trees standing in my Orchard that could not be Felony but it is not so there for it may be Felony and ex causa dicendi it shall be taken Felony in these words for taking money c. Warburton and Hutton was of opinion that the Action lay not This Case was moved in Mich. 18 Jac. And then the opinion of the Court praeter Warburton qui haesitavit was that the Action did not lye Ideo memorand quod quetens nil capiat per breve Trin. 18 Jac. Hall versus Woollen JOhn Hall an Attorney of this Court Case Consideration of an Asâ—urâ—p sit brought an action upon the case against Woollen and declared that wheras the Defendant was possessed of an House and Land in Mekon Mowbray in the County of Leicester for one term of the Lease of Sir John Woodward And wheras one Webb was in communication of buying the said Lease of Woollen and Woollen could not sell it without the assent of Sir John W. The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would procure licence of the said Sir John he promised to pay to him so much as he should disburse and deserve therfore And averred that he did procure a License and delivered it to the Defendant and disbursed such a summ and deserved for his labour such a summ and the Defendant upon the Count did demur And the question was whether that were a good consideration or no for it did not appear that there was any condition to restrain him from making an Assignment and if I promise that wheras I am obliged to A. if you will procure B. which is a stranger to make a Release therof to me I will pay you forty pounds though it be done at my instance no action lies for it is apparant that B. could not release the Obligation But it was adjudged that is a good consideration for it appears that there was privity between them and it may be that he had promised that he would not assign it without his licence And in good discretion it was convenient to have it also it was at his instance and for his satisfaction And it hath been adjudged if one promise forty pounds to another if he can procure the assent of the Mother of a woman though he may do it without such consent yet it is a good consideration Mich. 18 Jac. Clerk versus Wood. CLerk brought an action upon the case against one Wood Case alias Warren and count that he was seised of an house and twenty acres of land c in Thursfield and that he and all those whose Estate he hath have had a Common in seven acres in Thursfield And that he and all those c. have had one way leading through the said seven acres Ven. fac upon prescription for a way in divers Townâ— and from thence into one Common way leading to Buntingford and from Buntingford to Blakeley And that the Defendant had plowed and turned up the seven acres and estopped the way The Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Venire facias awarded de Tursfield And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Serjeant Jones that it ought to be from all the Towns through which he claim his way for he ought to prove it in evidence viz. that he had a way or otherwise he is not endamnified But it was resolved that the tryall was good for Not guilty is properly a deniall of trespasse and disturbance and though he ought to prove title to the way yet it is sufficient if he prove title to the way by and through the seven acres upon evidence And yet if the Prescription had been traversed then he ought to prove all the way any the tryall shall be from every Town through which the way is pleaded to be extended quod vide 10 E. 4. fol. 10. where it was in two Counties and the Venire facias shall be from both and the tryall shall not be by Nisi prius vide the case between Reyner and Waterhouse supra Mich. 16 Jac. Rot. 2344. Lamb versus Thompson Debt A Condition not to be assisting to another hinders him not to bring a Writ of Error joyntly with him EDmund Lamb brought an action of Debt against Richard Thompson upon an Obligation of forty pounds the Condition whereof was If the Defendant shall not be assisting or any waies aiding unto Thomas Elme or any other person for the said Thomas Elme in any Actions Suits Vexations c. to be commenced and prosecuted against the said Plaintiff c. That then c. the Defendant pleaded Negative The Plaintiff reply that he such a day brought Trespasse against the said Thomas Elme and the now Defendant and had Iudgment and that the Defendant joyned with him in a Writ of Error in hinderance of the
Prender and that he might have an Assise or justifie for Damage feasant And he which hath the fore-crop is he which hath the Free-hold 15 E. 2. Fitz. Prescription 51. And the very case in temps E. 1. Fitz. Prescription 55. and this sole feeding might have Commencement by Grant and therfore a good Prescription Iudgment for the Avowant Trin. 19 Jac. Wilson versus Stubbs WIlson brought Replevin against Ralph Stubbs Replevin The Defendant avow as Bayliff to the Earl of Northumberland for Amercements within a Leet at Toxcliffe And upon Issue joyned and tryall at the Common Pleas by Default it was alledged Supersedeas upon Indempnitate nominis that Ralph Stubbs was dead and the Plaintiff would proceed and had Iudgment Damages and Costs sixteen pounds and a Capias awarded to the Sheriff of York and Ralph Stubbs the Son as is supposed is taken and had an Indempnitate nominis which Writ being directed to the Iustices they award a Supersedeas And now upon divers motions the sixteen pounds was brought in Court and they proceed upon the Indempnitate nominis The question was if the Supersedeas lye therupon being that it is only a surmise and matter en fait and lies properly and more frequently for preventing an Arrest upon Outlawry and after that the party is taken upon the Outlawry vide 5 E. 4. 23. vide lib Intrat and it is matter not frequent in use and is in nature of an Audita Querela and the party shall find surety to pay the Debt if it be found that he be not another person And the Court inclined strongly that it is no Supersedeas but it is much in the discretion of the Court vide lib Intrat 5 E. 4. 36. bone Case and fol. 51. 53. Mich. 19 Jac. Allen versus Swift Case ALlen brought an action of the case against Swift and declared That wheras he bargained and sold that is to say Merchandized for Lead in the County of Derby Words and therby hath acquired money towards his livelyhood The Defendant said of him He is a Bankrupt and is not able to pay his debts but will run the Country It was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Serjeant Harvey that the action lay not because that the Plaintiff shewed not that he used it as his Trade nor that he gained his living by buying and selling Also he is entituled Gentleman But the Court hold that the action would well lye and it had been adjudged 14 Eliz. That a Tanner shall have an action for such words Mayes versus Sidley Case Consideration of forbearance MAyes brought an action of the case against Sir Isaac Sidley and count that wheras one was indebted unto the Plaintiff in a hundred pounds by Obligation the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff at his request would forbear to sue the said party and if he did not pay it the Defendant would And upon Non assumpsit pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff Hitcham moved that is no good consideration for it is uncertain for if he forbear one hour one day this is a forbearance And he resembled it to Palmers Case forbear him a little while and if he do not pay it I will This was adjudged for the Plaintiff in Banco Regis but afterward by a Writ of Error it was reversed And he cited a President which was shewn of the 36 of Eliz. where the case was the same in effect with this And Iudgment reversed but it might be for other Errors And the Court inclined that this action lye for when it is alledged that he did forbear it shall be intended of such a forbearance by which the party had ease and benefit and shall be a competent and convenient time and that shall be convenient time as in other cases As Tenant pur auter vie shall have convenient time to remove his goods after the death of Cestui que vie And it shall be convenient time to purchase a Writ by Iourneys Accounts And it was said that there were many Presidents of this case and of the like actions for if he doth not forbear convenient time then it is no consideration and it being left indefinite the Law will judge of the convenient time but it was adjourned and after the first day of Hil. 21 Jac. This case was moved by Hitcham and he said that the Writ and Count vary for the Writ is Per magnum tempus distulit And the Count saith that he did forbear for the space of a year and more Also no time is put in the Writ but is in the Count and that he did forbear by a year and more after that so that it doth not appear that he did forbear till the Writ purchased for that appear to be half a year after the year passed and he ought to forbear it totally Richardson answered him that the breve Writ did not comprehend the time and circumstance but the matter and substance and â—ot at large for then it should not be breve As in a case sur Trover no day in the Writ but in the Count and forbearance of a year and more being alledged and issue taken and found for the Plaintiff it shall not be intended that he had sued and not forbeared till the commencement of that Suit And it is like to a grant of a Rent pleaded without Deed and issue joyned upon non concessit and it is found Concessit and good for it shall be intended effectuall c. And the Court shewed their Iudgment and concurred that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff And this difference was taken when the promise appear to be such that it shall not be any benefit to the party in whose behalf it was requested as forbearance for an hour or a little time there it is not good but where it is generall and not limited to any time that shall be a 〈◊〉 ill forbearance or at least a forbearance for a convenient time and that ought to be alledged for such a time which the Court shall adjudge a convenient time Lord Hobart agreed but he said that it is not a totall forbearance for then it should be that he should not sue him at all but that he will forbear is good by the subsequent forbearance and there is no variation between the Count and the Writ but the Count illustrateth and amplifies the Writ Iudgment pro querente Pasch 20 Jac. Suggs versus Sparrow IN a Scire facias against the Bail Scire facias he plead that after the Iudgment and before any Writ of Capias was sued out against the Principall he died And upon Demurrer the Court adjudged it a good plea Bayle is discharged where the Principall died before Capias awarded Tadcaster against Hollowell Timberley and Calverly and iâ— this case a Iudgment was cited Hil 10 Eliz. Tadcaster brought debt against Hallowell Hobs was Bail and the Plaintiff recovered The
brought an action of debt against the now Plaintiff upon an Obligation of a hundred and twenty pounds to which the now Plaintiff appeared by his Attorney and required a Declaration and the now Defendant on the part of the said William Carter his Master gave the said Declaration and required the now Plaintiff to confesse the action and pendente Pl. he the now Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would give order to his Attorney to confesse the action and to suffer the said Defendant to have Iudgment in the said Plea for the said William Carter his Master assumed to the Plaintiff that no Iudgment should be entred untill after Crast Annunciat And that no execution shall be sued out untill after the end of Michaelmas Term next and shew the performance therof by him and the breach of the Defendant And after Verdict it was moved that it is no sufficient consideration and that was impossible for him to perform that Iudgment should not be entred in the Term in which Iudgment is given but that is in the discretion of the Court and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pach. 19 Jac. Rot. 3014. 21 Jac. Jennings versus Pitman RIchard Jennings brought an action of Covenant against George Pitman upon an Indenture of an Apprentiship Covenant of an Apprentiship by which the Defendant had put himself to be an Apprentice to the Plaintiff in Ipswich to the Trade of a Linnen Draper and there were divers clauses in the Indenture according to the usuall form and assigne for breach the wasting of severall summe of money The Defendant pleaded the Statute of 5 Eliz. by which it is enacted That it is not lawfull for any one inhabiting in any City or Towne Corporate using the Trade of a Merchant over the Sea Mercer Pannary Goldsmith Iron-monger Imbroyderer or Clothier to take any Apprentice to be instructed in any of these Trades if it be not his Son or that the Father or Mother of such Apprentice had at the time of the taking of him Lands Tenements or Hereditaments of Inheritance or Freehold of forty shillings per annum to be certified by three Iustices of Peace under their hands and Seals where the Land lies to the Mayor Bayliffs or other head Officer of the City or Town Corporate and to be inrolled entred and recorded there and pleaded the clause of the Statute which makes Obligations and Covenants void which are taken against it And averred that Ipswich was a Town Corporate at the time of the making of the Statute The Plaintiff replyed that his Father had at that time when he was bound Lands and Tenements in great Bealing viz. ten acres to the Value of forty shillings per annum The Defendant by Rejoynder offer to joyn Issue that his Father had not Lands c. wherupon the Plaintiff demurred And the question was If this part of the Statute To be certified by the Justices c. be such an essentiall part therof that the Covenant be void without it It was agreed that it had not been put in use after the Statute but it seems that it is Essentiall and it ought to be so at the time when he is put to be an Apprentice but it may be enrolled afterwards for the Statute in another part provides a penalty for the not Inrolling Like to the Case upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. That they which claim any Estate of them which were Attainted in the Rebellion they brought their Conveyances to the Exchequer to be inrolled within one year if they bring and deliver these Conveyances though they be not inrolled yet they have performed as much as was in them And if the Certificate be not at the time when the party is put to be an Apprentice the Statute was to no purpose If this Bar be good then the Replication is a departure and the Rejoynder also and the Bar being good Iudgment shall be given against the Plaintiff but if the Bar be not good then for the Plaintiff for the Count contains matter certain But the Court moved whether this Covenant lay against an Insant for although it is by the Statute provided that he shall be bound to serve as a man of full age yet that makes not the Covenants good and it is like to a Custom which shall be taken strictly Trin 20 Jac. This Case between Jennings and Pitman was moved this Term And the Lord Hobart was of opinion that this Statute being that it appears that he was within age scil sixteen years will not bind him to any Covenants which are not implyed in the Indenture of serving For the doubt was whether an Infant was an Apprentice out of London though that he put himself to serve And the only matter which binds him in this Statute is that he shall be bound to serve when he is bound by Indenture being within age as well as if he were of full age and if the Covenant be only a Covenant to serve no Covenant lies for Imbeziling of Goods And if the Covenant be to serve him faithfully and diligently that shall not bind him upon this Covenant And I was of the same opinion for it is only made good as to the serving and there are many Covenants and Clauses besides in this Indenture which bind him not As not to play at unlawfull Games c. And a Custom that an Infant at such an age may sell his Land shall be taken strictly viz. that he cannot give it c. But my Brother Winch was of opinion that it was a thing incident and a quasi Consequent viz. That if he shall be bound to serve by consequence he shall be bound to serve faithfully and truly He resembled it to the case of a Fine levied by an Infant and not reversed during his â—onage that shall bind him and by consequence the Indenture which leads the uses of the Fine and when the Law enables to any thing that which is incident and without which the other thing cannot be is implyed Trin. 19 Jac. Rot. 1734. Blemmer Hasset versus Humberstone Norf. JN an Ejectione firmae brought by Ralph Blemmerhasset against William Humberstone for Land in Pucklethorp Ejectione firmae upon a Lease made by John B. upon a speciall Verdict found it was resoved A Copyhold may be extinguisht without an actuall surrender that when a Copyholder bargain and sell his Copyhold to the Lord of a Mannor which hath the Mannor in Lease for years that therby the Copyhold Estate is extinguished And the Lord Hobart said that if a Copyholder come into Court and saies that he is weary of his Copyhold and request the Lord to take it that is a Surrender for between the Lord and the Tenant a Conveyance shall not need to be according to the Custome for the Copyholder hath no other use of the Custome but only to convey the Land to another vide Coke lib. 4. That a Release by him which hath Right to a
and prayed Iudgment for he said the ancient Books were many for Iudgment conditionally but some to the contrary viz. when the Heir is vouched within the same County and is within age there Iudgment presently against the Tenant with a Cesset executio And when the Heir enter into the Warranty and is taken to render the Dower there is Iudgment against the Heir and that the Tenant shall hold in peace But he said that Mich Ashburnham against Skinner 38 39 Eliz. Rot. 1208. Mary Ashburnham brought Dower against Skinner who vouched the Heir of the Husband in the same County who presently entred en le garranty and said that he had no Assets there the Iudgment was given presently against the Tenant with a Cesset executio And after the Issue was tryed and found that the Heir had not Assets and the Wife had Execution but it was said that Error was brought therupon yet the Feme continued the Possession Henden said that the Tenant otherwise shall lose the benefit of his Warranty vide 13 H 4. Judgment 241. The Court adjudged this case for the Demandant upon view of the said President of 38 39 Eliz. And as this case is the Demandant upon necessity ought to have Execution because that the Tenant which ought to have the benefit of the Warranty made default And if it was so that the Vouchee was dead the Tenant shall not have any other Voucher for the Dower ought not to suffer delay And likewise when Iudgment is given against the Tenant with a Cesset executio all is one as a conditionall Iudgment against the Tenant for if Assets be found then Quia compertum est c. with Iudgment against the Heir and that the Tenant shall hold in peace It was objected that Iudgment ought to be conditionally at first and not to give one Iudgment against the Tenant and afterwards if Assets be found another Iudgment against the Heir but that is no inconvenience Some say that when such Iudgment is given against the Tenant with a Cesset executio there if Assets be found the Demandant shall not have execution against the Heir but against the Tenant and he shall have ad valentiam Quaere Potter versus Browne Case Words NIcholas Potter brought an action upon the case against Browne for these words spoken of the Plaintiff He is as arrant a Theef as any is in England and he broke up the Plummers Chest with other mens Tools which stood in my Lord of Suffolks house and took money out of it The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and Verdict for the Plaintiff And upon the motion of Henden to Arrest and Richardson to have Iudgment The Court resolved that the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment The first reason is because that there is not any affirmative directly that he is a Theef but as arrant a Theef as any is in England And avers not that there is any Theef in England And the Law will not presume any thing that is evill Iniquum in lege non presumitur And as Lacies case was He is as great a Theef as any is in Warwick Goal He ought to aver that there was a Theef there at the time of the speaking of the words And it is the same reason in this case Then the latter words are ambiguous and admit of a double interpretation and the better shall be taken Querens nil capiat per breve Mich. 22 Jac. Methell versus Peck MEthell brought an action upon the Case against Peck and count Case that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff had paid to one Playford forty pounds to the use of the Defendant Where the request of a collaterall thing shall be alledged and by his appointment he assured upon request to deliver an Obligation in which he and another should be obliged to the Plaintiff in a hundred pounds And that the Defendant Licet saepius postea requisitus did not deliver the said Obligation upon Non assumpsit pleaded Verdict for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Hitcharn that the Plaintiff had not alledged any sufficient request by shewing such a day and such a place which is issuable And being collaterall matter the request is part of the substance of the action But where it is upon Debt or Contract and not severed from the duty then a Licet saepius requisitus is sufficient But the Court were of opinion that the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment and yet they agreed the diversity when a Request shall be alledged as part of the thing to be performed and when it is but implyed in the Debt For when it is collaterall there it ought to be alledged and for the time it is sufficient viz. Postea but the place of the Request is omitted And if Issue had been tendred therupon it might be supplyed afterwards where it shall be tryed where the action was brought And Non assumpsit allowes the request as if the Defendant had pleaded concord and satisfaction the Request is not to be proved in Evidence vide 10 H 7. 16. But it is said that this Judgment was reversed in the Kings Bench because that the Request being upon Collaterall matter which was the cause of the Action it is materiall Mich. 22 Jac. Ejectione firmae AN Ejectione firmae brought and counted upon a Lease at Haylesam of Tenements there The Defendant pleads that Haylesam ubi tenementa praedicta jacent is within the Cinque-Ports Ubi breve Domini Regis non currit and plead to the Iurisdiction The Plaintiff reply Town shall be intended al the Town that the Tenements are in the County of Lancaster absque hoc that the Town of Haylesam is within the Cinque-Ports wherupon the Defendant demur and adjudged no cause of demurrer For Haylesam is all Haylesam and the Court will not intend any Fractions in the Town viz. that part shall be in the Cinque-Ports and part without as it was affirmed the truth was but that ought to come upon the shewing of the Defendant an his Bar vide 50 E 3. 5. Sir William Ellinghams case Defend respond oust THE FIRST YEAR OF KING CHARLES Termino Pasch Hitcham versus Brook SIR Robert Hitcham Serjeant at Law and to the King Case brought an action upon the case against one Brook a Iustice of the Peace and which had been Sheriff of Suffolk and count that he for divers years last past had been one of the Kings Serjeants and had demeaned himself well and loyally in the discharge of his duty and had gained good opinion and had acquired by his practice a good Estate for the maintenance of him and his Family The Defendant said Words I doubt not but to prove that the Plaintiff hath spoken Treason Innuendo Treason against the King Verdict was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that these words are not actionable First because no time is alledged
use of the Kings Bench is never to enter the Admission but only to recite it in the Count vide 11 H 7. Rot 412. In a Writ of Right by Baron and Feme and another Feme Infants there per custodes good vide 8 E 4 5. for the Mainprise entred in another Term lib Intractionum fol 366. It was vouched by Croke and affirmed by Yelverton in one Simpsons case in Durham Simpsons case where the Tenant was by Prochein amy where it should be by Guardian was Error The Presidents are that an Infant when he sue may be by Guardian or Prochein amy the one or the other but when he is sued it shall be by Guardian Mich. 3 Car. Wolfe versus Hole WOlfe an Attorney Plaintiff against Hole by a Writ of Priviledge Amendment and he Count upon an Assumpsit And after Verdict given and Iudgment a Writ of Error was brought and moved that there was a default in the Imparlance Roll viz. fault de trover pledges which was as it ought to be in the Plea Roll And it was moved that it might be amended and after debate at Bar by Henden and Davenport it was resolved that the not finding of Pledges is not matter of form but matter of substance and it concerns the King for if the cause to amerce the Plaintiff the Iudgment is Ideo le Plaintiff ses pledge sont Amerce and that it is not aided by the Statute of 18 Eliz. quod quaere and vide 12 Eliz Dyer 288. there is a Case written by me that An 17 Jac was amended after the Verdict and in one Hillaries case and vide thâ—re in Dyer that the Plaintiff when he is sued by Priviledges ought to find pledges and that as well as when a Bill is filed against an Attorney But now because that it was assigned for Error and that if it be amendable the Iustices of the Kings Bench would amend it this Court would not but if it had been in the Imparlance Roll and omitted in the Plea Roll it should be amended vide 18 E 4. 9. that Pledges may be entred at any time Hil. 2. Car. Rot. 565. Hilton versus Paule RIchard Hilton brought an action of Trespasse against Robert Paule Trespasse Which shall be said a Parish Church within the act of 43 Eliz. for the maintenance of thâ— poor for the taking of a Saddle at Stoke-Goldenham And upon Not guilty pleaded the Iury gave a speciall Verdict Viz. That the Parish of Hinkley was de temps dont memory c. and yet is an ancient Rectory and a Church Parochiall And that the Town of Stoke-Goldenham is an ancient Town and parcell of the Rectory of Hinkley And that from the time of H. 6. and afterwards untill this time there hath been and is in the Town of Goldenham a Church which by all the said time hath been used and reputed as a Parish And that the Inhabitants of Stoke-G by all the said time had had all Parochiall Rights and Church-wardens And that the Towâ—â— of Stoke-Goldenham is distant two miles from Hinkley And the Verdict concluded it it should seem to them that Stoke Goldenham is a Parish for the relief of Poor within the Statute of 43 Eliz. cap. 2. then they find for the Plaintiff if not for the Defendant And this Case was argued by Serjeant Barkley and he vouched Linwood fol 89. and said that there is Ecclesia major minor and a dependant Church upon the principall and another Church and which is found to be used and reputed ergo it is not a Parish And that the Exception of the Chappell of Foulnes which by the Statute is made a Parish proves that Chappell and Parish are not within the Statute he vouched 4 E 4. 39. and 5 E 4. to prove that divers Town may be one Parish And the Lord Richardson said that it is a clear case that this is a Parish within the intent of the Statute of 43 Eliz. for the relief of Poor And that the Church-wardens and Overseers of Stoke-Goldenham might assesse for the relief of the Poor And though it be found that after the time of H. 6. and untill now it had been used as a Parish Church that doth not exclude that it was not used so before And a Reputative Chantery is within the Statute of Chantries 1 E 6. And this Statute being made for the relief of the Poor and that they might not wander therfore the intent of the Statute is to confine the relief to Parishes then in esse and so used And every one of the Court delivered their opinion and concurred And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hil. 3 Car. Peto versus Pemmerton Mich. 3 Car. Rot. 414. Replevin SIr Edward Peto Knight brought Replevin against Robert Pemmerton and Giles Thompson The Defendants made Conusance as Bayliffs to Humphrey Peto Where Grantee of a Rent-charge takes a Lease of part of the Land and surrenders it the Rent shall be revived and that Humphrey the Father of the said Humphry was seised of the place in which c. in Fee and by his Deed granted the Rent of six pounds to the said Humphrey his Son for life out therof to Commence after the Death of the Grantor and shewed that Humphrey the Father died and for Rent arrear c. The Plaintiff in Bar to the Avowry confesse the grant and seisin of the Land and that the said Humphrey died seised of the Land out of which the Rent was granted and that that descended to William and from William to the Plaintiff who entred and demised to the said Humphrey the Son parcell of the Lands unde c. for five hundred years by force of which Lease the said Humphrey had entred and was possessed The Defendants replyed that afterwards and before any part for which they made Conusance was arrear the said Humphrey the Son surrendred the said Lease to Sir Edward Peto to which surrender the said Sir Edward agreed wherupon the Plaintiff demurred And this Case was argued by Henden and he said that when the act of him which had the Rent made the suspension his act alone could not revive it But a Rent suspended might be revived by the act of Law or by the joynt act or agreement of the parties by whom the suspension was made 21 H. 7. 7. 19 H 6. 4. 19 H 6. 45. 7 H 6. 2. As for the personall things when they are suspended they are extinct unlesse it be in auter droit as if Feme Executrix take the Debtor to Husband and the Baron dies the Wife shall have an action of Debt against his Executors One reason in this case is because that by the surrender which is accepted the Contract is determined and that is by the act of both And by the surrender the Estate for years is extinguisht to all purposes as to that to which the surrender was made as if he had granted a Rent now it shall
commence and he is seised in Fee and may hold it charged with both the Rents 2 H 5. 7. 5 H 5. 34. Ass 15. And this Estate surrendred is in Esse as to the benefit of strangers but not as to the benefit of him who accepted it for hee is seised in Fee vide Lillingstons case And the Court was of opinion that the Rent was revived and that the Contract is now determined Nota that this grant to Humphrey the Son for years was but upon confidence to assign it over If Grantee of an Estate for life of a Rent take an Estate for life of part of the Land and surrender it yet the Rent is not revived for it was extinct in this case if he had granted his interest quere and if he had granted his interest over to I. S. and he had surrendred it that shall not revive the Rent because that he had by his granting over of his interest discharged of the Rent extinguish it quaere but in the principall case the Rent was suspended by the acceptance of the Lease and is revived by the surrender And it was agreed that where Lessee for years surrender to which the Lessor agree and accept it the possession and the interest is in him without entry Hil. 3 Car. Sandford versus Cooper SAndford brought a Scire facias against Cooper to have execution of a Iudgment for sixteen pounds Sci. fac which Iudgment was de Oct. Hil. An. 2 Car. And one being returned Ter-tenant pleaded that after the Iudgment viz. 22 Jan. he against whom the Iudgment was viz. John Bill acknowledged a Statute-staple and sheweâ— that by that the Land was extended and after upon liberate delivered in Execution and demand Iudgment wherupon the Plaintiff demurred And the sole question was to what day the Iudgment shall have relation for it appears in the pleading To what day a Judgment shall have relation that the twentieth day of January was the day of Essoin and it seemed to the Court that the Iudgment should have relation to the first day of this return as well as if it had been a return in the Tearm viz. 15 Hil. for otherwise it should be uncertain And he may be Non-suited upon this day vide 5 Eliz. Dyer fol. 200. That a recovery being in the first return the Warrant of Attorney made and dated the fourth day is taken to be a Warrant after Iudgment and vide 33 E 6. fol 45 46. the principall case there If a Nisi prius taken after the day of Essoin shall be good and it is adjudged not for the first day is the return And it was agreed that in Common Parlance the first day of the Tearm is the fourth day viz. If one be obliged to appear or to pay monies the first day of such a Tearm Loquendum est ut vulgus But the Law relate the Iudgment to the first day of every return vide Dyer 361. a Release pleaded after the Darrein Continuance which was dated the one and twentieth of January which was the day after the Essoin day and it was not good for it ought to be before the utas Hillarii Gillinghams case And my Brother Harvey and Crook vouched one Gillinghams case viz. A Release of all Iudgments before the fourth day and after the day of Essoin would not release this Iudgment which was de Octab. Hil. vide many cases vouched to this purpose 4 E 3.34 H 6. 20. a Writ of Error brought after the utas and before the fourth that is good and brought after Iudgment vide 22 H 6. 7. a. a Writ of Error ought to be brought after the Iudgment rendred or otherwise no Execution shall be stayed And all the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff in this Scire facias Hil. 3 Car. Holt versus Sambach Trin. 2 Car. Rot. 731. Replevin Tenant for life with a remainder to him in tail expectant and remainder in fee grant a rent in fee afterwards had fee by fine SIr Thomas Holt brought Replevin against Thomas Sambach in which upon Demurrer the Case was Sir William Catesby being Tenant for life of Land the remainder in tail to Robert his Son the remainder in Fee granted a Rent of ten pounds by the year out therof to William Sambach in Fee and Sir William and Robert his Son levied a Fine with Proclamations which was to the use of the said Sir William in Fee and afterwards the said Sir William enfeoffed Sir Thomas Holt and died Robert had Issue Robert and died And the Court was of opinion that this Grant in Fee is good for he had an Estate for life in possession and an Estate of remainder in tail and remainder in Fee in himself to charge and then the Fee-simple passe by the Grant And although that Robert the Son might have avoided it yet when he had barred the Estate-tail c. by Fine to the use of Sir William now Sir William Catesby had by this acceptance of this Estate to himself avoided the means by which he might have avoided the Rent And although that in Bredons case in the first Book when Tenant for life and he in the remainder in tail joyn in a Fine rendring Rent to Tenant for life that passeth from every one that which lawfully might passe and that the Rent continue after the death of him in the remainder in tail without Issue yet in this case the Estate is barred by the Fine and united to that Estate which William the Grantor had and now William is seised in Fee and this Rent made unavoidable The Case was well argued by Henden and Davenport but it appeared that the Conusance was for twenty shillings part of the rent of fifty pounds behind and for fifty pounds parcell of two hundred pounds arrear for Nomine poenae and did not say in his Avowry that he was satisfied of the rest And therfore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff vide 20 E 4. 2 a. 48 E. 3. 3. Chichley versus the Bishop of Ely Quare Impedit DAme Dorothy Chichley brought a Quare Impedit against Nich Bishop of Ely and Mark Thompson the Incumbent for the Church of Wimple and counted that Thomas Chichley was seised of the Advowson of the said Church in Fee as in grosse and presented to it being void Edward Marshall which was Instituted and Inducted and afterward the said Thomas Chichley died seised and the Advowson descended to his Son and Heir Sir Thomas Chichley Traverse upon Traverse who by his Deed indented c. for the increase of the Ioynture of the Plaintiff granted the said Advowson to Thomas East and Edward Anger and their Heirs to the use of the said Plaintiff for life and afterwards to the use of the Heirs Males of the body of Sir Thomas Chichley and that by force therof she was seised for life And the Church being hold by the death of the said Edward Marshall she presented and the
use of the said Robert and Isaac and their Heirs for ever by force therof and of the Statute 27 H 8. they were seised of the said Rent in Fee and after the said Robert died and Isaac survived and is yet seised Per jus Accrescendi and for Rent arrear c. and for the said forfeiture of forty shillings they avow wherupon the Plaintiff demur And upon Conference between the Iudges they all agreed that by this Fine which granted to Brook and Jermy and the Heirs of Brook to the use of Brook and Jermy and their Heirs that they were in by the Statute of 27 H 8. and were Ioyn-tenants of the Rent for otherwise there would be such a Fraction of the Estato that Brook should be in by the Common Law and Jermy by the Statute and that is not according to the Statute And it appears that the use was limited by the Fine it self and not by any Indenture And the principall reason is upon the Statute of 27 H 8. which is where two or three are seised to the use of one or two of them Cestui que uâ—e shall be adjudged to have such Estate in possession as they have in use Iudgment pro Defendent Memorand That in this Term a motion was made for the filing of a Writ of Entry in a Common Recovery suffered by Sir John Smith upon a Purchase and all was well done and the Writ made and sealed Filing of a Writ of Entry many Termes after but by the negligence of the Attorney it was not filed and it was Unanimo assensu resolved that it should be filed and that after the death of Sir John Smith for it is but to perfect a Common Recovery which is a Common Conveyance And this was denied in the case of one Allonson for there Error was brought and Diminution alledged and a Certificate that there was no Writ by the Custos brevium And it is ordinary to file these Writs at any time within a year without motion Mich. 8 Car. Harbert versus Angell CHarles Harbert Plaintiff against Angell Case Words in an action upon the case of words which were Thou art a Theef and hast cousened my Cosin Baldwin of his Land And after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the words would not maintain action And at the first Iustice Crawley and Iustice Vernon were of opinion that the former part of the words were actionable and that they were not extenuated by the subsequent words but they agreed if it had been for thou hast robbed c. it would be otherwise And the Lord Heath and Iustice Hutton were of a contrary opinion and that the words And and For are in this case to have one effect and declare what Theef he intended And they relyed on Birtridges case Coke lib 4. And upon this diversity of opinion the Lord Heath conferred with the Iustices of Serjeants Inn in Fleetstreet and we with the Lord Richardson and they all agreed that the subsequent words explained his intent and meaning viz. the Robbery and cousening of the Land And Verba sunt accipienda in mitiori sensu As to say Thou hast stoln my Corn it shall be intended Com growing so in Arrowes case Arrowes case 19 Jac. Thou art a Theef and hast stoln ten Cart-loads of my Furzes adjudged not actionable for it shall be intended of Furzes growing Quaerens nil capiat per breve Ram versus Lamley Norff. RAm brought an action upon the case against Lamley and declared That wheras he was Bonus legalis homo and free a suspitione feloniae the Defendant maliciously want to the Major of Linn and requested a Warrant of him being a Iustice of Peace against the Plaintiff for stealing his Ropes The Major said to him Be advised and look what you do the Defendant said to the Major Sir Words I will charge him with flat Felony for stealing my Ropes from my Shop Quorum quidem verborum c. And after Not guilty pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff Hitcham moved in Arrest of Iudgment And the Court unanimously resolved that these words being spoken to the Iustice of Peace when he came for his Warrant which was lawfull would not maintain an action for if they should no other would come to a Iustice to make complaint and to inform him of any Felony Quaerens nil capiat per breve Mich. 8 Car. Lamb versus West Trin. 8 Car. Rot. 333. SIr John Lamb Knight brought Replevin against Thomas West and count Replevin that the Defendant took his Beasts at Blisworth in quodam loco vocat Thorny Close The Defendant avowed as Bayliff to Sir William Sheapherd and derived Title by a Lease to Michael West for ninety years if he and Thomas West the Defendant Demand of Rent and one Hutton West should so long live And the said Michael 19. Aprilis An 20 Jac. granted a Rent-charge of ten pounds per annum to the said William Shepheard and his Executors out of the place in which c. for the residue of his Tearm to be paid at the house of Thomas West in S. And the said Mich. granted that if the Rent he arrear by eight and twenty daies being lawfully demanded at the said house he should forfeit twenty shillings for every day that it should he arrear and if it be arrear by six months being lawfully demanded at the said house then he might distrain for that and the Nomine poenae And for Rent arrear by a year after demand due c. he makes Conuzance And therupon the Plaintiff demurred generalls And after many Arguments at Bar the Iustices delivered shortly their opinions severally and all argued that it is a Rent-charge and then a Distresse is incident to a Rent-charge which is in its creation a Rent-charge as well as if one makes a Lease for life or years rendring Rent and if it be lawfully demanded then it shall be lawfull to distrain for it None will deny but that he may distrain for this Rent without any demand And the diversity is between a Penalty and a Rent for if the Avowry had been for any part of the Nomine poenae then without actuall demand at the day he could not have distrained therfore vide Maunds case Coke lib 7. fol 28. And all agreed that when a Distresse is for Homage if it be once tendred and refused he cannot distrain without demand vide Litt 34. 21 E 4. 6. 16 17. 7. E 4. 4. That where a Rent is reserved upon a Lease and an Obligation to pay it yet that alters not the nature of the Rent 22 H 6. a good case Rent is reserved upon a Lease and an Obligation to perform Covenants that extends not to the Rent reserved but if it be to pay the Rent then it shall be demanded there it is said that if Rent be tendred and refused the Lord or Lessor may distrain without demand It was agreed that
Peter Edgecombe and it was to the intent of granting the Rent to the King and his Heirs and then of the recovery of the Mannor out of which c. to the said Sir Peter Edgecombe in tail the remainder to the King and they being seised by their Deed dated the third of June 11 H 8. sealed and delivered which is found in haec verba and that it was inrolled afterwards viz. 7. June granted the said Rent to H 8. Et si super totam materiam the Court adjudged it a Grant by Deed the third of June 11 H 8. then for the Defendant c. And upon Argument at Bar and conference had we all declared our opinion and agreed that Iudgment should be given for the Defendants The first reason was that the Issue is joyned upon the Grant modo forma and not upon the day as is offered by the Traverse but upon the Grant modo forma And the matter found is generally as is alledged vide Littleton Title Release that modo forma avoid and prevent the matter of day and goes solely to that which is materiall And by any thing which appears by the Verdict there is no intervening matter after the third day and before the seventh when the Deed was enrolled and then it is a good Grant of the third of June vide H 7 31. Then the speciall Conclusion found which is contrary to Law shall not conclude the Iudges to give Iudgment according to Law And so Iudgment was given for the Defendants Mich. 8 Car. Col. versus Wilkes SAmpson Cole brought an action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 H. 6. against Leonard Wilkes Tryall at the Bar Debt Debt upon the Statute of the 2 E. 6. for Tithes A Lease was made to two they enter and occupy and set not out their Tithes Debt was brought against one of them it lies not But here it was found that one only occupyed the Land and therfore the action well lies Sir John Gerards case And a Case was shewn Mich 8 Jac. An action of Debt was brought upon this Statute by Sir John Gerard against two Tenants in Common and it appeared that one of them set out his Tithe and that the other afterwards took it and carried it away and adjudged that the action lies only against him which carried it away Pasch 9 Car. Strilley's Case Amendment of the proclamation of a fine VPon motion made in this Court for the amendment of a Proclamation of a Fine levied by Strilley of Lands in Nottinghamshire Mich 11 Eliz. The Proclamations endorsed by the Chirographer upon the Fine were well but in the Transcript and Note of the Fine which is delivered to the Custos brevium by the Chirographer according to the Statute the second Proclamation was entred to be made the twentieth of May where it should have been the twenty third day of May and that by the misprision of the Clerk And it was moved that that might be amended And the Court was of opinion that it should be amended for the Ingrossement upon the Fine by the Chirographer is the foundation and that being well it is sufficient Warrant to amend the other And the Court was of opinion that it was a good Fine without any amendment But it being the misprision of the Clerk it shall be amended as in the case Coke lib 8. Blackamores case The Proclamation made and entred before the Originall shall be amended And it was objected that this Fine and Proclamations as they found in the Office of the Custos brevium are exemplified under the Great Seal and therfore by a Clause in the Statute of 23 Eliz cap. 3. could not be amended after such exemplification To that it was answered that that Statute extends only to Fines before levied which should be exemplified before the first day of June An 1582. And the latter clause in the said Statute doth not extend but to Fines exemplified according to the said Statute And therfore it was awarded to be amended Pasch 9 Car. Glasier versus Heliar Sussex Case GLasier brought an action upon the case for words against Heliar and shewed that three Colliers being in an house in Sussex were feloniously burnt in the said house and shewed that two or three men were indicted convicted and executed for the said Murther the Defendant knowing therof and intending to bring the Plaintiff in perill of his life Words as accessary to the said Murther sayd to him Thou didst bring Faggots a mile and a half to the burning of the Colliers And after Verdict for the Plaintiff and motion in Arrest of Iudgment it was adjudged that the words were actionable For if a Mansion-house be burnt feloniously to say You brought fire to set in the Thatch of the house which is burnt it is actionable Iudgment pro quaerente Smith versus Cornelius Southamp JOhn Smith Town-Clark of Southampton Case brought an action upon the case against one Cornelius an Attorney of this Court and shew that the Plaintiff was of good fame and Town-Clark of the Major and Burgesses of Southampton and was their Scribe and had the custody of all Rolls Pleas and Certificates Words and other proceedings before the Major and Burgesses in the Court before them to be holden And the Defendant intending to draw him into Infamy and to cause him to lose his Office said to him Thou hast made many false Certificate to the Major and Burgesses in that Court and the more thou stirrest in it the more it will stink And it was adjudged that these words are not actionable 1. Because that it is not alledged that there was any Colloquium concerning his Office of Town-Clark 2. Because that it appears not in the Count that the making of Certificates belong to his Office but only that he had the custody of them 3. It might be false and yet no blame to him if he did know them to be false or that he had made them false maliciously And therfore Iudgment was given for the Defendant And this Case was moved again by Hitcham the first day of Trinity Term next And then Iudgment was affrmed Hil. 9 Jac. Edwards versus Laurence Trin. 9 Car. Rot. 2488. Suff. RAchel Edwards brought an action of Trespasse against Richard Laurence for breaking of her Close Trespasse The Defendant in Bar to the new Assignment plead Traverse of Seisin that before the time of the Trespasse supposed to be done one Francis Tayler was seised in Fee of the Tenements wherof c. and so being seised died wherby it descended to Francis his Son and Heir who being seised therof 8 Car. demised it to the Defendant for two years by vertue wherof he entred and gives colour to the Plaintiff by a Grant made to him by Francis the Father where nothing passed therby and so iustifie The Plaintiff replyed that long before Francis Tayler the Son had any thing one Francis Tayler Grand-father of
the Award of Costs were in full force and effect But that afterwards viz. such a time as well the said Iudgment de non pros as the said Iudgment of thirty pounds Debt against the now Plaintiff were evacuated wherupon the Defendant demurred And it having been often debated by Hitcham for the Defendant and Henden for the Plaintiff And now upon Oyer of the Record and of the Iudgment the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff And the Lord Finch said that this action upon the case is grounded upon two misdemeanours 1. The procurement of the said Iudgment for Edw. L. after a Non pros entred for the Defendant And though the Iudgment was erroneous yet the now Plaintiff was vexed and imprisoned therby which indeed is the cause of this action 2. The taking therof unlawfully when the first Iudgment de non pros was in force and the Plea of Nil tiel Record go only to one of the Causes And admitting that there was never a Iudgment de non pros but that the Defendant had unlawfully procured a Iudgment and taken Execution therupon and procured the Plaintiff to be taken in Execution and Imprisoned this is cause of action And to that he hath not answered and therfore he ought to have pleaded Not guilty to that which he takes by protestation Iudgment pro quaerente Pasch 11 Car. Baker versus Hucking Adjudged B. Rs. Tenant in tail and he in Reversion make a I. case Pro ut aut vic TEnant in tail and he in Reversion joyn by Deed in a Lease for life he in Reversion devise the Land by his Will to one in Fee and dieth Tenant in tail dies without Issue and the Heir of him in Reversion and the Devises claim the Land And the sole question is if this Lease be a Discontinuance and it was adjudged a Discontinuance and then the Devise void for he had not a Reversion And the difference was taken when Tenant for life and he in Reversion joyn in a Lease by Deed for without Deed it is first a Surrender Discontinuance and then the Lease or Feoffment of him in Reversion it shall be the Lease of Tenant for life so long as he live and after the Lease of him in Reversion and yet they shall joyn in a Writ of Wast And in this case there is no question but if the Lease had been made solely by Tenant in tail that then it were a Discontinuance and the joyning of him in Reversion alters it not for that amounts to nothing but as a Confirmation and is not like to Bredons case Coke lib 1. fol 76. Where Tenant for life and he in remainder in tail levy a Fine for every one there passeth that which lawfully he may And upon Argument it was adjudged that it was a Discontinuance and not the Lease of him in Reversion but his Confirmation Iustice Crooke differed in opinion Mich. 11 Car. Lashbrookes Case Somerset LEwes Lashbrook an Attorney of this Court brought an action of Trespasse against I. S. for entring into his house and breaking his Close And in the new Assignment he alledged the Trespasse to be in a house called the Entry and in a house called the Kitchin and in his Garden and in one Close called the Court. The Defendant as to the force c. and to all besides the Entry plead Not guilty And as to his entry into the Court and Kitchin A Warrant to four and two of them execute it and the Tenements aforesaid of the new Assignment he plead that he had brought an action against a woman for Trespasse and had so proceeded that he recovered and had execution directed to the Sheriff of Somersetshire and therupon a Warrant directed to four speciall Bayliffs to arrest the said Woman and two of them at Minehead in the County of Somersetshire arrested her and carried her to the house of the Plaintiff in Minehead being a Common Inn and the Defendant entred into the said houses called the Entry and Kitchin and the Tenements aforesaid of the new Assignment to speak to the Bayliffs and to warn them to keep her safe And as soon as he could he returned wherupon the Plaintiff demurred And now Henden took two Exceptions the first was 1. That the Defendant had not pleaded to all the Closes but that was over-ruled for he justified in the tenements aforesaid of the new Assignment 2. The second was that the Warrant to the Bayliffs was to all and not Conjunctim and Divisim and therfore it should be by all and not by two only To that it was answered and resolved that when a Sheriff makes such a Warrant which is for the Execution of Iustice that may be by any of them for it is Pro bono publico And the very Case was adjudged 45 Eliz between King Hebbs Coke Littleton 181. b. And Iudgment was given for the Defendant Hil. 11 Car. Davies Case Hereford DAvies an Attorney of this Court brought an action upon the case for these words If I list I can prove him Perjured Words And the opinion of the Court was that they were not actionable for there is not any Affirmative that he was perjured but a thing which is Arbitrary and saies not that he would do it Iudgment pro Defend Mich. 7 Car. Rot. 1097. Alston versus Andrew Suff. Pâ—ter Alston Executor of Peter Alston brought an action of Debt upon an Obligation of a hundred and twenty pounds against William Andrew The Obligor and the Obligee make the same person Executor and Edward Andrew and count That the Defendants and one Francis A. became obliged to the Testator c. and that they did not pay it is the said Testator in his life nor to the now Plaintiff and one Francis Andrew Co-executor with the Plaintiff who is summoned and the Plaintiff admits to prosecute alone without the same Francis c. The Defendants demand Oyer of the Obligation which is entred in haec verba and plead that Francis A. in the said Writing named after the making therof made the said Francis Andrew and Barb. A. his Executors and died And that the said Francis A. accepted the Burthen of the Testament And after the said Peter Alston the Testator made his will and Constituted the Plaintiff and the said Francis his Executors and died Et hoc paratus est verificare unde c. wherupon the Plaintiff demur Trugeon and Meron Mich 2 Jac. Rot. 2663. Garret Trugeon Plaintiff against one Anthony Meron and others the Administrators of Benjamin Scrivin upon a single Bill The Defendants demand Oyer of the Bill wherby it appears that one John Simcocks was obliged to the said Trugeon joyntly and severally with the said Scrivin Quibus lectis auditis the Defendants sayd that the said Simcocks died intestate and that the Administration of his Goods was granted to the now Plaintiff who accepted the Burthen of the Administration and Administred the Plaintiff demurred
without Custom nor the Lord cannot commit during the Minority of an Infant Copyholder without Custom Hil. 15 Jac. Rot. 906. Smith versus Stafford Brownlow Suff. ANdrew Smith and Anne his Wife Case against Richard Stafford Executor of Jeremy Stafford in an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff counts that wheras there was Communication had of a Marriage between the said Anne when she was sole and the said Jeremy Where inter-marriage release a promise made by the Husband to the Wife before marriage the said Jeremy in consideration that the said Anne would take him to her husband promised that if after the Marriage the said Jeremy dyed living the said Anne he would leave the said Anne worth a hundred pounds and aver that she did marry the said Jeremy which died and did not leave her worth a hundred pounds And upon Non assumpsit the Iury found for the Plaintiff and in Arrest of Iudgment it was alledged that this intermarriage had extinguisht the action vide 11 H 7. 4 21 H. 7. 30. Coke 8. 136. there in Sir John Needhams case many cases are put vide Hoes case that a Release do not discharge Bail before Iudgment for it is contingent vide one Iudgment Hil 6. Jac. in the Kings Bench Rot 132. Thomas Belcher and Elizabeth his Wife Belcher and Hudson against Edmond Hudson an Action upon the case in consideration that the said Elizabeth at his request would take one Thomas Mason his familiar Friend to her Husband he assumed and promised that if the said Elizabeth survived the said Mason that he would pay yearly to her forty shillings for her maintenance and shews that therupon she did take the said Mason to her Husband and survived him and then married with the Plaintiff the Defendant pleads a Release from Mason of all Actions Demands c. and it was adjudged no sufficient release But Lord Hobart said that if he had released all promises that would have discharged the Defendant vide 4 Eliz Release of all Actions Suits Quarrels c. doth not release a Covenant before it be broken but otherwise of a release of all Covenants as it appears in Dyer 57. though the principall case was a release of all Covenants untill such a day and Covenants were broken before and not discharged for it being broken before there was no Covenant as to that Vide Lampets case Coke lib 10. 51. the reason of the release in Hoes case was because that it was contingent and uncertain and 17 Eliz a Lease to the Husband and Wife for life the Remainder to the Survivor of them for one and twenty years the Baron grant it over and survive yet it is void because it was contingent And the Lord Hobart said that the promise was released by the inter-marriage and so shall be in the case of an Obligation for Fortior est dispositio legis quam hominis and he held that strongly to be Law but Iustice Winch and Iustice Hutton held the contrary and that the Law will not work a release contrary to the intent of the parties and that the marriage which is the cause do not destroy that which it self creates Trin. 6 Jac. Jurden versus Stone Glocest EIectment upon a Lease made by Alice Remington of a Copyhold in South Corny Walter B. Copyholder in Fee married the said Alice And there was a Custom in the Mannor that the Wife shall have the Copyhold as of Franck-banck during her Widowhood Where a woman may enter in and bring an action tâ—â— beâ—â—â— Franck bank before admittance Si tam diu casta viveret and had used to challenge it and the Lord granted it as appears by divers admittances of women and this Wife after the death of her Husband came into Court and challenged her right of Franck-bank and prayed to be admitted and that the Steward refused and she made a Lease for one year to the Plaintiff and if he might bring this action by reason the woman was not admitted for it was agreed that no Fine was due to the Lord was the question And upon the Evidence it was resolved by the Court that this Estate ariseth out of the Estate of the Husband And as Lord Hobart said it budded forth of the first Estate and it seemed that where Tenant for life is admitted that shal be the admittance of him in remainder Also if the Free-hold of the Copyhold be granted over and the Husband dies there there cannot be any admittance and yet she may enter and in this case if any admittance had been necessary she had done all that she could do and that amounts to an admittance in Law to an Estate created by the Custom and by the act of God and Law A Tenant alieu and the Feoffee tender the services and gives notice the Lord refuse this is sufficient and the Lord shall be compelled to avow upon him Continuall claim amounts to an entry Pasch 16 Jac. Rot. 444. Blands Case Case GEorge Bland brought an Action upon the Case against A. B. the Defendant having some communication with one Eagle said that he was a troublesome fellow and he doubted not but to see him indicted at the next Assises for Barretry or Sheep-stealing as George Bland was Words for George Bland was indicted the last Assises for stealing of Sheep and it was not averred that he was not indicted but that he was of good fame It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that it is not actionable and so was the opinion of the Court for it is not a direct affirmative vide the case of Steward against Bishop before fol. 1. And if one saies I suspect you for stealing my Horse And Iudgment was given for the Defendant Trin. 16 Jac. Darcy versus Askwith Brownlow Ebor. JOhn Lord Darcy of Ashton brought an action of Wast against Robert Askwith now Knight and John Marshall Wast and assigne the wast in Woods viz. In cutting down and selling two Oakes foure Ashes in a Close called Tisley Close two Okes in Parsons croft one Ash in Pinder croft and sixty one Oakes in Preston Lands Wast in cutting of wood to make Cole mines and in divers other Closes in Swillington and Preston The Defendant plead a Lease of the Mannor of Swillington to him for years and also of the Mines and justifie the shrowding of the Trees to make Punchons Poles and Stakes and other Vtensils in and about certain Pits called Cole-mines in one of the Closes without which the Defendants could noâ— dig and take Coles out of the said Pits and aver imployment about of the said Cole-mines justifie the cutting of other trees for the making of Instruments for the extracting of the water out of the said Pits and that without which they could not dig any Coles and they were necessary for the digging of Coles and for supporting the Pits and aver the Imployment And therupon the Plaintiff demurred And we all agreed
be after the title devolved unto the Metropolitan And it seems also reason that he ought to admit though that the Title by Laps be accrued to the King for he claims it as supream Ordinary vide Dyer 277. quaere But in this case the Bishop which is the Defendant is bound by the Iudgement and the Writ is notwithstanding the claim of the Bishop that he admit the Clerk and the Bishop is but Servant and ought to execute the processe of the Court It was urged by Serjeant Henden one Canon Linwood fol. That if the Church be vacant when the Writ comes to the Bishop that he is bound to execute the Writ but if it be full then he certifies the Iustices And the Arch-bishop is sworn to the Canons and he vouched 22 H 6. 45. Coke lib 6. 49. and 52 Dyer 260. F.N.B. 47. Dyer 364. 14 H 7. 22. 34. H 6. 41. 9 E 3. Quare non admisit 18 E 4. 7. Trin. 16 Jac. Rot. 1999. Eire versus Bannester JOhn Eire brought an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease made by Sir Edward Kinaston against Andrew Bannester and Thomas Wenlock for Land in Norwood Challenge and after Not guilty the Plaintiff made surmiss of Kindred to the Sheriff Sir Thomas Owen to the Plaintiff the Defendant pleads that the Sheriff Non est de consanguinitate of the Plaintiff as he by his challenge supposed And because the Defendant denied the said Challenge John Eire calumnia illa non obstant prec est quod ven fac c. And at the Nisi prius the Defendants challenge the Array for consanguinity between the Sheriff and the Lessor viz. Sir Edward Kinaston and make this Averment that the Sheriff had Issue by Susan which was the Daughter of Judith the Wife of Sir Edward Kinaston and conclude it is a principall Challenge and therupon the Plaintiff demurred And it was returned upon the Postea and it seems that the Sheriff being admitted and allowed to be indifferent by the Defendants in the same Plea they which allow cannot have a Challenge to the Sheriff for the Defendants might by confession of the surmise of the Plaintiff to be true have had a Writ directed to the Coroners and although the entry is Calumnia illa non obstant that is the form of the Award and if he should be allowed otherwise afterwards to challenge the Array then it would be infinite As a man ought to alledge but one principall Challenge though he hath many so it shall be peremptory to the Defendant and when he allows the Sheriff indifferent that shall be taken to be for all causes precedent unlesse it be of latter time And so is the opinion of 20 E 4. 2. And if there be many Defendants if one challenge the Array that shall be peremptory for the others as it seems for the others ought when they challenge the Tales to shew cause presently of the Challenge for if it be quashed that shall also be against them vide Dyer 201. in Attaint vide 36 H. 6. 21. that where one challenge the Array which is affirmed the other Defendants after may challenge the Array of the Tales The second point is if it be a principall challenge or no by reason that the Lessor is not party to the Action vide 10 E 4. 12. 15 E. 4. 18. and 21 E. 4. 61. there it seems that where the Defendant justifies as Servant to I.S. and that the Land is his Free-hold it is a principall challenge that a Iuror is within the Distresse of John S. for the Title is to be tryed And now it was found by common experience that the Lessâ—e is but Servant common recoveries at this day are but as other common Conveyances But it seems that the Law is contrary and it is not averred that this is a Lease for trying the Title and as Iudges we take no notice therof but vide 3 H 7. 2. contrary to the 10 and 15 E 4. where the Challenge is to the Array because that the Sheriff was of Kindred to him whose Free-hold was in Issue and vide 9 H 7. 22. Cognizance as Bayliff to the Abbot of Ramsey Challenge to the Array because the Sheriff was within the Distresse of the Abbot and that was not a principall Challenge by Fineux Brian and Vavasor because that he was not party to the Writ vide this very Case Dyer 300. And upon argument at the Bar the Court was of opinion that it was no principall Challenge but ought to have concluded with the favour All agreed that a Surmise which is for prevention of delay ought to contain matter which is a principall Challenge for no triall shal be of such suggestion but by the deniall of the Defendant or Confession And by the opinion of Lord Hobart and Iustice Winch cest dedire n'est peremptory to the Defendant for his time of challenge is not till the Iury come to be sworn but I hold the contrary because that he might have confessed the Surmise and so have had time And I rely upon 20 E 4. 2. there in the end of the Case it is said that the Defendant by his deniall where he saies that the Sheriff is not favourable but indifferent there he shall never have a challenge for favour unlesse he shews cause of later time As to the second Point it is no principall Challenge because it might be that the Lessor had granted over the Reversion or that the Defendant might be found Not guilty And a principall Challenge ought to contain such matter which being so the Law adjudge favourable and in this very case two Presidents scil Iudgments more strong then this case Bedforne and Dandy Hil 44 Eliz Rot 1208. Bedforne against Dandy in an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease made by Sir John Digby after Not guilty pleaded a Surmise made of consanguinity between the Lessor and the Sheriff c. confessed and therupon a Venire facias to the Coroners and after the Challenge was adjudged insufficient and a Venire facias likewise to the Sheriff was ruled Craddock and Wenlock Trin 14 Jac. Rot. 2284. Craddock against Wenlock in an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease made by Sir Robert Cotton such Challenge and Award to the Coroners and tryed and adjudged a mis-tryall and a Venire facias awarded to the Sheriff and the mis-tryall is not aided by the Statute vide Coke lib 5. Bainhams case And so by the Iudgment of the Court this Challenge was insufficient and Warburton being then sick was of the same opinion as he told me vide 8 Eliz Dyer 281. Austen and Baker in Attaint vide 33 H. 6. 21. 3. Defendants one challenge the Array of the Principall and that being affirmed the other Defendants challenge the Tales Mich. 16 Jac. Easington versus Boucher Debt Severall Defendants in Debt upon a joynt Contract may plead severall pleaâ— EAsington brought an action of Debt upon a joynt Contract against Sir John
entred and 2 H 7. 4. takes a difference between a reall Action or Originall Suit and a Writ of Execution for upon the first the Essoin lies at any time before the fourth day but in the Writ of Execution the Defendant ought to be essoined at the day of the Essoin And Warburton said that if the Essoin be not cast before the return of the Writ it ought not to be at all for all Writs come in by Post diem Cardinals Case CArdinall an Attorney of this Court of Common Bench Case brought an action upon the case against I. B. for saying of him That he had forged the last Will of I. S. and after Issue upon not guilty it was found for the Plaintiff And moved in Arrest of Iudgment Words that it is not alledged that the Will is supposed to be forged But by the Court that was necessarily implyed and the Plaintiff had Iudgment Pasch 17 Jac. Allaboyter versus Clifford Suff. JOhn Allaboyter brought an action of Debt upon an Obligation against Daniel Clifford which was with a Condition Debt that if the Defendant perform the Award of two Arbitrators of all Actions Demanos c moved between the Plaintiff and Defendant from the beginning of the world untill the day of the date of the Obligation Arbitrement so that the arbitrement be made before the tenth day of December the Defendant plead no such award before the day the Plaintiff reply and shew that the ninth day of December they awarded of and upon the premisses and arbitrated that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff fourteen pounds at two severall daies and that upon the last day the Plaintiff should make a generall release to the Defendant and the Defendant likewise to the Plaintiff and alledge a breach for the non payment of the first seven pounds and aver that the fourteen pounds was awarded to the Plaintiff in full satisfaction of all suits quarrells c. depending between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at any time before the Date of the Obligation upon which Plea the Defendant demurred and objected by Attho that the Release which is appointed to be made upon the last day is not appointed but after the payment of the money and also is then to be made of more then is submitted to them But by the Court it is agreed to be a good Award for it shall not be intended that there were more matters arising between them after the date of the Obligation Also if he had made a Release untill the date of the Obligation that were a good performance And this Case had been adjudged before between Nichols and Grandie Nichols and Grandy George Andrews Case VPon a Habeas Corpus one George Andrews was brought to the Bar and upon a long return by the Mayor Aldermen and Sheriffs of London The Custome of London to give security for the payment of the Portions of Orphans and upon refusall the Debters are to be committed of their custom concerning the Orphans of Free-men and for the security of their Portions to be paid to them at the age of 21. years or at the time of their marriage or at such time as is appointed by the Will of their Father or Mother or other Free-men giving to them any Legacy they use to take sufficient security of them which ought to pay them and if they refuse then to commit them to the Counter untill they give security and that their customs were confirmed by Act of Parliament An. 7. R. 2. William Andrews a Free-man having one Son and one Daughter by Emery his Wife died this George Andrews a Free-man being Suitor to the Wife before marriage agreed that if the Wife would marry him she should dispose of two hundred pounds c. and he was bound in a Statute to permit and suffer her to make her Will and dispose therof and after she died and by her Will gave a hundred pounds to her Son and a hundred pounds to her Daughter and the said G.A. agreed to her Will and yet refused to give security to the Chamberlain of London to pay it at the day appointed by the Will pretending that he was bound by Statute to the Friends of the Orphans to perform it And by the Court he was remanded for it is a laudable Custom and the voluntary Obligation upon marriage is not any discharge as to the security by the Custom and we will not disparage the Government of the Citty Trin. 16 Jac. Wolfe versus Heydon London Debt THomas Wolfe Administrator of the Goods and Chattels of John Aldrich durante minore aetate of Edward Aldrich William Aldrich and other Children of the said John not administred by John Talbot Executor of John A or by Robert Armiger late Administrator of the said Goods and Chattels during the minority of the said Children not administred To what intents a man shall be said Executor before he prove the Will brought an action of Debt against Simon Heydon and count upon an Obligation of fifty pounds wherof ten pounds was satisfied to John Aldrich in his life and counts that John Talbot was made his Executor and died and that the money was neither paid unto the said John Aldrich the Testator in his life nor to John Talbot the Executor in his life nor to the said Robert Armiger late Administrator of the Goods and Chattels of the said John Aldrich during the minority of the Children and he produce Letters of Administration and aver that the Children were within the age of seventeen years The Defendant plead in Bar that the said Aldrich before this Writ purchased viz. such a day at S. in the Parish c. made his Will and constituted John Talbot his Executor Qui suscepit onus inde and administred divers Goods as Executor and after viz. such a day the said John Talbot made Benjamin Roblet his Executor and died and Roblet suscepit onus testament and did administer and demand Iudgment si actio c. The Plaintiff reply and confesse that John Aldrich made John Talbot his Executor and that he administred and made Roblet his Executor But he saies that the said John Talbot did not prove the Will of the said John Aldrich according to the Ecclesiasticall Law and that the said Benjamin before that he took the charge of the Testament of John Talbot renounced before the Ordinary to be Executor of the said John Aldrich or to administer any of the Goods which were the Goods of the said Iohn Aldrich or to have any thing to do therwith And therupon the Defendant demurs and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And in this case the Court well agrees with the replication for he was Executor before probate to pay Debts and to be sued but not to have an action though that originally the probate was temporall and it is no plea in our Law scil that he did not prove the Will but that he was not
inclosing Woods but suffering them to lye open after cutting by the space of one month he alledged the cutting the tenth of April and the lying open untill the second of May which was not a month And upon Not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and upon motion in Arrest of Iudgment it was awarded that the Defendant eat inde sine die and no costs And the Lord Hobart said that this Statute was made for the ease of the Subject and for avoiding and preventing of vexations and therfore did enumerate all the cases in which the Informer could not prevail and had many words that the Statute of 23 of H. 8. or any other Statute doth not give expresly costs upon demurrer and this is not within 23 H. 8. if upon discontinuance And now the matter passe against the informer be it by Verdict or Iudgment all is one for the makers of this Statute intended to curb all vexatious Informers And if it shall be suffered that Informers may inform upon Statutes not in force and pay no costs that would open a Window to the great vexation of the Subjects And for Presidents not inflicted upon they are of little esteem And I concurred and though Verdict be found for the Informer yet there being no Statute there can be no Offence and it is in Law as not guilty And this case is within the meaning and Letter of the Statute for the Statute intend costs where the cause passe against the Informer be it by default of matter or form Winch doubted of this speciall case because the matter is found for the Informer but he agreeh if it were upon Iudgment upon demurrer or speciall Verdict costs should be given And Iustice Warburton was of opinion that there should be no costs in this case for he is not capable to sue where the Statute is discontinued And so if the Venue be misawarded and he said that he had conference with the Lord chief Baron who also held that there should be no costs in this case And so the matter rests Blackburnes Case Norff. Debt AN action of Debt was brought by I. S. against Blackburne upon a Lease for a year and so from year to year And upon Nil debet pleaded the Iury gave a speciall Verdict to this effect A Devise to a Feme of a term upon condition Wells seised of Land in Fee devised them to his Daughter and her Heirs when she come to the age of eighteen years and that his Wife should take the profits of the Land to her use without any account to be made untill the Daughter come to the age of eighteen years And made his Wife his Executor and died And it was provided that the Wife should pay the old Rent and find the Daughter at School untill she could read and write English the Feme enters and proves the Will takes Husband and dies the Husband assign this term to the Lessor who brought this Action And it was found that all the Conditions were performed and that the Daughter was within the said age of eighteen viz. thirteen years And the sole question was whether it be a term for years in the Wife and whether when she takes Husband he shall have it after the death of his Wife and it was ruled clearly that it is and it being by Will it is a good Lease Another question was if this trust of Education be Quasi a Limitation personall and with intent that the Lease shall not be to the Wife any longer then she may educate her Daughter And it was agreed that it was not for any one may educate her and find her at School and there it is without any default in the Wife for it is the act of God and therfore Judgment for the Plaintiff Trin. 17 Jac. Whittingtons Case IVdgment in Debt against Ferdinand Earl of Derby Scire facias Sci. fac by the Baron and Feme the death of one of them shall abate it at the Suit of I. Whittington and his Wife she being Administrator to her Husband who had the Iudgment who brought a Sci. fac upon the Iudgment against 30. Ter-tenants they appear and all besides 3. plead that at the time of the Iudgment Ferdinand the Earl was seised in tail c. And the Plaintiff had Iudgment against the three with a cesset executio and afterwards Whittington the Husband died and this is surmised and entred vpon Record viz. the death of the Baron after the Darrein continuance and whether the Writ shall abate or no was the question And per totam Curiam the Writ shall abate for the Wife there cannot recover as a Feme sole and though this Writ be judiciall yet it is in nature of an Originall for she might have had an action of debt upon the Iudgment and ought to have that action solely after the year untill the Statute of Westminster 2. which give Scire facias and to this Writ they may plead But in Writs Iudiciall which are only Writs for the doing of execution there the death of one shall not abate it vide 19 Ass 10. 25 E 3. and vide Reads case Coke lib 10. fol. 134. Ruggles Case IN Ruggles Case upon the motion of Serjeant Arthure upon the Statute of 1 Jacobi cap. 15. concerning Bankrupts How the distribution of the Estate of a Bankrupt shall be a Commission was sued out by some of the Creditors and they pursued it and the Land was sold and it being opposed they defended their severall Suits and prevailed by a tryall at Bar And after other Creditors which before would neither partake nor aid them came and prayed to be joyned with them And the Commissioners doubted upon the Statute whether they might allow them to be joyned and the words of the Statute are That it shall be lawfull for any of the Creditors of the Bankrupt within four months after the Commission sued forth and till distribution shall be made by the said Commissioners for the payment of the Bankrupts Debts as in such case hath been used to partake and joyn with other Creditors that shall sue out the said Commission the said Creditors so joyning to contribute to the charges of the said Commission and if the Creditors came not in within four months then the Commissioners to have power to distribute It was resolved that the Commissioners may sell and prepare for distribution presently upon the execution of the Commission but untill the four months are passed they may not proceed to distribution for the Creditors which inhabite in the remote part of the Realm peradventure cannot have notice and it may be carried so secretly that if they might distribute presently that they which sued out the Commission should be only satisfied when indeed there was no default in the others Also it was resolved that the offer of Creditors to be joyned and before they be partakers is not an affectuall offer without offering to be contributory
Conversion was brought by Abraham Cartwright against Clement Underhill And upon Not guilty pleaded there was found a speciall Verdict to this effect Bankrupt Francis Bayle being a Merchant had made a fraudulent Deed to the Defendant of the Goods contained in the Count but afterwards he went abroad to Church to the Exchange and did Trade and Commerce And yet afterwards it is contained in the Indenture of Sale by the Commissioners to the Plaintiff that he had made this fraudulent Deed and that afterwards he had traded and served the Exchange untill a day after at which day he wholly absented himself And upon this speciall Verdict the Defendant had Judgment For every Deed to defraud other Creditors but those to whom such Deed is made is not sufficient to make one to be a Bankrupt But if he make any Deed after he begins to be a Bankrupt it shall not bind But upon the Statute of 1 Jacobi which makes him a Bankrupt which make fraudulent Deeds it ought not to be as this case was viz. so long before he became a Banrupt And there were many more imperfections in the speciall Verdict Hill 18. Jac. The Earl of Clanrickards Case THe Earl of Clanrikard and Frances his Wife Writ of Right brought a Writ of Right against the Earl of Leicester Essoin upon the return of an alias Summons And upon the Summons being returned but no return of proclamation made at the Church of the Parish where the Land lies upon the Lords day Post praedicationem sive Divinum Servitium there was an Essoin cast and that was adjourned in the Essoin Roll And the Demandauts perceiving the return to be insufficient they sue an alias Summons which having great returnes as all the Writs issuing out of this Court in a Writ of Right or other reall actions ought to have was returnable Oct Hil And the Tenant cast an Essoin upon the alias Summons And it was moved at the day of Essoin and now also at the first day of the Term by Serjeant Harris that an Essoin did not lye for he had an Essoin before And by the Statute de essonii calumniand 1â— E 2. Non faciant quia alias se essoviant And the Statute 31 Eliz cap 3. which gives the Proclamations hath prouided that no Grand Cape shall be awarded upon this default but only an alias Summons so that the Writ is good and stands and therfore he shall not be otherwise essoined But it seemed to the Court to be otherwise here for the first Essoin is as Nul and therfore vide Dyer 252. that when the Sheriff return tarde in a Formedon and the Tenant is essoined and that is adjourned it is of no effect but he shall be essoined upon the other Writ of alias c. vide 24 E. 3. Br Essoin 24. accord also vide 21 H. 6. That upon the resummons after the death of the King the Tenant shall be Essoined and yet the first Writ and all is revived And in this case though the party may appear to the first Writ â—ne note besoigne de ject un essoign for the nature of that is to save a default so that no Grand Cape shall be awarded and there no Grand Cape ought so be avwarded and therfore the Essoin before not avoidable Hil. 18 Jac. Rot. 739. Bridgeland versus Post Dower Counter-plea to the View BRidgeland against Post and his Wife in a Writ of Dower the Tenants demand the View and the Demandant counter-pleads the View Quod le tenant n'ad entry nisi per le Baron And therupon the Tenant demur And it was adjudged a good Counter-plea and the Tenant ousted of his View Accord 9 E. 4. fol 6. vide 2 H 4. 24. Pasch 19 Jac. King versus Bowen Case Words KIng brought an action of the case against Bowen a Minister for saying Thou art a false forsworn Knave and didst take a false Oath against me at a Commission at Ecclesall innuendo a Commission sued out of the high Commission the Defendant justifie and after issue tryed and found for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that these words were not actionable for it doth not appear in the Count what Commission nor out of what Court nor what matter he did depose but generally that he had taken a false Oath at a Commission The former words forsworn Knave will not maintain an action otherwise of Perjuted Knave for that shall be intended in a legall sence and no Innuendo will supply matter which give not cause of action nor the Iustification But the words ought to contain scandall in themselves without any supplement An action lies for saying one had forsworn himself in a Court Baron and to say he had forsworn himself in the Common place but to say that one hath forsworn himself at the Bar innuendo the Bar of the Common place will not maintain an action Querens nil capiat per breve Pasch 19 Jac. Tippin versus King Wast SIr George Tippin Plaintiff in an action of Wast against King and alledge Wast in severall Closes Sparsim Inquiry of damages And Iudgment by nihil dicit and an Inquiry awarded the Iury found but eight pence Damages And upon motion for a new Writ it was resolved that the Iury ought not now to enquire of the Wast And therfore the difference is when the Plaintiff upon the distresse recover upon the Statute there the Statute gives power to enquire of the Wast But in this case the Wast is confessed Per nient dedire Ewer and Moyle Dyer 204. a. accord And it was so adjudged between Ewer and Moyle upon demurrer in Wast there the Wast is confessed and the Writ shall be only to enquire of the Damages so if the Plaintiff will release his Damages he shall have a Writ upon Iudgment of the place wasted Mich. 18 Jac. Rot. 2805. Pitt versus Chick MAtthew Pitt brought Replevin against Chick Replevin The Defendant avow for that the place contains five acres which lye between the Lands of Sir George Speck And that the said Sir George Speck and all his Ancestors Prescription to have Herbage de temps d'out c. have used to have Herbage and Pasture of the said five acres viz. if they were sowen then after the reaping untill re-sowing and if they were not sowen then for the whole year and convey Title to the said Herbage by Lease in writing to him and avow Damage feasant And it was urged that he which had all the profit for a time and the sole profit had the Free-hold and that is not a thing which lye in Prescription semble al Common or so pasture for a certain number of years And it was said that a Grant de vestura terrae or de herbag terrae for one and twenty years is a good Lease But it was adjudged that it is a good Avowry and he had only profit a
of forty pounds And adjudged that no action lay vide Coke lib 10 fol 130. in Osbornes Case Thou art an arrant Knave a Cousener and a Traytor Action lies only for the word Traytor and yet all being spoken at one time aggravate and Damages shall be intended to be given only for these words which are actionable vide ut supra fol 131. if the words be alledged as spoken at severall times and as severall causes of actions there if the Damages be entire the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment if any of the words do not bear action Stanley and Buddens case And other cases were cited that Cousenage is not actionable And Mich 40 Eliz Stanley and Buddens or Boswels case there an Attorney brought an action of the case for these words Thou art a cousening Knave and gettest thy living by Extortion and didst cousen one Pigeon in a Bill of Costs of ten pounds Adjudged that the last words were actionable This case was adjudged for the Plaintiff but I was absent in Chancery and heard not their reasons for it was doubtfull Hil. 17 Jac. Empson versus Bathurst Debt FRancis Empson brought an action of Debt upon an Obligation against George Bathurst the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 23 H. 6. That an Obligation taken Colore officii of any one in their Custody Obligation voided by the Statute 23 H. 8. with any other Condition then for appearance at the day mentioned in the Processe shall be void And shewed that an Extent issued out of the Chancery to extend the Land of Robert Leigh upon a Statute Staple of twelve thousand pounds in which he was obliged to the Plaintiff And that Anthony Thirrold was Sheriff and Charles Empson was under Sheriff and shewn an Extent of the Land returned and before any Liberate it was agreed that the Defendant should pay to the under Sheriff two and thirty pounds ten shillings and that he should be bound to the Plaintiff his Brother for the security therof to the use of the said Charles and therupon he entred into the said Obligation which by the said Statute is void the Plaintiff replyed and shewed that by the execution of the Extent he agreed to pay him the said two and thirty pounds ten shilling and pleaded the Statute 29 Eliz cap. 4. wherupon the Defendant demurred And it was adjudged against the Plaintiff Extortion for this Obligation is extortion and Colore officii and void by the Commen Law Extortion is when any one Colore officii extorquet feodum non debitum plus quam debitum aut ante quam debitum vide Dive and Maringhams case an Obligation made by Extortion is against Common Law for it is as Robbery vide Coke lib 10. fol 100. Dyer 144. And in this case the opinion of the Court was that no Fee is due to the Sheriff by the Statute of 29 Eliz. cap 4. because the Fee is not due untill execution Copulative extent and delivered in execution if it were a Statute-Merchant in which is a Liberate included then the Fee is due Also it was agreed that by the Statute the Sheriff ought to have six pence in the pound where the summ exceed a hundred pounds for all and not twelve pence in the pound Mich. 20 Jac. Bullen versus Gervis RObert Bullen brought an action of Debt for 12 l. upon an Obligation against William Gervis Administrator of Owen Godfrey Debt It is no plea for the Administrator to say the Intestate died outlawed Young and Pigot The Defendant pleaded that the Intestate was outlawed at the Suit of Francis Murrell after Iudgment and pleaded it specially and being so Outlawed died and that Outlawry is in full force Iudgment si Action wherupon the Plaintiff demurred 8 E. 4. 6. There by Littleton between Young and Pigot in an action of Debt against Executors it was holden a good plea to say that their Testator was Outlawed for they are charged to the King for the Goods Genny said that the plea amount only to this that they have not any Goods and so answer argumentative And 21 E. 3. 5. By Brian in a Writ of Debt brought against Executors it is a good plea to say that their Testator was Outlawed sans luy intitle 36 H. 6. 27. By Prisot in Debt against one as Executor of Jane the Defendant said that the said Jane was his Wife and demand Iudgment si action and it seems this is no Plea because that a Feme Covert may have many things which the Husband shall not have as Choses in action and she may make Executors if the Baron agree And Prisot said Sir It seems to me that it is no good plea for an Executor to say that his Testator died Outlawed Cansa qua supra Quare cur hona materia Vpon the reading of the Record it seems that it is no plea for it is only by Implication and that may be given in evidence Also the Executor or Administrator may have divers things which are not forfeitable to the King as if the Testator had Mortgaged his Land upon Condition that if the Mortgagee pay not at such a day to him his Executors or his Heirs a hundred pounds that then it shall be lawfull for him or his Heirs to re-enter and after and before the day the Testator is outlawed and makes his Executors and dies and at the day the Mortgagee pay the money to the Executors that is Assets and not forfeited is the King So if Tenant for life of a Rent be outlawed and the Rent arrear and makes his Executors and die this arrearage is due to the Executor and is Assets and not forfeited for the Rent was a Free-hold for which during his life no action of Debt lay and these arrearages recoverable by the Executors are Assets Also if this should be a good plea which is only by Implication he might therby prevent the Plaintiff of his recovery Also though choses in action are by information in the Exchequer recoverable yet if the Executor bring a Scire facias upon the Iudgment he shall recover and shall be accountable to the King therfore and the Debtors of the Intestate though he was outlawed may pay the debts to him and his release is a good discharge to them Also it was agreed that an Executor or an Administrator might bring a Writ for the reversall of the Outlawry and the Outlawry is not a Bar to him Woolley versus Bradwell Trin. 37 Eliz. Rot. 2954. And one case was vouched by Attho which was adjudged upon the like plea in this Court Trin 37 Eliz Rot 2954. Woolley against Bradwell and his Wife Executors of Sir Thomas Mannord and the matter depended a year and was argued and adjudged that it was no plea for it is but by argument and so being Serjeant Hobart said this Argument ought to be infallible also this is the matter and not the form for in this case the Demurrer was generall and the Book of
3 H 6. 14. 32. there it is well argued and the better opinion that it is only by argument And a man outlawed may make an Executor and this Executor may have a Writ of Error to reverse the Outlawry And therupon and upon the view of the Record in Woolleys case the Court gave Iudgment that it is no plea. Lightfoot versus Brightman Covenant LIghtfoot brought on action of Covenant against Brightman and count that the Defendant being possessed of an Advowson in grosse for tearm of years covenanted that he would not grant nor assign his Interest to any Grant of an Advowson pleaded without alledging to be by deed good if the issue be taken upon collaterall matter without offer therof first to the Plaintiff and that he should have it fifty pounds better cheap then any other and alledge breach of the Covenant that he granted the said Advowson and his tearm therin over without offering it to the Plaintiff and Issue joyned upon non concessit and found by Verdict quod concessit and damages fifty pounds And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that it is not alledged that the Grant upon which the Issue is joyned was by Deed and then no breach assigned I at the first was of opinion that the Iudgment should stay but after upon advisement I concurred with Serjeant Hobart and Iustice Winch that it was averred by the Verdict for now it being a perfect Grant it shall be intended that upon the Evidence a Deed was shewn as upon Issue joyned upon Grant of a Reversion where it is not alledged that it was by Deed or that the Tenant atturned yet if it be found it shall be good And so in Avowry for a Rent-charge where the Grant therof is pleaded not by Deed and Issue is joyned fur concessit and found quod concessit that is good by the Verdict like to Nichols case Coke lib 5. Debt upon a Bill payment pleaded and Issue found for the Plaintiff he had Iudgment But it seems if it had been found for the Defendant the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment for the Bar confesse the action as in the 9 H. 6. Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant plead that he delivered it to the Plaintiff to be his Deed when certain Conditions were performed And he pleaded that the Conditions were not performed if it be found accordingly yet the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment Coke lib 2. fol 61. Wiscots case a Lease by Baron and Feme which ought to be by Deed pleaded generally and found the Plaintiff had Iudgment vide Smith and Stâ—plâ—tons case Mich. 20 Jac. Chittle versus Sammon CHittle against Sammon in Replevin Replevin Avowry for Rent granted to the Father in see without alledging that it was arreare after the death of the Father Counsance for Rent as Bayliff to Sir John Reves upon a Grant out of the Land wherof the place in which c. was parcell upon a Grant made to the Father of Sir John and for Rent arrear c. Issue was joyned upon this point if the place was parcell of the Land out of which the Rent was granted and found by Verdict that it was And now moved by Attho in Arrest of Iudgment that it is not alledged that this Rent was arrear after the death of the Father as it ought to be and therfore it may be intended that this Rent was arrear in the life of the Father But the Court agreed and resolved that it was good after Verdict for now it is pleaded that it was arrear and not paid to him Ergo it was due to him and though it might have been more fully pleaded yet after Verdict it is sufficient Fletcher versus Harcot AN action upon the case was brought by Fletcher of Otely against Harcot and count Case that wheras the Defendant had arrested one Batersby by a Commission of rebellion Assumpsit in consideration that the plaintiff being an Hostler would keep a Prisoner to save him harmlesse issuing out of the Court of the Lord President and Councell of the North as he affirmed And wheras the Plaintiff keeps a common Inne in Otely and had kept it by the space of five years and had entertained men The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to keep the said Batersby in his Inne at Otely by the space of one night as a Prisoner and that he would keep and save him harmlesse and shew that he had kept him for that night as a Prisoner And Batersby afterward brought an action of false Imprisonment against him for the said keeping of him in his house and that he had expended and laid out in defence thereof ten pounds And that he had required him to save him harmlesse and he refused Non assumpsit found for the Plaintiff and moved by Harvey in Arrest of Iudgment that it is no sufficient consideration because it doth not appear that he had lawfully arrested the said Batersby for it is not affirmatively alledged but as he said Also it doth not appear that the recovery in the action of false Imprisonment was for the same cause but in that he had misinformed for it was in the Record Pro custodia praedicta ex causa praedicta And for the other matter the Lord Hobart seemed at first to doubt if it did not appear that it was a lawfull Arrest then there was no consideration But because the diversity when the consideration appears to be for doing of a thing which is unlawfull As if one at the request of I. S. promise to better I. D. and he promise to save him harmlesse this is a void Consideration But if one request I. S. to enter into the Mannor of Dale and drive out Cattle and that he will save him harmlesse if he doth so and after Trespasse be brought against him and recovery had he shall have his action So if a Sheriff pretending to have a Writ where he hath none arrest one and request an Inne-keeper to entertain him in his house or hire one to conduct the Prisoner to the Gaol and promise to keep him without Damage if an Action be brought and recovery had therupon the party shall have an action of the case against the Sheriff upon this promise for he which doth a thing which may be lawfull and the illegallity therof appear not to him he which imploys the party and assume to save him harmlesse shall be charged And Iudgment was entred for the Plaintiff Mich. 20 Jac. Parkers Case Debt Hue and Cry AN action of Debt was brought against the Hundred of _____ in the County of Stafford by William Parker upon the Statute of Winchester cap 1 2. reciting the Statute That forasmuch as Robberies do daily encrease Murthers and burning of houses and Theft be more often used then they have been heretofore Amendment of a false Abreviation and Felons cannot be attainted by the Oathes of the Iurors which had rather suffer strangers to be robbed and
font and twenty years that then I. S. shall have the Land and it shall be good vide Dyer 33. Coke lib 10.46 Lampets case But Tuesday the eleventh of February the Lord Hobart by our direction because that we were streightned of time and Howell was so importunate for Iustice that we could not argue delivered the opinion of the Court that Iudgment should be given for the Defendant And he declared that as to the point of a Fee-simple which he called the mounting of one Fee-simple upon another we now declared no opinion But we all without difficulty resolved that this release of Noy be it a Condition or not had discharged it And as to him it is an Interest used by the Devise but not executed untill it happen And therfore in Lampers case there the Release discharged it for there he had no Title executed but vested and commenced and so may have Noy Howell the Plaintiff in this case and it is not like to an Heir in the life of the Father for be is a stranger and he hath no Title at all and yet his Release with Warranty bars him and here this Release is accompanied with Warranty of which nothing was spoken Also as to Noy it is a Condition according to the words of the Will and therfore sans question that Noy had barred himself The Vacation after Hil. 20 Jac. MEmorand That on Munday the seventeenth of February at Serjeants Inn upon the assembly of all the Iustices to take consideration upon the Statute of 35 Eliz. cap. 1. for the Abjuration of Sectaries the Atturney-generall and Serjeant Crew being there Resolutions upon the Statute of Eliz. cap. 1. concerning Sectaries after the perusall of the Statute and the Continuances therof it was first upon debate considered whether this Statute was in force or discontinued and upon the perusall of the Proviso in the Statute of Subsidy and upon reasoning the matter these Points were resolved 1. If a Parliament be assembled and divers Orders made What shall be said a Session of Parliament and a Writ of Error brought and the Record delivered to the higher house and divers Bills agreed but no Bills signed That this is but a Convention and no Parliament or Session as it was An. 12 Jac. in which as it was affirmed by them which had seen the Roll it is entred that it is not any Session or Parliament because that no Bill was signed vide 33 H 6 Brook Parliament 86. every Session in which the King signes Bills is a Parliament 2. It was agreed that if divers Statutes be continued untill the next Parliament or next Session and there is a Parliament or a Session and nothing done therin as to continuance all the said Statutes are discontinued Beriatim Jones Chamberlain Hutton Denham Haughton Dodderidge Winch and Bromley declared their opinions that this Statute is discontinued And that the Statute of Subsidy is a Parliament and that every Parliament is a Session but not e converso for one Parliament may have divers Sessions as the Parliament 1 Jac had four and ended An 7 Jac. vide 33 H 6. Br. Parliament 86. And that this Proviso is not to any other purpose but to continue their proceedings in the same Estate as if this Act had not been made and if this Proviso had not been then this Statute had been discontinued by this act of Subsidy but when this ends and is determined then is the Session ended then it is a Session scilicet a Parliament which ought to be pleaded at the Parliament holden c. and all the Commissions of Subsidy are accordingly and the Proviso call it a Session Then this being done the Lord chief Baron did not deliver any opinion for he said that he had not considered the Statute and afterward it was desired that the Lords would deliver their opinions and therupon the Lord Hobart declared his opinion accordingly That it seemed to him that it was a Session and that it was not safe to meddle with such Law and that he would never refuse to declare his opinion with his Brethren After the Lord chiefe Iustice Ley made a long discourse concerning the purpose and intent of Parliament scilicet That it was not their purpose to destroy so good Lawes and therfore it was not any such Session as was within the intent of the preceding Parliament which was that these should determine when it is a Parliament or Session in which good Lawes are made And Doderidge said that it was fit to see the Commission and that that which hath been said was not to bind any one but every one spoke what then he was advised of and peradventure might change upon better consideration And afterwards upon Tuesday on an Assembly of the two chief Iustices the chief Baron Iustice Haughton Baron Denham Hutton Chamberlain and Jones the Attorney-generall brought the Commission de 12 El. June 1. and that had these words Pro eo quod nullus Regalis Assensus nec responsio per nos praestat fuit nullum Parliamentum nec aliqua Sessio Parliamenti lata aut tent fuit They have power to adjourn this Parliament thus begun And the Commission to dissolve this Parliament 38. Feb. An. 19 Jac. had the same words saving that he recite that he had given his Royall assent to an act of Subsidy by which was intended that it should not be a Session And upon view of the Commission the Lord chief Iustice moved that the King was mistaken in this that he had given power to dissolve this Parliament which had not any Session and if it be a Session then he had no power to dissolve it and then it is as it were a recesse and a Parliament cannot be discontinued or dissolved but by matter of Record and that by the King alone and if the Parliament yet continue then this Statute also continue during the Parliament by the Proviso but that would not serve for first it is against the intent of the King and against his Proclamation And also the case is truly put in the Commission as to the matter in fact and he is not mis-informed but mistaken in the Law and then the Commission for the dissolving is good semblable to the Lord Shandoi's Case and other Cases vide in Cholmleys case But because that all the Iudges were not at this Conference therfore it was deferred untill the next Term and in the interim the Grand Secretary and the Attorney-generall were to inform the King that the Statute is obscure and had not been put in ure and that we could not agree Mich. 20 Jac. Rot. 2805. Bawtry versus Skarlet Sussex JOhn Bawtry Clerk Case brought an action upon the case against Benjamen Skarlet one of the Attorneys of this Court by Bill and count In consideration that the Plaintiff will confesse Judgment the Attorney promise to defer the entry of the Judgment c. that wheras one William Carter Trin. 20 Jac.
c. but at the time of taking was so To this it was answered That the Count chargeth not the Defendant absolutely with all the time but Diversis diebus vicibus And also he justifie for two weeks which is the same Trespasse Then upon the matter the question is if he which hath Estrayes or Waifes if he seise an Estray qui est ferox whether he may fetter such Estray It was agreed by the Court that when an Estray comes within a Mannor and walk there this is a Trespasse and the party in whose Land the Estray is Damage-feasant may chase him out of his ground Also it was agreed that untill the Lord or his Bayliff or Tithing-man seise the Estray that shall not be said an Estray but when the Lord seise than he hath the Commencement of a property therby and he is chargable against all others for the Trespasse which this Estray doth and if this Estray within the year estray out of the Mannor the Lord may chase back the Estray untill he be seised by another Lord which hath Estrays But if he be seised by another Lord then the first hath lost all his possibility of gaining the property and the other Lord ought to proclaim it de novo It was moved that if a Lord of a Mannor which hath Estrayes and hath seised an Estray suffer that Estray by negligent keeping to stray away and never can be found again the Owner may have an action upon the case of Trover and Conversion against the Lord Quare vide 44 E 14. there the Lord seised an Asse for an Estray he to whom the property did belong came and challenged the Estray the Lord may detain him untill he tender sufficient recompence for the Pasture vide purc 20 H 7. 1. by Vavisor and 39 E 3. 3. That the Owner cannot take an Estray untill he tender recompence likewise the Lord after seisin of the Estray if he took him not Damage-seasant may have Replevin and he ought to make him amends The Lord cannot work the Estray but may keep him in his Stable And if the Sheriff upon a Fieri facias fetter the Colt and after the Defendant redeem him for money he shall not have trespasse vide 6 E 3. 8. it is not alledged that the fettering was to any damage of the Estray vide 22 Ass 56. Entred Pasch 18 Jac. Rot. 650. Treherne versus Cleybrooke Debt IOhn Treherne brought an action of Debt against Cleybrooke and count of a Lease made by John Treherne Grand-father to the Plaintiff of Lands in S. Olives in Surrey and intituled himself by the Will of the Grand-father by which he devised the Lands to the Plaintiff in tail Devise the remainder over to Leonard Vpon Nil debet pleaded the Iury found specially scilicet the Devise of the Reversion in tail the remainder over to A. in tail the remainder of one Moyety of the Land to one Daughter in tail and the other Moyety to another with Proviso that for the raising of a Stock for John Treherne the Grand-child when he come to the age of one and twenty years or if he dies for the raising of a Stock for Leonard in like manner he willed that Edward Griffin and Anne his Wife shall take the profits and shall receive all the rent of the Land devised to John Treherne to their own use untill he come to the age of one and twenty years upon Condition and so as the said Edward Griffin and Anne shall within three months after the death of the Testator become bound to his Overseers in an Obligation with such penalty as the said Overseers shall think fit to pay to the said John or if he dye without Issue to the said Leonard within three months after he come of age such a summ the Condition to be drawn and devised by his Overseers And if Edward Griffin and his Wife refuse then the Overseers should receive the Rent and Profits to their proper use But the Condition appoint not to whom the Overseers shall be bound And made Edward Griffing and William Iremonger his Executors and I. and others Supervisors and died and that within fourteen daies after the death of the Testator the Will was read to the said Overseers And that they did not devise or draw within the time appointed any Obligation nor tendred any within that time and that notice therof was given to the Defendant and that the Rent was demanded and the Reversion claimed by the Plaintiff sed utrum c. Vpon the Argument of Serjeant Harris which argued for the Plaintiff and vouched 21 H. 6. 6. That when one made Executors and also Coadjutors the Coadjutors are not Executors and that it is a Condition precedent vide 14 H 8. 22. Wheelers case 46 E 3. 5. Truels case Coke lib 5. 127. Palmers case 4 E 3. 39. 11 H 4. 18. And because that in this case the said Edward Griffin and his Wife are to have benefit they ought to require them to nominate the summ But because it appears to the Court that this Action is founded upon a Contract in Law therfore it ought to be brought in Surrey as it was agreed in Ungle and Glovers case An 36 Eliz vide Coke lib 3. fol 23. Nota that the Iudgment is speciall for this cause and no costs upon the Statute of 23 H 8. for the Defendant for the Statute saies that upon a Contract made by the Plaintiff the Defendant shall have costs and yet upon this Statute if the Executor be non-suited or Verdict given against him he shall not pay costs Where costs shall not be against Executors by common experience alwaies after the Statute and yet he shall have costs if he recover And in this case the Plaintiff shall have costs if he recover and yet it seems upon this Iudgment the Defendant shall not have costs against him and especially because that they are expresse words in the Statute that the Defendant shall have costs after Non-suit or lawfull tryall against the Plaintiff and here is neither Non-suit nor lawfull tryall vide Statute 4 Jac cap. 3. seems to be full in all cases where the Plaintiff shall have his costs upon Non-suit or when the Verdict passe against him the Defendant shall have costs yet it hath been taken that it shall be intended in actions of Debt upon the Contract of the Plaintiff himself for Executors neither upon Verdict nor upon Non-suit shall pay any costs because that their actions are brought upon Debts or Contracts not made between them and the Defendants vide the Statute of Glocester cap 1. that where a man recover damages there also he shall have costs Hickson versus Hickson HIckson Demandant in Dower against Hickson They are at issue the Tenant offer to be essoined upon the Venire facias and for want of the Adjornment therof by the Demandant Essoin shall not be allowed in Dower the Tenant had procured a Non-suit and yet the
to him and he will pay for the making therof that is a good consideration vide Coke lib 8. fol 147. And in this case all the Court were of opinion that the consideration was good for wheras he might have detained the Horse untill he had been paid for the pasture and feeding he at the speciall request of the Defendant had delivered the Horse to him to the use of the Owner which is to the prejudice of the Plaintiff and alienest to him to whose use he was delivered And Iustice Harvey vouched a case which was in this Court adjudged which was in consideration that the Plaintiff had promised to pay to the Defendant ten pounds at a day according to the Condition of an Obligation the Defendant promised to deliver the Obligation and adjudged a good Consideration Turner versus Hodges THe Custom of the Mannor of _____ is found to be for the Copyholders without the License of the Lord of the Mannor they being seised in Fee may make any Lease for a year Custom in a Mannor to make aâ— Lease for years or many years and when they dye that â—â—e 〈◊〉 shall cease and that the Heir or Heirs may enter It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that this was a bad Custom and that the Copyholders had by Custom an Inheritance and might by the generall Custom of the Ream make a Lease for one year And that tenor the generall Custom of the Realm but the Custom of every Mannor within the Realm vide Coke lib 4. fol 26. in Melwiches Case Custom creates the Estate and the Custom is as ancient as the Estate and is casuall and upon the Act of God and is reasonable that the Heir who is to pay the Fine should have the Possession And yet a Custom that if the Copyholder had surrendred to the Lord that the Lease should be void had been a 〈◊〉 Custom because that he might subvert and destroy by his own act that Estate that he himself had made and he which took the Lease haâ—ing notice of the Custom takes the Lease at his perill for otherwise he might have procured the License of the Lord and then by this License the Lord had dispenced therwith and that is as it were the Confirmation of the Lord For if a Copyholder makes a Lease for twenty years with the License of the Lord and after dies without Heirs yet the Lease shall stand against the Lord by reason of his License which amounts to a Confirmation And the Plaintiff had Iudgment Hil. 4 Car. EJectione firmae was brought and count upon a Lease made by Husband and Wife Lease by Baron and Feme without reservation of any Rent and that was by Indenture And upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was given in which the sole question was Whether this Lease was made by Baron and Feme being there was no Rent reserved therby It was objected that this Lease could not be made good by the Feme by any acceptance and therfore it is not the Lease of the Feme no more then if the Verdict had found that the Lease was by an Infant and no Rent reserved that had been a void Lease But it is contrary of a Baron and Feme for the Baron had power and the Feme joyning in the Lease it is not void for she may affirm the Lease by bringing a Writ of Wast or she may accept Fealty And so was the opinion of the Court and Iudgment entred accordingly vide Coke lib 2. fol 61. in Wiscots case Count of a Lease by Baron Feme and shew not that it was by Deed and yet good vide Dyer 91. Pasch 5 Car. Paston versus Utber JOhn Paston brought Ejectione firmae against Barnard Utber upon a Lease made by Mary Paston And upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was found at the Bar and the Case was thus Custom that the Lord have a Feild-course over the Lands of his Coppyholders if the Tenant inclose it is no forfeifture Barnard Vtber seised of the said Land to him and his Heirs by Copy of Court-Roll according to the Custom of the Mannor of Binham And that within that Mannor there is such a Custom that the Lord had had one field course for five hundred Ewes in the North-field and the West-field wherof these fifteen acres were parcell from the Feast of Saint Michael if the Corn were inned and if it were not then after the Corn were inned untill the Feast of the Annunciation if it were not before that time sown again with Corn in all the Lands of the Copyholders not inclosed And that it is a Custom that no Copyholder may inclose any Copyhold Land without the License of the Lord And if any be inclosed without License then a reasonable fine should be assessed by the Lord or his Steward for the Inclosure if the Lord would accept therof And it is also a Custom that if the Lord will not accept therof then the Copyholder which so incloseth shall be punished at every Court after untill he open that Inclosure And the said Vtber inclosed the 15. acres with an Hedge and Fence of Quick-set 3. feet deep and 6. feet broad and that he had left 4. spaces of 9. feet broad in the said 15. acres And that the said Vtber was required by the Steward to lay open the said Inclosure and he did it not whereupon there was a command to the Bayliff to seise them as forfeit which was done And the said Mary being Seignoress of the Mannor entred and leased to the Plaintiff and the Defendant entred upon him Serjeant Davenport argued that it is a forfeiture and against the Custom which creates the Feildage for the Lord as well as the Estate of Copyhold for the Tenant and that this leaving of four spaces is a fraud and device and that it is against his Fealty and is to the damage of the Lord and a thing unlawfull vide Dyer 245. 34 E. 1. Formedon 88. 15 A 7. 10. 29 E 3. 6. That if the Tenant inclose the Commoner may break his hedges And though by Littleton an Inclosure which is a Disseisin is a totall Inclosure wherby he which hath the rent cannot come to distrain yet this also is an Inclosure because that it obstructs the feild-course for they cannot come so freely without interuption or damage for the hedges may deprive the Sheep of their wooll And he compared it to the case of 3 H. 7. 4. One is obliged to make an Estate of his Mannor of Dale if he alien part and then make a Feoffment the Condition is broken and vide 5 E 3. fol 58. a Recognizance with Condition to make a Feoffment to I. S. of the Mannor if he alien part therof he forfeit his Recognizance he vouched 42 E 2. 5. and Coke lib 4. that deniall of Services or making of Wast is a forfeiture 22 H 6. 18. 41 E 3. Wast 82. Dyer 364. And though that the Lord may
proceed by fiue to enforce him to lay it open yet these Affirmative Customs do not toll the Negative And to prove that the Lord had an Inheritance therin he vouched 14 E 2. Fitz. Grant 92. A Rent granted to one and his Heirs out of the Mannor of Dale which he hold of the Mannor of D. this is an Inheritance And if this shall not be a forfeiture then this Customary Inheritance which the Lord had in the feild-course might be tolled at the will and pleasure of the Copyholder Serjeant Hitcham argued strongly to the contrary First That it is no Inclosure because that all is not inclosed Secondly The forfeiture of a Copyhold is alwaies by some thing done to the Copyhold land it self but this is done as it is supposed to the feild-course of the Lord which is not Copyhold and it is better for the Copyhold and makes the land better and also the Feild-course is therby made better and more beneficiall to the Lord and therfore the Copyhold land is not altered but is meliorated and it is like so the case in Dyer 361. Althams case after no Wast done the Evidence was that a Trench was made in a Meadow by which the Meadow was Meliorated and adjudged no wast which might be given in evidence But he said that in Brooks case at the first comming of Popham to be chief Iustice it was adjudged that if a Copyholder build a new house it is a forfeiture for that altoreth the nature of the thing and put the Lord to more charge So if Tenant for yeare makes a Hay-yard in the land that is wast He said that this Custom is qualified by taking a Fine if he would or by imposing a pain in the Court to enforce the Defendant to lay it open And all the Court were of opinion that this is no forfeiture for the reasons before and that this Feild-course is a thing which commence by agreement and is but a Covenant and not of common right And Forfeitures which are odious in Law shall be taken strickly Trin. 5 Car. Starkey versus Tayler Case STarkey an Atterney of this Court brought an action upon the case against one Mr. Tayler of Lincolns Inn for saying of these words to him Words Thou art a common Barretor and a Judas and a Promoter And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that these words maintain not action for the generality and uncertainty that he shall be called a common Barretor And the chief Iustice seemed to be of opinion that those words are not more then if he had said That he was a common Brabler or Quarreller But it was urged by Serjeant Hicham that the action lies and that it is a generall Rule Quod sermo relatur ad personam As in Birchley's Case He is a corrupt man And in Mores Case it was said of an Attorney That he was a cousening Knave And if these words were spoken of a common person he doubted if they were actionable but being spoken of an Attorney action lies And if these words were spoken of Iudge without doubt they were actionable And in this case being spoken of an Attorney who is a Minister of Iustice and who hath the Causes of his Clients in his hands to gain them or to lose them The Statute of Westminster saies the Sheriffs are charged to expell all Barretors out of their Countries And in the Statute of 34 E. 3. is the description of a common Barretor and his punishment who is a stirrer of false and unjust Suits and that he shall be imprisoned during the pleasure of the King bound to his good behaviour and fined And Littleton in his Chapter of Warranties faith they are hired to keep Possessions and therfore an action lies But to say of another man That he is a common Barretor is not actionable unlesse he saith that he is convicted Hil. 3 Car Rot. 1302. Watt versus Maydewell Leicest WIlliam Watt brought an Ejectione firmae against Laurence Maydewell Where acceptance of a new Lease for years makes a surrender of the former upon a Lease made by Robert Rome upon Not guilty and a speciall Verdict found the Case was thus Francis Griffith seised of Land in Fee by Indenture bearing date the fourteen of November and 14 Iac. demised the said Land wherof c. for one and forty years to Robert Rome rendring two shillings Rent to commence from the Annunciation which shall be An 1619. and after the same year by another Indenture bearing date the third of December 15 Iac. to commence from the Annunciation last demised the same Lands for ninety nine years to Dame Frances Perroint who entred and was therof possessed And after that the said Francis Griffith by another Indenture the same year bearing date the fourteen day of November 16 Iac. to commence from the seventeenth of November An. 1619. devise it to the said Robert Rome for one and forty years who accepted it and afterwards entred and being possessed made his Will and appointed Executors and died the Executors administred and made the Lease to the Plaintiff who was possessed untill he was ousted by the Defendant And the only question of this Case was if the acceptance of the second Lease by Robert Rome had determined discharged or extinguished the former Lease And after Argument it was adjudged for the Plaintiff the reason was because that by the Lease made to the Lady Perpoint for ninety nine years and her Entry Francis Griffith had but a Reversion and could not by his Contract made afterwards with Robert Rome give any Interest to Robert Rome This Lease made to Robert Rome viz. his former Lease was good in Interest being to commence at a day to come and is grantable over and may be surrendred or determined by matter in Law before the Commencement therof as if he take a new Lease to commence presently which see in 37 H. 6. 29. 22 E. 4. for it tuures in Contract And in this case it had been without question that the taking of the new Lease had been a surrender of the former if it were not by reason of the Lease for ninety nine years which is for so great a number of years that disables him to contract for one and forty years 37 H. 6. 17. 18. 14 H. 7. 3. Dyer 140. Vide Smith and Stapletons case in Plowden If a man makes a Lease for one and twenty years and after makes a Lease for one and twenty yeares by Paroll that is meerly void but if the second Lease had beene by Deed and hee had procured the former Lease to Attorn he shall have the Reversion vide Ive's Case Coke lib 5. fol 11. there it is adjudged that the acceptance of a Leese for years to Commence at a day to come is a present surrender of a former Lease These Cases were vouched in this Case Baker and Willoughby Serjeant Bakers Case in the Court of Wards with the Lady Willoughby that a
refusall was within the time of six years and it was adjudged for the Plaintiff because that the request is the cause of the Action for without it he could not have his action And the sole matter upon which Davenport insisted was that this was a Contract by the Husband wherupon the Plaintiff might have an action of Debt against him and then it is but an Assumpsit in Law and the request is not cause of action And therfore he said as well as Debt lies upon the delivery of Cloath to a Taylor for the making Garments therof so an action of Debt lies for the summ accompanying the speciall matter viz. for the payment of so much as the making shall be reasonably worth vide Coke lib 4. fol 147. so Debt lies as well against the said Sir Arthur upon this promise being made then and there he vouched 34 E 1. Fitz Debt 167. vet N. B. fol 62. 30 E 3. 18. 19. 27 H 8. Tatams case But the Court inclined that no action of Debt lay against Sir Arthur upon this Assumpsit but only an action of the case upon the request Mich. 4 Car. Treford versus Holmes Case Assumpsit in consideration of forbearance TReford brought an action upon the Case against Holmes as Executor and counted that wheras the Testator was indebted to the Plaintiff the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear the said Debt for a reasonable time assumed to pay it And this promise was made in December and he shew forbearance untill March next And upon Non assumpsit pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff Serjeant Thinn moved in Arrest of Iudgment that it is no sufficient consideration for the incertainty of the time if it had been for a little time it had not been good But the Court adjudged it good for the Court ought to judge of the time whether it be reasonable vide Isaac Sidleys case before Then he moved another Exception which was that he had not shewn and averred in the Count that the Defendant had Assets at the time of the promise vide Coke lib 9. fol 93. 94. Baines Case that ought to come on the other part or otherwise it shall be upon Evidence if it be necessary And Iudgment for the Plaintiff Mich. 5 Car. A strange increase of Water in Westminster-Hall MEmorand That on Friday the twenty third day of October by reason of the greatnesse of the Spring-tyde and a great Flood the Hall of Westminster was so full of water that neither the Serjeants could come to the Bar nor any stand in the Hall for there was a Boat that rowed up and down there and therfore all that was done my Brother Harvey went to the Stairs which came out of the Exchequer and rode to the Treasury and by this way went and set in the Court and Adjourned all the Iuries for it was the fourth day del tres Mich. And after that we were in the Exchequer Chamber and heard four or five motions of the Prothonatories there This comming into Court was not of necessity unlesse it had been the Essoin day or that the Court should be Adjourned as Craft Animar The Chancery and Kings Bench sate for they came by the Court of Wards Freeman versus Stacy Mich. 5 Car. BEtween Freeman and Stacy upon a speciall Verdict the Case was y The Plaintiff count upon a Lease by Indenture for one and twenty years rendring Rent and in debt for the arrearages of this Rent it appears that the arrearages of the Rent for which the action was brought were due six years and more before the action brought And the Lord Richardson was of opinion Arrearages of Rent reserved by Indenture is not within the act of 21 Jac. of Limitations that Iudgment should be given against the Plaintiff because the Statute of the 21. of King James cap. 16. extends to Debts for arrearages of Rent expresly But I and my Brother Harvey and Brother Yelverton concurred that this action of Debt being upon a Lease by Indenture is not limited to any time by this Statute but is out of it and shall be brought as before the making of this Statute The words are All actions of debt grounded upon any lending or Contract without specialty All actions of Debt for arrearages of Rent c. And this is an action upon a Contract by specialty 4 H 6. 31. he ought to declare upon the Indenture and it is a Contract viz. a Lease And there is cause of using the Indenture every half year And it was resembled to the case upon the Statute of 32 H 8. of Limitation a Rent-charge which is founded upon a Deed or a Reservation of a Rent upon a Fee-â—â—mple by Deed are not within the Statute of Limitation And nothing in this Statute was intended to be limited which was founded upon a Deed And the words Debt for arrearages of Rent are supplyed and satisfied by the arrearages of Rent upon a Demise without Deed. And as to the Obligation that he proof of payment might be wanting when the occasion is brought so long after the Rent became due that might be objected to Debt upon an Obligation where the day of payment is for a long time past And afterward the Lord Richardson mutata opinione agreed with us And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 6 Car. Shervin versus Cartwright SHervin brought a Writ De rationabile parte bonorum against Cartwright and counted of Custom in the County of Nottingham Rationabl pars bonorum is not within the â— Statute of 21â— Jac. of Limitations and shew all specially and the conclusion was that he detaineth particular Goods of the party Plaintiff which appertained to him as his part and portion And upon Non detinet pleaded it was found that the Plaintiff was intituled to this Action many years before the Statute of 21 Jac. and that he had not brought his action within the time limited by the said Statute And upon the speciall Verdict the Case being argued by Serjeant Ward for the Plaintiff it was adjudged for the Plaintiff First because that this Action is an Originall Writ in the Register and is not mentioned in the said Act and though that the Issue is Non detinet yet this is no action of Detinue for a Writ of Detinue lies not for money unlesse it be in bags but a Rationabile parte bonorum lies for money in Pecuniis numeratis vide the Book of Entries Rationabile parte bonorum And this action lies not before the Debts be paid And the Account was that therby it might be known for what it should be brought and that in many cases requires longer time then the Statute gives Another reason was that Statutes are not made to extend to those cases which seldom or never happen as this case is but to those that frequently happen Also this Statute tolls the Common Law and shall not be extended to equity And upon all these