messor but spicelegus a Gleaner And that in such Cases only where the King doth not prosecute pardon or release before the Informers Action is commenced 11 Co. 65. Dr. Fosters Case Bridgman 121.122 Parker against Sir J. Webb and uxor Lane 60. But whither this rule be general Bar. Fe◠and will not admit of an Exception in the Case of a Feme Covert is a Question For by some opinions if a Feme Covert be Indicted and convicted of Recusancy that shall not barr the Informer of his popular Action upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. against her and her Husband for the Recusancy of the Wife because upon the Conviction by Indictment the cannot be compelled to pay the forfeiture of twenty pound per month while her Husband lives nor can it be levied of her Goods and Lands for that during the Coverture she hath nothing of her own to forfeit but all is her Husbands Bridgman 122. Infra 270. N 9. The Condemnation or acquittal of the party at the suit of the Informer is a good Bar against the King and all others 11 Co. 66. 18. Before 4 H. 7.20 § 1. N. 7. Collusion It seems that if a popular Action had been brought by Covin and with the consent of the defendent and the defendent was for want of Evidence or other Cause found not guilty and the Covin appeared to the Court yet Judgment should have been given thereupon against the King and it should have been a good Bar against all others 9 Ed. 4.4 pl. but now by 4 H. 7.20 § 1. N. 7. If any person sue with good Faith any Action popular and the defendent Plead a Recovery in an Action popular in Bar or that before that time he had Barred the Plantiff in such Action the Plantiff may aver such recovery or Bar was by Covin and upon such Covin found the Plantiff shall have Judgment and the defendent attainted or condemned of Covin shall shave Imprisonment of two years by process of Capias or Outlawry as well at the Kings suit as any other and the release of the party shall not avail the defendent which Covin may be averred generally Com. 49.50 54 55. Wymbishe and Talbois If a man bring upon a penal Statute debt tam c. quam c. and the defendent pleads thereunto the Plantiff may reply without the Kings Attorny c. Princes Case In debt upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. the defendents demurred and the Plantiff qui tam c. Joyned in demurrer without the Kings Attorny and held to be good 1 Cro. 10.11 Farringtons Case Trin. 1. Car. 1. but in an Information tam c. quam c. the Kings Attorny ought to reply 2 Rol. 33. Smith and Catter And this difference between debt and an Information was taken Hutton 82. in the said Farringtons Case but yet if in an Information the defendent plead a special plea and the Kings Attorny will not reply and prosecute for the Kings part the Informer shall be admitted to reply and prosecute for his part as was adjudged in Stretton and Taylors Case 1 Leonard 119. pl. 161. and 11 Co. 65. Dr. Fosters Case 3 Inst 194. 19. The King before any Information or other popular suit commenced may pardon or release the whole penalty incurred Priory and it shall be a good bar against all men 11 Co. 65.66 Dr. Fosters Case 3 Inst 194.195.37 H. 6.4 _____ 2 R. 312. _____ _____ 1 H. 7.3 _____ Termes de ley 102. Decies tantum And if the defendent in the Information do not take advantage of such pardon or release by his plea but is condemned in the suit and the Kings share of the penalty be put in the Pipe in magno rotulo yet he may then discharge himself thereof upon a Compertum suit in magno rotulo by shewing forth the whole matter by way of Plea and shall not loose the effect of his pardon or release Savile 23. pl. 56. Tirringhams Case But when once the Informer hath brought his popular Suit the King cannot discharge it and if he then pardon or release or his Attorny enter an ulterius non vult prosequi this is good for the Kings part only but is no Bar quoad the Informer who may proceed notwithstanding for his part of the penalty And therefore neither can the Kings Attorny discharge the Jury when they come to deliver their Verdict Hutton 82. Vaughan 343. Thomas and Sorrel 1 Leonard 119. pl. 161. and 3 Cro. 138. Stretton and Taylor 3 Cro. 583. Hammon and Grissith 3 Inst 194. 1 H. 7.3 Such Entry of a non vult prosequi by the Attorny General hath the same effect with a Nonsuit of a Private person but the King cannot be said properly to be Nonsuit because he is in Judgment of Law ever present in Court 1 Inst 139.227 Hutton 82. Goldsborough 53. pl. Leighs Case Savile 56. pl. 119. Weare against Adamson Upon the Death of Queen Elizabeth it was resolved by the Judges that where an Information tam pro Domina Regina quam c. was brought upon a penal Statute and pending the same and before Judgment the Queen dyed the Information it self should stand for that otherwise the Suit might be lost there being a time limited for the bringing of it but all the proceedings thereupon were lost and void and the defendent should plead de novo 2 Cro. 14. and 7 Co. 30.31 Of discontinuance of Process And to that purpose 5 Ed. 6. Rot. 38. is there cited where in a popular action the King dyed after demurrer upon the Evidence and before Judgment and the defendent pleaded de novo But yet 1 Cro. 10.11 and Hob. 82. Farringtons Case in a popular action of debt upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. against Prince and his Wife where the defendent demurred upon the declaration and the Plantiff qui tam c. Joyned demurrer in Hillary Term and King James died the Vacation following It was resolved that not only the Writ and declaration but all the other proceedings thereupon should stand notwithstanding the demise of the King for that in such Case it is meerly the Suit of the party and is aided by 1 Ed. 6.7 § 1. N. 4. of Discontinuances and he only Joyned in demurrer Which Resolutions are in appearance flatly contrary each to other for 2 Cro. 14. seems to take in all popular Suits whatsoever and as well a popular Action of debt as an Information but yet t is observable that in 1 Cro. 10. the Plantiff only joyned in demurrer and not the Kings Attorny And this seems to be the reason why in that Case the proceedings should stand notwithstanding the demise of the King for where the party alone joyns in demurrer or replies and not the Kings Attorny there the Suit may properly be said to be depending between party and party and within the express words of 1 Ed. 6.7 § 1. N. 4. which provides that altho the
she be an Offender within 3 Jac. 5. § 10. N. 1 and conform not within the year next before her Husband's death she shall forfeit the profits of two parts of both But otherwise it is where an Estate is given or limited by the Husband to the Wife and it 's neither expressed nor can be averred and proved to be given or limited for her Joynture or in recompense of her Dower and therefore if any of the Estates before-mentioned which are not within 27 H. 8.10 § 6. N. 1. be granted or limited to the Wife by the Husband or any other Estate for her life or otherwise which would be a good Joynture within the said Statute if it were intended for a Joynture as if a man before or after Marriage covenants to stand seised of Lands to the use of himself for life the remainder to his Wife for her life and it is neither expressed in the deed nor can be averred and proved that it was for her Joynture Or if a man devise Lands by his last Will to his Wife generally and there is no mention in the Will that 't is for her Joynture for in this Case an Averment that it was so intended will not serve unless there be express words in the will to that purpose These Estates so gained by the Wife as they do not barre her Dower out of the Residue of her Husband's Estate but that she shall enjoy both the one and the other 4 Co. 4. So they are not within the meaning of this Act 3 Jac. 5. § 10. N. 1. because not made for her Joynture and she shall not forfeit the Profits of two parts of them altho she may forfeit the Profits of two parts of her Dower which she hath out of the residue of her Husband's Estate If Lands be conveyed to the Wife before Marriage for part of her Joynture and other Lands are conveyed to her after Marriage in full satisfaction of her Joynture and she refuse those conveyed after Marriage in this Case she may retain those conveyed before marriage and yet be endowed of the residue of her Husband's Estate for that the Lands first settled on her were not for her whole Joynture 1 Inst 35. and 4 Co. 3. And if she be a Popish recusant convict and her Husband none and she conform not within the year next before his Death she shall forfeit the Profits of two parts both of such Dower and of the Estate so conveyed to her before her Marriage And as the Wife shall have her Joynture and Dower both in such Cases where the Joynture is not pursuant to 27 H. 8.10 § 6. N. 1. So in some Cases likewise where she hath a Joynture pursuant to that Statute as where she hath such a Joynture made to her by the Husband before Marriage and he afterwards endow her ad ostium Ecclesiae or if she hath a Joynture made by the Husband in his life-time and after his death his Heir or Feoffee assigne other Lands to her in Dower or the Heir plead to her in a Writt of Dower ne unques seisie que Dower c. or nient accouple in Loyal Matrimony or any other plea save Joynture in Barre of Dower and it be found against him in these Cases the Wife shall hold her Joynture and yet be endowed and if she be an Offender within 3 Jac. 5. § 10. N. 1. shall forfeit the profits of two parts of her Joynture and Dower both But if a Widow who is endowed of the Lands of her deceased Husband takes a second Husband who is no Popish Recusant convicted by whom she hath a Joynture and she becomes a Popish Recusant convict and the second Husband dyeth and the Wife is Offender within 3 Jac. 5. § 10. N. 1. In this Case she shall not by force thereof forfeit the profits of two parts of such Dower and Joynture both but only of her Joynture for that her Dower is not out of the Lands of her said Husband that is of the Husband in whose life-time she stood convicted and after such conviction forbore to conform c. within the year next before his death CCXXXIII Judgment Page 216. Convicted of Popish Recusaney 3 Jac. 5. § 11 N. 1. The conviction mentioned here and in the other Branches of this Statute seems to be intended not only of a Conviction according to 26 Eliz. 6 § 5. N 5. or 3 Jac. 4. § 7. N. 2. upon Proclamation and default of appearance but of a judgment likewise upon an Indictment or popular suit on 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 1. and 11. N. 1. for Conviction in relation to these three last mentioned Remedies is to be taken for adjudged or attainted supra 63. N. 2. and the Popish Recusant who is either convicted upon proclamation and default of appearance or against whom Judgment is had upon an Indictment popular suit or action of debt c. at the King's suit is hereby disabled as an excommunicate person and liable to all other the penalties and incapacities inflicted by this Act 3 Jac. 5. on a Popish Recusant convicted CCXXXIV Excomgent Page 216 Reputed to all intents and purposes disabled as a person c. excommunicate 3 Jac. 5. § 11. N. 1. and not reputed to all intents as an excommunicate person as Wingate Coron 135 mis-recites for as it seems by the words of the Statute the Popish Recusant convicted is not to be reputed as a person excommunicate in any other respect or to any other intent but as to his Disability only infra 243. and yet 2 Bulstr 145.155 the opinion of the Court in B. R. Mich. 11. Jac. Griffith's Ca. seems to be to the contrary that a Popish Recusant convicted may by force of 3 Jac. 5. § 11. N. 1. be attached upon a Writ de excommunicato capeindo Tamen quaere whether this statute being a penal Law and speaking only of the point of disability shall be extended by equity to other Cases or the Recusant be attached upon an excommunicato capiendo unless he be first actually excommunicated A Popish Recusant convict is disabled as an excommunicate person to be a witness in any Cause between Party and Party by Coke Ch. Inst 2 Bulstr 155. Page 216 217 218. CCXXXV May plead the same in disabling of such Plaintiff 3 Jac. 5. § 11. N. 2. this disability in the Popish Recusant convicted is but Quousque c. untill he conform c. and take the Oath of Allegeance and the Defendant must in this Case plead the Conviction at large and must as in a plea of Excommengement demand if the plaintiff shall be answered Hetley 18. which is the Legal Conclusion of a Plea in disability of the person The Defendant in debt upon an Obligation pleads that the Plaintiff is a Popish Recusant convict who replyeth nul tiel record such plea in disability of the person is peremptory and nul tiel record is an issue and judgment shall be given
that the Indictment was good enough notwithstanding it is not said of what Parish the Recusant was for the whole penalty of twenty pound per month is at first 23 Eliz. 1. § 5. N. 1. given to the Queen and the Inhabitants of the Parish where the offence was are by 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. to sue in the Exchequer for their third part and surmile in their Bill that the offence was in their Parish and if it were so it shall be delivered to them as the Act directs LXXVIII Exchequer Page 71. Upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. the principal Officers of the Court of Exchequer are the Treasurer and Barons but the principal Officers of the receit of the Exchequer are the Treasurer and Chamberlains Savile 38. pl. 87. LXXXIX Information Page 71. c. 82. on 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. upon a penal Statute where part of the forfeiture is given to the King and part to him that will sue the Informer or Plantiff qui tam c. sequitur tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso and so it must be said in the Information or declaration and not only there but in the Joyning of Issue and the Venire facias it must be entred qui tam pro Domino Rege c. or the omission of it is Error 1 Cro. 336. pl. Mich. 9. Car. 1. 2. In an Information upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. the usual way is that the Informer for himself petit inde tertiam partem juxta formam Statut ' 11 Co. 56. Dr. Fosters Case but then the Statute must be named for in an Information 2 Cro. 142. Mich. 4. Jac. by Broughton Qui tam c. against Moâ—re for the forbearing to come to Church Contra formam Statuti without naming which Statute in which Case the Informer demanded the third part for himself it was adjudged by the Court of B. R. to be ill for there are several Statutes against Recusancy and it did not appear which of them was meant 3. But if this Statute of 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. be named in Certain and the party who sueth demands the whole forfeiture for the King and himself and Judgment be given that the King shall recover one moity and the Informer or Plantiff Qui tam c. the other moity in that Case the Judgment is well enough for the Information or declaration being Quod actio accrevit Domino Regi praefat A. ad habend ' exigend ' the full forfeiture the Judgment doth not vary there from when it saith that a moiety shall be to the King and a moiety to the Plantiff or Informer and altho the Statute 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. saith that he which will sue shall have but a third part yet thâ—t is by way of distribution only and such distribution if the penalty is an act subsequent to the Judgment and is to be made as well out of the moity given by the Judgment to the Informer or Plantiff Qui tam c. as out of the mony thereby given to the King and this I conceive to be the reason of the resolution in Chambers Case 2 Roll. 437. pl. where such a Judgment in Case of Recusancy upon this Statute was allowed to be good But if the whole forfeiture be not demanded in certain there altho the party who sues demands his own share 't is ill and so it was adjudged in an Information upon a poenal Statute 5 Eliz. 5. § 16. N. 1. which concluded Vnde petit advisamentum Curiae quod forisfaciat 5 l. pro qualibet offensunde ipse petit medietatem For the Informer doth not make his demand certain but leaves it to the Court or Jury to cast up the sum it Amounts to Hobart 245. Pie and Westly 4. If there be several Statutes Information and each of them prohibit one and the same thing and Inflict a penalty and give an Information for recovery of it the Information may conclude contra formam Statuti and good because the best shall be taken for the King 5 H. 7.17 So if one Statute make the offence and another Inflicts the penalty or forfeiture and the Information be for the offence only it may conclude contra formam Statuti which is to be understood of that Statute which makes the offence But if the Information both lay down the offence and demand the penalty there both Statutes must be recited or at least the Information must conclude contra formam Statutorum Owen 135. Wests Case supra 72. § 6. 5. In the late additions to Dalt 547. cap. 191. § 6. N. 3. it s said that Informations and saiâ—s on penal Statutes are stricti juris and excepted out of all the Statutes of Jeofailes which is a mistake for they are not excepted out of 32 H. 8.30 It s true they are out of 18 Eliz. 14. § N. and 21 Jac. 13. § N. and that as it seemeth in all Cases within those two Statutes see Styles 307. Theoballs against Newton And in the Case of Scot and Lawes Hob. 328. It seems to be intimated that they are excluded out of all three Where the Case was debt by an Informer Qui tam c. upon a penal Statute 21 H. 8.13 § 2. N. 4. the defendent pleads non debet praefato J. meaning the Informer and not the King and the Issue was found against the defendent in that Case it was resolved that this was a good Cause to stay Judgment and there it s said that it being upon a penal Statute the Statute of Jeofailes 32 H. 8.30 would not help it but that reason was Ex abundanti for 32 H. 8 30. seems to extend to all popular suits whatsover and in Wallers Case Dyer 346.347 in an Information brought against him 18 Eliz. by Topcliffe Qui tam c. upon 37 H. 8.9 of Usury it was adjudged that the mis-conveying of Process and mis-joyning of Issue in the said Information Dayes were aided by 32 H. 8.30 6. By 31 Eliz. 5. § 5. N. 2. an Informer Qui tam c. must begin his suit within one year after the offence committed otherwise he shall not have any part of the penalty 2 Co. 366. Hill 12 Jac. Godbolt 158. pl. 216. Sivedale versus Sir Edward Lenthal But popular suits upon the Statute 39 Eliz. 2. § N. of Tillage are excepted and not upon the Statute of Tallage as is mistaken in the the late additions to Dalt 546. cap. 191. § 3. In Dr. Fosters Case 11 Co. 65. it s said that the Informer hath no Remedy for recovery of the forfeitures for Recusancy after the year and day is expired for that time is limited in certain by 23 Eliz. 1. § 8. N. 1. but yet with submission it seems that 23 Eliz. 1. § 8. N. 1. relates to Indictments only and so it was held in this very Case of Dr. Foster 11 Co. 60. and 1 Rol. 93.
King die all proceedings in Suits depending between party and party shall stand But 2 Cro. 14. is to be understood of such Cases where after a Plea or demurrer by the defendent the Attorny General alone replies or joynes in demurrer there the proceedings shall be void and the defendent shall plead de novo But the Information it self shall stand to avoid a manifest inconvenience for that the Informer is limited to a certain time wherein to exhibit his Information and so these two opinions are reconciled 20. An Informer Release qui tam c. may be Nonsuited altho the King cannot 1 Inst 139. Hutton 82. Farrington versus Arundell If pending the popular action or Information the Plantiff or Informer qui tam c. be Nonsuited or release or Enter a nolie prosequi or die none of these shall bar the King but the Attorny Genaral may proceed upon the Information for the Kings part 1 Leonard 119. pl. 191. 3 Cro. 138. Stretton versus Taylor 3 Cro. 583. Hamond 3 Inst 194. Moor 541. pl. 715. and 11 Co. 66. Dr. Fosters Case 2 Bulstrode 261.262 Waller versus Hanger 2 Rol. 33. Smith versus Carter And therefore the opinions in 37 H. 6.5 and 38 H. 6.2 that if the Plantiff in a Decies tantum which is a popular Action be Nonsuit the King is without remedy but by Indictment or if such Plantiff will relinquish his Suit that the King hath nothing further to do seem not to be Law at this day 21. If a popular Information be brought upon a penal Statue in a wrong Court where the Informer cannot sue Courts yet it was held Moor 564 c. pl. 770. in Agar and Candishes Case that the King should not for that loose his advantage of the suit but the Information should be good for his part of the penalty By 18 Eliz. 5. § 3. N. 3. If an Informer or Plantiff Costs upon a penal Statute where any forfeiture is generally limited to him that will sue shall delay or discontinue his suit or be Nonsuit or shall have the Tryal or matter pass against him by Verdict or Judgment of Law he shall pay to the defendent his Cost Charges and Damages see the addition to Bendloes 141. Rhobotham and Vincent and if it be upon a special Verdict or demurrer those Cases are within 18 Eliz. 5. § 3. N. 3. and he shall pay Costs by force thereof Hutton 36. Pies Case But an Informer is not compellable to find Sureties to answer Costs howbeit the Court if they see Cause may order him to appear in person before the defendent answer the Information 2 Bulst 18 Martin and Gunnystons Case Savil 10. pl. 26. Wilkes Case it was held in the Exchequer Chamber that if a writ of Error be brought upon a Judgment given for the King at the Suit of an Informer a Scire facias ought to be awarded against the Informer LXXX Courts Page 82 83 84. By any Court of Record is here 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. meant the four ordinary Courts of Record at Westminster For they are the general Courts of Record and the Courts where the Kings Attorny may acknowledge or deny and the words of 23 Eliz 1. § 11. N. 1. being general are left to the construction of law where the Rule is that verba equivoca in dubio posita intelliguntur in digniori potentiori sensie And in this sense shall these words Court of Record be construed in all penal Statutes where the penalty is to be recovered in a popular suit so that the Informer qui tam c. cannot sue before Justices of Assize Goal-delivery or Oyer and Terminer or Justices of Peace as in Borrough or corporate Towns or in a Court of Pipowders Stannary Courts c. Jones 193. And such a construction hath been made of those words Court of Record upon several Statutes as 6 Co. 19.20 and Moor 600. pl. 827. Gregories Case on 4 and 5 Ph. Mar. 5. § N. of Woolen Cloathes In 1 Cro. 149. Green versus Guy on 21 11.8.13 § 11. N. 2. of Non-resid nee In 1 Cro. 112.113 and Hutton 99 Farrington and Keymer on 23 H. 8.4 § 5. N. 3. of Brewers In Stiles 340. Buck stone and Shurlock on 7 Ed. 6.5 § 6. N. 3. of selling wine without Licence In 3 Cro. 737. Barnabee versus Goodale and 2 Cro. 538. Millors Case and Styles 383. upon 5 Eliz. 4. § 13. N. 3. of Trades In Moor 421. pl. 581 upon the Statutes for Tanning of Leather and divers others 2. It was held Mich. 6 and 7 Ed. 6. Dyer 236. pl. by all the Justices but three that where a Statute appoints a penalty for any offence made thereby which was not an offence at the common law to be Recovered in any of the Queens Courts of record by Action of debt and no other Court is appointed The Statute intends the sour ordinary Courts of Record at Westminster and the offence and penalty cannot be punished and determined by Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer in Patriam But Dyer makes a Quaere hereupon and Sir Edward Coke in Scarlets Case 12 Co. 98. saith 10 Jac. that the opinion of Catlin Sanders and Whiddon which were the three dissenting Justices before c. is at this day held for good law and the opinion of the rest of the Justices that any Courts of Record are restrained to the ordinary Courts at Westminster of Record is not held for law Continual Experience saith he being against it for that Justices of Assize in respect of their Commission of Oyer and Terminer have alwaies enquired of offences where the penalties is appointed to be sued in any Court of Record as upon 33 H. 8.9 § 18. N. 1. of unlawful Games 35 H. 8.17 § 9. N. 2. of words and 5 and 6 Ed. 6.14 § 9. N. 2. of forfeitures and other Statutes But under favor altho Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer may take Indictments for the doing of that which is made malum prohibitum by a Statute Law yet that part of the opinion in Dyer 236 which relates to the Action of debt and the Courts of Record where such Action must be brought is good law and where only Courts of Record are named such Action cannot be brought in any other Court then the four ordinary Courts of record at Westminster as appears by the several Cases and resolutions before recited 3. Sir Edward Coke 3 Inst 193. and 4 Inst 174. saith that this exception of Recusancy in 21 Jac. 4. § 5. N. 1. doth not extend to the Courts 21 Jac. 4. § 1. N. 5. wherein the Informer is to sue but only to the County where 21 Jac. 4. § 2. N. 1. the offence is to be laid So that notwithstanding that exception 21 Jac. 4. § 5. N. 1. the Kings Bench Chancery C. B. Exchequer or Exchequer Chamber cannot relieve or hold plea of any Information for Recusancy either by the Kings Attorny or
there is a great difference between the penning of this Statute 35 Eliz. 2. § 15. N. 1. and 35 Eliz. 1. § 1. N. 5. for in 35 Eliz. 1. § 1. N. 5. there is an express designation of the place where such Submission and Declaration shall be viz. in any Church Chappel or usual place of Common prayer whither the Offender comes and this shall free him from his Imprisonment supra 112 But 35 Eliz. 2. § 8. N. 3. Where 't is said that he shall abjure unless he comes usually to Church and make such Confession and Submission c. His coming usually to Church cannot be applied to his Confession and Submission for that is to be made but once and not usually and therefore there being no place appointed where this Confession and Submission shall be made we must necessarily have recourse to 35 Eliz. 2. § 15. N. 1. where a place is appointed viz. some Parish Church So that the coming usually to Church without this formal Submission and Confession or Declaration in some Parish Church frees not the Offender here in any Case from abjuration Altho the coming to any Church Chappel or usual place of Common-prayer and hearing Divine service and making open Submission and Declaration there shall free an Offender within 35 Eliz. 1. § 1. N. 5. from Imprisonment Page 144 145. CXLVI Submission 35 Eliz. 2. § 15. and 16. If a Popish Recusant Indicted upon this Statute makes his Submission and brings with him into B. R. a testimonial thereof it is the Course of that Court to cause him there to make his Submission again upon his knees which the Clerk of the Crown reads to him and so was it done Pasch 2. Car. 1. Latch 16. in the Case of one Throgmorton but Jones Justice said there was no Statute to compel him to this second Submission and Throgmorton complained that he was not therein dealt with according to Law 2. 35 Eliz. 2. § 16. N. 2. Is Over her Majesty or within any her Majesties Realms or Dominions And not over her Majesty within any her Dominions as Wingate Crown 85. grosly misrecites for that denies only Popes or See of Romes Authority over her Majesty but not any other ther Authority which they might claim over her Subjects And 't is clear by the disjunctive or which Wingate omits that both these Authorities are intended to be denied by this Submission these words or any Colour or means of any Dispensation which are a very material part of the Submission are likewise omitted by Wingate CXLVII Certificate Page 145. Such Relaps 35 Eliz. 2. § 18. N. 1. with the Indictment thereof is to be certified into the Court of Exchequer as was done by the Justices of B. R. 1 Bulstrode 133 in the Case of Francis Holt Pasch 9 Jac. 1 Iac. 4. Of SEIZVRES CXLVIII Oath PAge 147. By the Oath of Obedience is here 1. Jac. 4. § 1. N. 2. meant the Oath of Supremacy in 1. Eliz. 1. § 19. N. 4. supra and by that name it is here called afterwards 1 Jac. 4. § 3. N. 2. Crompt 13. Page 148. CXLIX It hath been doubted on 1 Jac. 4. § 2. N. 1. whether these words Accodring to the true meaning of the Statutes in that behalf do refer only to the manner of the Recusants Conformity or to the time likewise when it is to be done as well as to the manner For if they refer to the time then the Recusant is still bound notwithstanding this Statute to Conform before Judgement according to 23 Eliz. 1. § 10. N. 1. or his Conformity afterwards shall not discharge him of the penalty But the better opinion is that by these words according to the true meaning of the Statutes 1 Jac. 4. § 2. N. 1. is to be Intended only that the Recusant must Conform in such manner as is there appointed But as to the time the general words 1 Jac. 4. § 2. N 1. have enlarged the time limited by 23 Eliz. 1. § 10. N. 1. For this Statute 1 Jac. 4. § 2. N. 1. is made in further favour of the Recusant So that now if he Conforms after Judgment 't is time enough and he shall be discharged of all penalties in respect of his Recusancy 2. And if an Information tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso be brought upon 23 Eliz. 1. § 11. N. 1. against the Recusant and after Judgment had against him thereupon he Conforms he shall be discharged of the Judgment but first his Conformity must appear of Record otherwise the Court cannot take notice of it and as for that his Remedies against the King and the Informer must be several for against the Informer he must bring his Audita Querela and against the King he must plead his Conformity which he may do in this Case after Judgment for that no Audita Querela lieth against the King 11 H. 7.10 and it he should not be admitted to plead he would be without any legal Remedy to discharge himself of the forfeiture and Judgement as to the Kings part whose Execution will not be hindered by the Audita Querela against the Informer But if the Defendant neglect to put in his Plea and Execution issueth for the King and he be taken in Execution he comes too late to plead his Conformity and hath then no other way left to releive himself as to the Kings part but by his Petition to the King to pardon the Debt 2 Bulstrode 324 1. Rol. 95. Dr. Fosters Case Savil 23. pl. 56. Tiringhams Case CL. Heir Page 149. If any Recusant shall hereafter die 1 Jac. 4. § 3. N. 1. that is a Recusant either Convicted upon Proclamation and default or Convicted by Verdict Confession c. and adjudged for in both those Cases if the Recusant die the discharge of the Heir depends upon his Conformity CLI Forfeiture Page 149 150. Of all and singular the penalties Charges and Incumbrances 1 Jac. 4. § 3. N. 1. If Judgment be had at the Kings suit against a Recusant Tenant in Tail for Recusancy this is a charge and Incumbrance within this Stature of which the Heir in Tail shall not be discharged unless he conforms but must satisfie all the Arrears incurred in the life time of his Ancestor For it being a debt to the King upon a Judgment the entailed Lands are lyable thereto by 33 H. 8.391 § N. But these two Clauses 1 Jac. 4. § 3. N. 1. discharge the Arrears of the 20 l. per month Incurred in the Recusants life time upon the Conformity of the Heir in such Cases only where the two parts of the Recusants Lands were not seized before his death For if they are seized in his life time and continue so till his death neither his fee simple Lands nor his Intailed Lands if a Judgment were had against him for his Recusancy at the Kings suit shall be discharged upon the Heirs conformity without payment of
33 H. 8.39 § 68. 26 N. 1. because it is not a debt by Judgment as that Statute requires Moor 523. pl. 691. And thus the opinion Trin 43 Eliz. of the two Chief Justices 3 Cro. 846. is to be understood for they held that if intailed Lands had been seized for non-payment of the twenty pound per month and the Tenant in Tail had died the issue in Tail should not have had the Land out of the Queens hands before the debt were satisfied but should have been charged with the said debt At the end of 3 Cro. 846. pl. is added a Dubitatur But yet the opinion there held stands good if it be intended only of a Conviction of the Ancestor by Judgment upon Trial or Confession and not of a Conviction upon Proclamation and default Page 154. CLVI To any Colledge c. 1 Jac. 4. § 6 N. 1. extends only to publick houses or Colledges but not to such as are bred beyond the Seas in any private Popish Family and therefore 3 Car. 1. cap. 2 3 § 1. N. 2. was made to supply that defect CLVII Scholars Page 155. Note all Grammar Schools are not here 1 Jac. 4. § 9. N. 1. excepted but only publick or free Grammar Schools nor yet all Gentlemens Houses but only of such as are not Recusants in both which respects this Statute is defectively recited in the late additions to Dalt cap. 87. Sect. 1. 3 Jac. 4. of convictions PAge 158 159. CLVIII Every Popish Recusant Convicted 3 Jac. 4. § 2. N. 2. Wingate Crown 98. Speaks Indefinitely as if this extended to all Recusants whatsoever which is contrary to the express words of the Statute 2. In an Information upon 3 Jac. 4. § 2. N. 2. for not receiving the Sacrament Information the Conviction of the party for Recusancy ought to be shewed in certain before whom in what Court c. for before he is Convicted of Recusancy he is not lyable to the penalty Inflicted by 3 Jac. 4. § 2. N. 2. for not receiving And yet if it be only generally shewed in the Information that the defendant was Convicted in due form of Law and the defendant doth not demur thereto but pleads not guilty and it be found against him there Judgment shall not be staid for this defect for he hath lost his advantage and by his plea hath admitted the point of Conviction and at the trial the only thing in issue was whether he had received the Sacrament and not whether he was Convicted 2 Gro. 365 366. Sivedal and Lenthal CLIX. Conformity Page 159. This Conformity 3 Jac. 4. § 2. N. 2. need not be set forth in the Information in every particular Circumstance as when or before whom the Popish Recusant Conformed himself For it is sufficient if it be said that he went to Church and continued there dureing Divine Service and afterwards neglected to receive the Sacrament c. and upon such Conformity and neglect he is liable to the Penalty inflicted by this Act altho he never went before the Ordinary 2 Cro. 366. CLX Forfeiture Page 159 160. And for every year after such not receiving forty pound 3 Jac. 4. § 3. N. 2. Note the Statute saith not that the Offender shall forfeit for the first second and third Offence but for the first and second year and for every year after For if it had been said he should have forfeited twenty pound for the first Offence forty pound for the second and sixty pound for the third he must have been Convicted and have had Judgment of the first Offence before he could have incurred the penalty for the second and of the second before he could have incurred the penalty for the third and every one of these Offences must have appeared Judicialiter which could not be ante Judicinum But here 3. Jac 4. § 3. N. 2. where 't is said he shall forfeit twenty pound for the first year forty pound for the second and sixty pound for every year after it is otherwise and the Offender shall forfeit sixty pound for the third year altho he was never Convicted for the first or second 2. And therefore in an Information upon 3 Jac. 4. § 3. N. 2. for sixty pound against a Popish Recusant Convicted for Recusancy who hath conformed and neglected to receive the Sacrament the third year after his Conformity its sufficient to set forth that he was a Popish Recusant and was convicted and conformed himself and went to Church c. two years before such a day and that after the said day he sailed for a whole year to receive the Sacrament without mentioning what he did the first or second year after his Conformity and so was 2 Cro. 365. Page 160. CLXI Shall for every such Offence lose and forfeit threescore pounds 3 Jac. 4. § 3. N. 3. If a Popish Recusant once receive the Sacrament after his Conformity and after neglect so to do within the time prescribed by this Act 3 Jac. 4 § 1. N. 2. and is guilty of such neglect for two years together altho he was never convicted for the first year yet an Information lieth against him and he shall forfeit threescore pound for the second year for 3 Jac. 4. § 3. N. 3. he is liable to pay so much for every Offence that is for every year wherein he neglects to receive the Sacrament after he hath once received it and the Informer is at his liberty for which Offence or year he will inform whether for the first second c. and the reason of this is because here are no steps or gradations to encrease the penalty for the second or third Offence but the penalty is equal and alike in this Case for every Offence 2 It is observable that the Popish Recusant who after his Conformity receives the Sacrament and afterwards neglects so to do for the space of one or more years is in worse Condition than he who conforms and receives it not at all for in this last Case he shall forfeit but twenty pound for the first and forty pound for the second year but if he once receive the Sacrament and afterwards neglect it for the space of two years he shall forfeit for each of those years threescore pound Page 160. CLXII To him that will sue for the same 3 Jac. 4. § 3. N. 4 An Information upon this Branch must be brought by an Informer Qui tam c. within a year after the Offence or neglect or he can take no advantage thereof for such an Information is within 31 Eliz. 5. § N. 2. Cro. 366. Page 160. CLXIII Justices Or before Justices of Assize c. 3 Jac. 4. § N. 3 5. Note that notwithstanding these words an Information upon this Statute by an Informer Qui tam c. for not receiving the Sacrament cannot be brought before Justices of Assize or Goal-delivery or Justices of Peace for no Common Informer can sue