Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	court_n	plaintiff_n	verdict_n	1,622	5	10.9552	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40860	The famous tryal in B.R. between Thomas Neale, Esq. and the late Lady Theadosia Ivy the 4th of June, 1684, before the Right Honourable the late Lord Jeffreys, lord chief justice of England, for part of Shadwell in the county of Middlesex ... together with a pamphlet heretofore writ ... by Sir Thomas Ivy ...	Mossam, Elam.; Ivy, Theadosia Stepkins, Lady, d. 1694 or 5?; Neale, Thomas, d. 1699?; Ivie, Thomas. Alimony arraigned, or, The remonstrance and humble appeal of Thomas Ivie, Esq.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.	1696 (1696)	Wing F386; ESTC R35557	155,074	101

return any Answer to it or so much as demand of my Wife who stood there laughing in their Presence whether she would return to me or no Only they were pleased to find fault with that word Separation And told my Counsel That they neither had or could separate our Persons These words they had no sooner spoke but I confess I laid hold on though I had been most hardly and severely dealt withal in the judgment of those that were present Insomuch That now I did despair ever to find amongst them and indeed did determine to commit my Cause unto God until in his due time he should raise up Judges in our Israel who should execute Righteous Judgment even upon those Judges themselves But in the mean time I was advised which was very agreeable unto my own Disposition not to leave any thing unattempted which might be thought advantagious to a union of Us but to go personally to my Wife and persuade her my self to leave those Persons who aimed at both our Ruines And to return to me passionately willing to receive her And if she should notwithstanding refuse to speak or go with me then to demand her of those Persons who received her into their houses Accordingly taking two civil Gentlemen I went to her Lodging but received a Repulse from her instead of Compliance and then seeing Mr. Williamson who kept the house I required from him the person of my Wife who refusing her was sued by me And upon the Tryal before my Lord Chief Justice Roles a renowned Person had a Verdict Judgment and Execution of 100 l. against the said Williamson for detaining my Wife from me Many Counsels there were to argue the Case and the Decree in it self under the Great Seal of England was opened read and shewed the Jury But my Lord Roles quickly stated the resolution of the Case in my behalf and the Jury gave me 100 l. damages Williamson now finding himself in a great Dilemma either to deliver up my Wife or himself to ruine and my Wife in so bad a condition notwithstanding her glorious Decree that although she had 300 l. per Annum yet if she could not take the liberty of her old Companions or any new one wheresoever she should be entertained for fear of Judgment and Executions began to take new Counsel how to free Mr. Williamson and her self from this bondage of living under the Roof of a Husbands House and the truth is sollicited it to the purpose amongst her old Patrons the Lords Commissioners For with all speed Williamson prefers a Bill in Chancery to be relieved against my Execution And after he had preferred his Bill though my Answer was so clear as it could not admit of one exception moved for an Injunction after Judgment and Execution granted at Law and to protect him for keeping away my Wife which was granted in these words as fully as he could desire being ingrossed in Parchment and sealed THE Keepers of the Liberty of England by Authority of Parliament To Thomas Ivie Esquire and to his Counsellors Agents and Sollicitors and every of them Greeting It was informed in our Court of Chancery 10 November instant in the behalf of George Williamson Plaintiff against you the said Thomas that the Plaintiffs Bill is to be relieved against an Action and Iudgment thereupon obtained against the Plaintiff upon pretence of the said Plaintiffs detaining of your the said Defendants Wife from you and it appearing in a Cause of Alimony between you the said Defendant and your Wife that their Lordships decreed her Alimony during Separation In which time she ought to have a Habitation a part from you the said Defendant as well as a separate maintenance or else the Decree were groundless And we conceiving the doings of you the said Defendant to be altogether unjust Do command and by these Presents strictly enjoyn you the above-named Thomas Ivie and you his said Counsellors Attorneys Agents Sollicitors and every of you under the pain of 500 l. to be levyed of your Lands Goods and Chattels to our use That you and every of you do from henceforth surcease and forbear all further Proceedings at the Common Law against the Plaintiff upon the said Action and Iudgment thereupon until the said Cause shall be finally heard and determined before us in our said Court And this you nor any of you may omit in any wise under the penalty aforesaid Witness our Hands at Westminster 10 November 1653. Vera Copia ex May. This Injunction being now Granted Signed and Sealed with the Commissioners Hands under the Great Seal of England is the Accomplishment of all their Designs and the compleating of my Misery though the Courts of Law both could and have in some measure relieved me yet is the power of it restrained by this Injunction which indeed I suppose can be called nothing else than a perfect Separation and Divorce Whether the Chancery being stiled the High Court ever receives from any Parliaments such an unlimited power as this It behoves them to make our unto your Highness 'T is the Opinion both of the greatest and honestest Counsel of England That no parallel for this Case no President of the like Nature is to be found on Record Nay they are not backward to aver That it is as contrary to the Word of God the Law of the Nations the Civil Law the Law of our own Country as well as the Practice of the Chancery it self Once did that Court by its own Authority issue out a Sequestration upon a Gentlemans Estate and it was by very many Persons admired and murmur'd at but never could I hear that they ever sequestred Women from their Husbands Were there not a superiour Jurisdiction over this Court whose Determinations seems too too Arbitrary being gounded solely upon the Opinions not to say the Passions or Affections of two or three Erring men what a miserable Bondage and Slavery were this Nation in What Benefit could we expect from all the good Laws of former Ages if their power may be quell'd or supprest at the pleasure of the Chancery They might have for ought I know made an Injunction also that I should never complain and if I had attempted to have made known my Case to have laid me by the heels But blessed be the Name of our God Iehovah whose extraordinary Providence hath been visible in this Land that he hath raised up and setled your Highness to be next under himself the Supreme Dispenser of Justice and Righteousness to these Nations which the Lord has happily placed under your Highness Government By which means we have a just confidence to be assur'd having had many Experiences already of your Highnesses singular piety and justice in those several Stations where the Lord has formerly placed you That there shall be no more complainings made either in our Streets or in the very Corners of our Country but shall be heard and relieved even against the Great Ones amongst

her Hand but Mr. Duffett gave me them as her Letters Mr. Williams Sir Charles Cotterell pray will you look upon them you know my Lady Ivy's Hand Sir Charles Cotterell I do so they are all of a Hand and I think they are my Ladies I believe it truly Clerk Reads This is signed T. I. All the Letters were read Mr. Williams Your Lordship sees one of these Letters tells Mr. Duffett she intends to set Sir William Salkills Mortgage on foot and should have half what she recovered If it were a true Mortgage why should she give him half L. C. I. They were very great together that is plain they were very Familiar What were Mr. Duffett's Merits towards my Lady I cannot tell Will you go on it is late Mr. Williams This is all we shall offer at present till we have Occasion further from them L. C. I. Well what say you to this Mr. Attorney Mr. Att. Gen. If they have done L. C. I. They have they say Mr. Att. Gen. Then may it please your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury I shall begin to answer their Evidence about the First They have produced some Argumentative Evidence out of many Records to convict our Deeds of Forgery In truth if they had not brag'd of this very thing it had been a shrewd Objection because we could not have been prepared to have given an answer to what we could not have foreseen we should have been accused of But upon their Boasts they have put us upon the search as well as they and we can give as good an Account of it They tell you they had their Hint from my Lord Coke but that hint has lead them into a great Error for he is mistaken himself in the Computation of this Time as he is in a great many other things Mr. Bradbury I know he is mistaken but I depend not upon his Remarks of that time I said only I had the general Hint about detecting Forgeries from thence Mr. Att. Gen. But yet for all your Confidence of the Demonstration your Foundation fails For My Lord to settle the Fact we shall shew that the King of Spain Charles V who was likewise Emperor resigned his Crown the 25th of October in the 2d and 3d Years of Philip and Mary It is true the Parliament Rolls in the Title of them relating to the first Day of the Session there the Style that was used at first could not be altered But the Fact of their being the King and Queen of Spain was so notorious to all the World that we shall shew you in Multitudes of the Rolls of that Year the Style was in our Deeds so that the Use might be various but that will not prove our Deeds forged It may be the Courts of Law might not take notice of it as to alter the Style till Trinity Term though we have not searched so far among them but the common Conveyances which are upon Record in the Rolls there it is altered And as to the time of their becoming King and Queen of Spain we have an History that tells you the very Day when the King resigned which was the 25th of October L. C. I. I tell you Gentlemen methinks Mr. Attorney has been very fortunate to Day in giving very satisfactory Answers to two Objections First they would quite destroy Mr. Neale's Title to this Land by a piece of Evidence that they had never had but that Mr. Neale had bragged of it and that was the Survey which with much Confidence of the Victory was produced and yet when it was so to me it seemed the stabbingest Enemy the Defendants cause had but that you are to have with you and must Judge upon it Now he tells you again Mr. Neale has been a Blab of his Tongue and could not keep the Secret to himself but must brag that the Deeds were forged for the Style of the Queen's Reign is changed and by this bragging they have smoked the Business and can shew Records for it But now instead of Records the Upshot is a little lousy History Can that be an answer to those great Numbers of Records brought by the other side Is a printed History written by I know not who an Evidence in a Court of Law Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord besides that which we must submit to your Judgment whether upon such a point of Fact in a foreign Country to be done such a Day a Foreigners History not printed for this purpose shall be a sort of Evidence but I say besides that here is a Gentleman Mr. Clerk that searched the Roll and he will tell you what they are in this point Mr. Clark I did search in the Rolls and find many in that Year like these And my Lord Coke is utterly mistaken he says it was not altered till the 4th and 5th Years of Phil. and Mary L. C. I. I care not what my Lord Coke says but what the Records say let us see them Mr. Clerk I saw a great many in that Year L. C. I. Lord Gentlemen what do you make of us to keep us here with I do not know what Mr. Attorney he tells us that Mr. Neale was so great a Block-head to brag of this and so we were prepared for an Answer but all the Answer is my Lord Coke is mistaken and there are many Records but we have none of them Praemoniti Praemuniti If he did brag so and you knew it and would not bring Records to wipe off the Objection it is ten times worse than if it had been answered only with the unexpectedness of it Mr. Bradbury My Lord I dare affirm that there are none of the Rolls of that Year so till after Easter-Term L. C. I. Lord Sir you must be cackling too we told you your Objection was very ingenious but that must not make you troublesom you cannot lay an Egg but you must be cackling over it The Objection is now upon them let them answer it if they can Have you any of the Records here Mr. Sol. Gen. We have not it seems my Lord. L. C. I. Then this must pass unanswered and must be left to the Jury Mr. Sol. Gen. But my Lord they have gone a little farther in this Case and indeed farther than becomes them I think to lay Aspersions upon my Lady Ivy as if she were frequently guilty of Forgery And for that Sir Charles Cotterel swears that she did pretend she had a mortgage of a House in St. Martins-lane for 1500 l. and this Mortgage he says he was told of by some that did see it whereupon he did likewise desire to see it and without seeing of it he declared he would never be satisfied of the Reality of the thing and thereupon Mr. Serjeant West brought it him and he saw it but was not permitted to see the Witnesses Names and thereupon he was more dissatisfied than before about it But if Sir Charles Cotterel had given any the least Intimation of such a

it had been known What is said as an excuse why the Rent was not paid being reserved to the Lessor his Executors and not Heirs is of no weight for it might have been helpt in Chancery Besides had that been the reason why the Rent was not asked nor paid Note Richard Glover who Lady Ivy goes about to prove paid the first six years Rent would never have paid any to her Father Iohn Stepkins he being the Son of that Iohn Stepkins who is supposed to have let this Lease in 1620. and died in 1624. so that way no Rent had been due at all Richard Glover in 1616. died and by his Will gave several of his Children 500 l. apiece and particularly Mary and if the Money was not paid accordingly by Richard Glover his Son who is supposed to have taken this Lease he devises his Wapping Lands over to his said Children and Mary's Portion being not paid George Almony her Husband enters and on payment of the said 500 l. in 1624. resettles by Fine and Deed particularly naming these Lands the same on Richard Glover again whose thus accepting a Fine had been a forfeiting the Lease had he held it by one at that time Lady Ivy's Father's and Grandfather's Wills enumerating all their Lands to very small parcels take no notice at all of this Lease nor of any Land in it comprized but only as a Boundary to their own Note There was a Lease lett by Richard Glover to Aaron Williams of the Five Acres being part of the Twelve Acres of Copyhold Land on which Kingstreet in Wapping is built for Fifty years with License from the Lord of the Mannor to lett for so long from 1630. at 20 l. yearly Rent 't was a building Lease and such part of it as Aaron Williams built not himself he disposed of to others And as 't is something hard to imagine that Richard Glover who was a man of repute if he had but forty six years in it in 1630. should lett it for Fifty years so 't is very much harder to believe that Aaron Williams who was a great Builder in several places and those under him should accept of a Lease and build on it for a longer term than Richard Glover could have lett had he held it by this now produced Lease for Fifty six years from 1620. which if true could not have been but publickly known at that time which very Lease so lett to Aaron Williams as aforesaid Lady Ivy purchased in 1659. and gave about 2000 l. for it and so got the possession of it as she in her own Answer to Sir Robert Cotton's Bill in 1676. does confess and is a great Argument she believed it a good Lease and that 20 l. yearly Rent was paid to Bateman for it is plain if the Answer of one Michael Oldsworth of whom Lady Ivy purchased the said Lease to a Bill put in against him by the Relations of one William Thomas to whom Oldsworth was Executor and so came possest of this Lease for an Account of the Estate of the said William Thomas may be believed as it must in other cases though no Evidence in this because it being in another Cause may not in this be read That in the Account says thus Paid Sir Anthony Bateman Arrears of Rent at Wapping 20 l. per ann 150 l. And the said Lady Ivy being so in possession of the Five Acres on which Kingstreet is built by having got Aaron Williams his Lease into her own hands brought an Ejectment about 1675. against the Creditors of Sir Anthony Bateman who then were possest of the other Seventeen Acres and they claiming under a Bankrupt who refused to assist them and knowing not how to defend their Title and Lady Ivy having the good Fortune to make those Deeds against which so much is said in this Paper and especially the Fifty six years Lease from 1620. to be believed as true Deeds she got a Verdict and Judgment then for the said Seventeen Acres about 1676. and held the same till a Verdict was given against her in Easter-Term 1686. for the whole Twenty two Acres upon the now Creditors Title such Evidence being then given as made this Fifty six years Lease and other Deeds not believed The Deed dated February 1664. setling the Inheritance of the Five Acres of Land on which Kingstreet in Wapping is built on one Edward Burtbee and Edward Temple for the securing 800 l. by 100 l. yearly to Sir Thomas Ivy in which the 56 years Lease is recited seems to have been made for the sake of that very Recital and cannot in reason be true for Note Lady Ivy having purchased Aaron Williams his Lease as aforesaid and that being in December 1664. mortgaged to Ioseph Sabberton and Edward Simonds for 800 l. and Sir Thomas Ivy then offering to lay down that Money so he might have it secured him out of the said Lease the same Lease was made over 26 Decemb. 1664. to Richard and Iohn Estcourt and Thomas Nevil who the 25th of February following assigned the same to Sir Rob. Killigrew Sir William Salkeild and Benjamin Thornburgh now Trustees for that purpose But Sir Thomas not receiving the Rents and his 800 l. remaining unpaid and he differing with his Lady in 1671. put in a Bill against her and Serjeant Brampston about this very business charging the Serjeant with Confederacy with his Wife and setting out the whole matter of the Security made him of that Lease complaining of the ill usage he had had and desires relief and yet says not one word of the Inheritance now pretended to be made over to Burtbee and Temple for him and to which Deed he himself 't is pretended was Party And Lady Ivy in her Answer to the said Bill takes only notice of the Lease by her purchased and so mortgaged to Sabberton and Simonds as aforesaid and not one word of this Inheritance-Deed Nor does a Bill exhibited against Sir Thomas Ivy in Feb. 1669. by Sir Robert Killigrew Sir William Salkield and Benjamin Thornburgh the Trustees by Lady Ivy's direction setting out also this Security thus made of the Lease therein named to be made by Richard Glover to Aaron Williams for Fifty years from 1630. for 800 l. by 100 l. yearly to Sir Thomas Ivy nor Sir Thomas Ivy's Answer to it confessing the Security was so made to him of the Lease say any thing at all of this Inheritance-Deed nor take any notice of Edward Burtbee but as one only who being authorized by the last named Trustees and Lady Ivy to receive the Rents did employ one Edward Temple for some time for that purpose and that afterwards one Perrot was by Lady Ivy authorized and employed to receive those Rents So that 't is sence to believe that Edward Burtbee and Edward Temple were no otherwise with the knowledge of Sir Thomas Ivy concern'd in this matter but as Rent-gatherers only in manner aforesaid and nonsence it is to imagine there could be

by her Petition to the Lords Commissioners That her Husband hath deserted her and left her no means to live That during her Cohabitation with him she was in danger of her life and became very weak and for peril of receiving from him diseases of dangerous consequence she cannot Cohabite with him and prays Relief The Question is Whether in this Case she ought to have Alimony In which it will be pertinent to consider the near conjunction that is between Man and Wife and whether they be of equal Authority or there be a Superior and in whom that Superiority resteth 1. The Original female Ancestor was taken out of Man and by the Marriage-bond were made one flesh though several Individuals like the Celestial Gemini that makes but one Constellation but the Government was placed upon the Man by God himself who gave the Law in Paradise saying Thy desire shall be to thy Husband and he shall rule over thee Gen. 3. v. 16. 1 Cor. 14. v. 5. 34. and by the Apostle remembred That Women are commanded to be under obedience so saith the Law and that they submit themselves unto their own Husbands as to the Lord that is supreme Eph. 5. v. 22. Thus far for the Divine Law 2. The Common Law says That a Woman that is married is not sui Iuris but sub potestate Viri hath no will but her Husbands though she may have a Stomach therefore the Civil Acts she does are void in Common Law she can neither take nor give any thing without her Husbands consent She can have no reparation for any wrong done unto her Person by her self without her Husband and the damages that shall be recovered shall go to the Husband and not to the Wife And it is further to be considered the extention of that word Potestas It is of a great latitude for Soveraign Princes and Governours though they have rule and power of the People Yet they cannot beat wound or kill the People under them nor do any thing to their Persons corporally but according to their Laws by Sentence or Judgment But the Husband hath power of Correction upon the Body of his Wife and Servant according to his own Judgment so as he doth not wound nor kill and is not prohibited by any Law 3. The Civil Law as I take it agrees with the Common Law then it must follow by necessary consequence that a married Woman without leave cannot depart from her Husband which she must evidence by proof no more than a Servant from his Master a Subject from his Soveraign into forreign parts who by his Missives is to return upon forfeit of his Estate which makes good what was said before that she is not sui Iuris and in some sort expounds and explicates the potestatem Viri in Vxorem for the Master may seize and carry away his Servant if he find him or implead him that shall keep him and recover damages for the time he keeps him so may the Husband by his Wife which shews the propropriety and interest which the Husband hath in his Wife and for loss of her society and company though no other harm be done he shall recover damages against the detainer Nay the Husband could not repudiate his Wife but in case of Adultery for that the Bill of divorce spoken of in the Old Law was not given by God but permitted by Moses to prevent a greater mischief for the Iews are cruel Men to their Wives and to prevent Vxoricidium he gave way to it Sed non fuit sic ab initio The Case thus stated upon the impotencies and non-ability of the will of the Wife and the just Rule and Power of the Husband over her Will and Person t is considerable whether by Law or Reason a Wife departing without leave shall have allowance to live separate which is called Alimony Alimony is a Thing not known at the Common or Civil Law but indulged and brought in by the Pope and his Canons and very much put in Use by the late High Commission and Prerogativive Court of Canterbury wherein upon Sentence of Separation from Bed and Board given by that Court the Husband was enjoyned to make allowance to the Wife and the Husband enforced to give security for the payment and many times imprisoned upon failure of performance yet in those cases both of Bonds and Imprisonments the Husband upon Habeas Corpus returnable in the upper Bench where by Judgment of that Court discharged of both if the Husband cohabit because the Law says Quos Deus conjunxit nemo separet So as without the Husbands consent no separation could be made and if no separation no Alimony Nor were personal Infirmities or Diseases contracted after Marriage sufficient cause for such separation because she may Board though not Bed with such a Husband but where the temper of her Husband was more severe and violent than discreet That Court by the wisdom of prevention which is better than the wisdom of remedies did use by way of caution to take bond for the Husbands orderly usage of his Wife to prevent the cruelty whereof they had no Jurisdiction but only in causes and salute Animae and not pro reformatione Morum which belongs to the Common Law and where upon complaint by the Wife in that kind the Common Law will enforce the Husband to give bond to secure both life and member of his Wife from maim and death And certainly Reason is against it 1. Reason commands obedience to Superiors generally the Apostle puts it further for Conscience sake and disobedience is not cherished by any Reason 2. One end of Marriage is Mutual Society and Comfort would be avoided by the Act of the Wife which is not to be admitted upon the petulant Allegation of difference betwixt her and her Husband upon personal Infirmities 3. Marriage it self and all the Laws of the Wifes subjection and capacity by so long time pronounced and received by this means would be avoided 4. If God himself was pleased to say it was not good for a Man to be alone then surely we may safely say it is not good for a Woman to be alone for though they are the weaker Vessel and have the lesser Reason yet they have the stronger Passions and more violent Desires and so more subject to Temptation and Sin 5. For the inevitable Danger of illegitimate Bastards and Clandestine Issues where the Wife is separate who concealed it till the Husbands death are yet inheritable to his Land though never begotten by him This Inconvenience sadly weighed and how Epidemically it may run to all Families of this Nation is of it self a sufficient convincing Reason to bridle the rash hot appetite of inconsiderable women and avoid all Alimony But on the other side if any Husband shall be so unjust to his Wife and unkind to his own Flesh whom he is bound by Law to maintain as to separate from her and will not cohabite with her Nisi