Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	defendant_n	plaintiff_n	plea_n	3,291	5	10.0361	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50670	The parson's monitor, consisting of such cases and matters as principally concern the clergy collected from the statute and common laws, as also the constitutions and canons ecclesiastical : confirmed 1 Jac. anno Dom. 1603 : together with the Articles of religion, authority of the convocation, privilege of churches and church-yards, payment of first-fruits and tenths, in whose name and style ecclesiastical courts are to be kept, and the process issuing out of the same are to run in, and with what seal to be sealed : with several other matters (never before extant) very material and necessary to be known by the clergy in general, and all persons concerned either as patron, or incumbent / by G. Meriton, gent.	Meriton, George, 1634-1711.	1681 (1681)	Wing M1808; ESTC R702	137,500	344

the intent to provide for his Son is not any Simony and of this Opinion were three of the Justices but Anderson was of a contrary Opinion but was over ruled by the other three P. 41 Eliz. C. B. Rot. 1001 Smith and Shelbourn's Case Cro. Eliz. f. 685. pl. 21. but this same Case being reported by Moore f. 916. pl. 1299. he saith that it was clearly agreed to be Simony but all the Justices except Anderson held it to be no Simony if the Son had not been privy to the bargain Ideo Quaere vide 39 Eliz. Buck's Case 3 Jac. Freeman and English ●s Case Hughes cap. 16. P. 3. Car. 1. B. R. Rot. 362. Godb. Rep. f. 390. pl. 475. f. 435. pl. 500. Noye's Rep. f. 25. What contract no Simony In an Ejection firm the point was the Patron takes an Obligation of the Clerk which he presented that he should pay ten pounds yearly to the Son of the last Incumbent so long as he should be a Student in Cambridge unpreferr'd And this was adjudged to be no Simony but if it had been to have paid ten pounds to the Son of the Patron c. then it had been Simony And Justice Foster vouched the Earl of Sussex's Case an Obligation made by the Presentee to the Patron to pay fifty pounds yearly to the Wife and Children of the last Incumbent and held to be no Simony Baker and Mountford's Case Noye's Rep. f. 142. What Covenant no Simony And if a Father in Law upon the Marriage of his Daughter Covenant with his Son in Law without any consideration but voluntarily that he will procure him to be Presented Admitted Instituted and Inducted into such Benefice upon the next avoidance of the same Church this is no Simony but if such a Covenant had been made in consideration of Marriage of his Daughter c. or other consideration that he would procure him to be presented c. to such a Church that had been a Simoniacal contract M. 11 Car. 1. B. R. Birte and Manning's Case Cro. Car. f. 425. pl. 16. Obligation ●o resign no ●imony In debt upon an Oligation for a thousand Marks the Case was thus that whereas the Obligee had procured from Queen Elizabeth Letters of Presentation to the Church of Sretham to which he intended to present his Son breeding him a Schollar after he should attain the Age of 24 Years and in the mean time presented one Lawrence and after Institution and Induction c. took the Bond abovesaid of him that if after his Son was of Age and Capacitated he should absolutely resign the said Benefice within three Months after request to him made then the Obligation to be void otherwise to remain in full force and virtue to this the Defendant Lawrence pleaded non requisitus which upon the Tryal was found against him and it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that it appeared by the condition of the Bond to be a Simoniacal contract and against Law and therefore the Obligation void but notwithstanding the Court gave Judgment for the Plaintiff And afterwards a Writ of Error being brought the Principal Error insisted upon was that this condition is against Law being for Simony but all the Judges of the Common Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer held that the Obligation and condition were good enough for a Man may bind himself to resign and it is not unlawfull but may be upon good and valuable reasons without any colour of Simony as to be obliged to resign if he take a second Benefice or if he be non resident by the space of so many Months or as this Case is to resign upon request if the Patron will present his Son thereto when he should be capable to take it But if it had been averred that it was per colorem Simonii viz. if he did not suffer the Patron to injoy a Lease of the Glebe or Tythes or if he did not pay such a sum of money that had been Simony and it is possible might have made the Obligation void but in this Case there is no such thing and so adjudged no Simony Tr. 8 Jac. Rot. 1130. B. R. Jones and Lawrence's Case Cro. Jac. f. 248. pl. 8. 274. pl. 2. Also in Hill 15 Car. 1. an action of debt brought upon a Bond conditioned Bond to resign ●o Simony without ●●●●ment c. whereas the Plaintiff intended to present the Defendant to such a Benefice that if at any time after his Admission Institution and Induction at the Plaintiff's request he should resign the said Benefice into the hands of the Ordinary that then c. upon Oyer of the condition the Defendant demurred generally c. and upon argument his Council shewed that the condition being to resign when the Patron should request it was Simony and against Law and so the Bond void but all the Court held the contrary but if it had been averred that the Obligation was made per colorem Simonii as to bind the Presentee to pay such a summ of money or to make a Lease of the Tythes or other Act which appears in it self to be Simony then upon such a Plea peradventure it might have appeared to the Court to have been Simony and so the Bond questionable But as it is here it doth not appear that there is any Simony for such a Bond to cause him to resign may be good and upon good reason and discretion required by the Patron viz. if he be not resident or takes a second Benefice by Qualification c. or intended to present his Son when qualified as in the last Case and for these reasons judgment was given for the Plaintiff H. 15 Car. 1. B. R. Babington and Wood's Case Cro. Car. f. 180. pl. 4. Hut Rep. f. 110 Jone's f. Rep. 220. pl. 1. vide M 43 44 Eliz. C. B. Webb and Hargrave's Case M. Rep. f. 641. pl. 883. Indeed there is a Case in Noy where it is said that the Court held it to be Averment requisite to make a Bond Simonical Simony where the Patron had presented one and taken Bond of him to resign when the Patron pleased after three Months warning but the reasons are not set down in the Book so I suppose the condition hath been general to resign and averment made by the Presentee that it was per colorem Simonii c. as is shewed before Tr. 15 Jac. C. B. Rot. 2051. Sir John Pascal and Clarke's Case Noye's Rep. f. 22. There is also another Case in Roll's which contradicts this in Noy besides Bond to resign no Simony c. the two beforementioned so that it can be of no great Authority the Case was thus A. was bound to B. that whereas A. within a short time was to be Presented Instituted and Inducted into a Benefice if therefore after his Admission Institution and Induction at all times upon request of B. his Heirs Executors or Administrators he should resign

secondly that the People should be fed thirdly that the Parsonage House should be upholden and maintained and if the Statute should be otherwise construed many inconveniences would ensue for Parsons would purchase other Houses within their Parishes and be alwaies resident upon them and suffer their Parsonage Houses to decay and sterilitate their Glebe Land and meliorate their own Possessions in prejudice of their Successors and where the Statute saith he shall be resident upon his Benefice it shall be intended where there can be residence for he cannot be resident upon the Tythes nor upon the Glebe Land where there is not any House but only his Habitation is within his Parsonage House but Justice Clynch and Fenner held the contrary and said if he be resident within his Benefice which extends to the whole Parish it is sufficient but if he be resident upon any other House adjoyning upon his Parish but not within his Parish although every Sunday and Holyday he serve the cure yet it is not sufficient and they said that the intent of the Statute is that he should pascere gregem cibo exemplo verbo all which he may doe when he is resident in any part of the Parish and where it is said in at and upon his Benefice it is clear that all the Parish is his Benefice so he is resident in his Benefice but peradventure he is not resident upon his Benefice unless he Inhabits within the Parsonage House but there are Divers Parsonages which have no Parsonage House for it may be aliened by the former Parson with the consent of the Patron and Ordinary or let out so as his successor cannot have it and therefore his residence may be in any other House within the Parish and it is sufficient and upon this difference of the Justices in their Opinions Crook reports the Case to be adjorned and so does Moore and Gouldesborough but my Lord Cook reporting the same Case saith it was resolved by the Court that the Parson ought to reside in the Parsonage House and not in any other House within the Parish M. 39 40 Eliz. B. R. Goodale and Butler's Case Cro. Eliz. f. 590. pl. 28 M. Rep. f. 540. pl. 712. Gouldes Rep. pa. 169. pl. 100. Co. Rep. 6 Lib. f. 21. b. the same Case but there said to be P. 40 Eliz. and see P. 9 Jac B. R. Shepheard and Twoulsie's Case Boulstr Rep. 1 part f. 111. What residence and what not Another Information was also brought upon the stat 21 H. 8. for non residence and it was found by speciall Verdict that Doctor Newman was Incumbent invested in the Rectory of Staplehirst in the County of Kent and that he was also seized of an House in Staplehirst aforesaid Situate within twenty Yards of the said Rectory and that the Mansion House of the said Rectory was in good repair and that Doctor Newman held that in his hands and occupation with his own proper goods and did not let it to any other and that he Inhabited in the said Messuage and not in the Parsonage and whether this were non residence or no was the Question and it was argued by the Plaintiff's Council that it was non residence and it is there said that the Statute was made for seven causes two of which are for Hospitality and relief of the Poor and these are to be done in the Parsonage House for this is the free Alms of the Church and so it was adjudged B. R. 24 Eliz. in Broom and Hudson's Case the Defendant's Council argued to the contrary but the Case was compounded by the Lord Cook and so no judgment in it but he intended this was no residence within the Statute as the Book saith H. 8 Jac. C. B. Canning and Doctor Newman's Case Brownl Rep. 2 part f. 54. What a Dignity to excuse non residence Upon another Information for non residence the Defendant pleaded that he was chosen Gospeller in the Church of S. Pauls London and was resident there by reason of that Dignity and it was thereupon demurred and it was said by the Plaintiff's Council that this was not any Dignity to excuse the Defendant the Civilians divide spiritual Functions into three degrees first a Function which hath a Jurisdiction as a Bishop Dean c. secondly a Spiritual Administration with a cure as Parson of a Church c. thirdly they who neither have cure nor Jurisdiction as Prebends Chaplains c. and defined a Dignity to be Administratio Ecclesiastica cum Jurisdictione vel potestate conjuncta and thereby they exclude the two last degrees from being any Dignity à multo fortiori the Common Law doth so and to that purpose vide 27 H. 6. 5. 25 E. 3. 41. Br. Nosme 25. that an Archdeacon is not a Name of Dignity 17 E. 3. 31. A Provost is not a Name of Dignity 11 H. 4. 40. A Parson is not a Name of Dignity 14 H. 6. 14. A Presentor is not a Name of Dignity 27 H. 6. 3. A Chaplain is not a Name of Dignity 27 H. 8. 10. is if a Vicar of S. Pauls hath a Benefice with cure he ought to be resident upon it and that is a greater Dignity than Gospeller and of that Opinion were Popham and Clinch Caeteris Justiciariis absentibus but the cause was adjorned and afterwards the Defendant compounded P. 41 Eliz. B. R. Boughton and Gonsley's Case Cro. Eliz. f. 663 pl. 13. Information for non residence where to be brought An Information was brought upon the Statute for non residence before the Justices of Assize in the County of Essex and it was resolved it did not lye but only in the King's Courts where there may be Essoyn Gager del Ley or Protection M. 4 Car. 1 B. R. Green and Guye's Case Cro. Car. f. 146. pl. 26. Note if a Baron have three Chaplains Non obstant when necessary and every one of them hath two Benefices apiece and afterwards the Baron dyes yet they shall enjoy their Benefices with cure in which they were Lawfully setled before but though they continue and abide upon one of the Benefices yet they may be punished for non residence upon the other and so it was adjudged in Parson Boyton's Case as the Lord Cook reports therefore saith he such Minister ought to obtain of the King a non obstante so if the Baron dye be attainted of Treason or Felony or if any Officer be removed from his Office who is Capacitated to retain a Chaplain sic de similibus Co. Rep. 4 Lib. f. 119. a. Non residence excusable when It hath been agreed that Lawfull Imprisonment without fraud is a good excuse of non residence so if there be no Parsonage House for impotentia excusat legem and these Cases are excepted out of the Act by Construction of the Law and it was also held in the Exchequer Tr. 19 Eliz. that sickness without fraud is also a good excuse to wit