Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	error_n	good_a	writ_n	2,611	5	9.6564	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A31458	The laws of Q. Elizabeth, K. James, and K. Charles the First concerning Jesuites, seminary priests, recusants, &c., and concerning the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, explained by divers judgments and resolutions of the reverend judges : together with other observations upon the same laws : to which is added the Statute XXV Car. II. cap. 2 for preventing dangers which may happen from popish recusants : and an alphabetical table to the whole / by William Cawley of the Inner Temple, Esq.	Cawley, William, of the Inner Temple.	1680 (1680)	Wing C1651; ESTC R5101	281,468	316

non sunt culpabiles it had been ill But yet it seems that the Law is contrary to that Opinion Non sunt cuipabiles where good for where an Action or Information is brought against the Husband and Wife for an offence or wrong done by the Wife there the Husband is charged quoad poenam though not quoad culpam and when they both plead quod ipsi non sunt culpabiles the meaning is that he is not chargeable quoad poenam and she is not guilty quoad culpam and therefore it was resolved in the Case of Browne against Audley and his Wife Trin. 22 Jac. in an Action upon the Case for scandalous words by the Wife that where they both pleaded non culp and the Jury found the Feme guilty the Plaintiff should have Judgment For the issue was good for the reason aforesaid and the finding of the Jury was a good ground for the Judgment for if the Wife were guilty quoad culpam as the Verdict must necessarily be understood she being the wrong doer the Husband by consequence was chargeable quoad poenam and Judgment shall be against both Addition to Bendloes 148. and the Resolution in the Case of Needler versus Symnell and his Wife reported by Justice Croke Cro. Mich. 11. Car. 417. in the like Action brought for words spoken by the Wife is directly contrary to that opinion at the end of Sir John Cursons Case For there 't is adjudged that ipsi non sunt culpabiles by Baron and Feme is a good issue although the wrong were by the Wife alone Writ of Error by an Alien An Information of Recusancy lies against an Alien upon this Statute if he inhabits within the Realm and if Judgment be had against him he may have a Writ of Error to relieve himself Co. 1. Inst. 129. Popular Suit appropriated When once the Informer Qui tam c. hath commenced his Suit he hath of a popular Action made it his own private Action Co. 65. Dr. Fosters Case Vaughan 343. Thomas versus Sorrel And in this Case it is not necessary that the Defendant be served with Process to answer it Without Process for if the Informer put his Information into Court 't is enough to appropriate to him his share of the penalty Godbolt 158. C. 216. But yet a Note ought first to be made of the day month and year when it was exhibited for before Stat. 18 Eliz. 5. by the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. it is not to be taken to be of Record nor shall operate any thing either in appropriating the penalty or barring any other Informer but when that is done no other Informer can Sue for the same Offence and 't is a good Plea in Bar Bar. of the second Information for the Defendant to say that there is another Information depending against him for the same Offence For as soon as the first Information is delivered in and entred upon Record according to the said Statute of 18 Eliz. it shall be said to be depending Popular Suit when depending although it be not alleadged that any Writ or Process is Sued out against the Defendant thereupon Cro. Mich. 33 34 Eliz. 261. the Queen versus Harris Styles 417 Hobart 209. Parry versus Paris Palmer 40. Webbs Case Termes de la Ley 7. Action Popular Two Informations for the same offence Bar. The Defendant in an Information pleads that heretofore another Information was exhibited against him such a day in another Court for the same Offence but mistakes and names in his Plea a wrong day and not that wherein the first Information was exhibited The Plaintiff replies nul tiel Record yet if it appears that in truth the Information pleaded in Bar was exhibited before the other which is the substance of the matter this misprision shall not vitiate the Defendants Plea in Bar but Judgment shall be for the Defendant Hobart 209. Parry versus Paris Note this Case is cited in the late Additions to Dalton cap. 191. tit Informations Sect. 6. to prove that one person cannot exhibit two Informations in the same or in several Courts But that was not the Question there nor I think ever was made a Question but that the same person may exhibit two several Informations so they be not both for one and the same Offence An Information was exhibited in the Kings-Bench upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. cap. 7. for buying of Wools. Stat. 5 E. 6. 7. The Defendant pleads that there is another Information depending against him in the Common-Bench at the Suit of L. and avers that they are both for the same Offence but in truth that in the Common-Pleas supposed the Offence to be done at one time and that in the Kings-Bench at another time yet this is a good Plea in Bar Bar. of the latter Information being with an Averment that they are both for the same Offence for otherwise by the Informers false supposal of the day the Defendant shall be put to double trouble Cro. Mich. 33 34 Eliz. 261. The Queen versus Harris And the same advantage no question any man may take against whom two Informations are exhibited upon this Statute for hearing of Mass Mass for perchance he never heard Mass above once in his life time and there is no reason he should be put to double trouble for one offence But otherwise it seems to be in the Case of Recusancy The absence from Church must be for a month For if an Information be brought upon this Statute for not coming to Church for a month there if the Defendant proves that he was at Church any time within that month it shall be sufficient to avoid the penalty of Twenty pounds And as the Defendants giving in Evidence that he was at Church within the compass of any other month then that which is laid in the Information shall not excuse him so the Informers proof of his absence any other month shall not hurt him but the Evidence must go to the very same month which the Information mentions And the reason is for that this Offence is punishable according to the time of its duration or continuance and the Offender is to forfeit for every month of his absence so that if another Information be exhibited against him for not coming to Church during another month it cannot be supposed to be for the same absence with that in the first Information but for the like absence at another time and therefore cannot be pleaded in Bar thereof Two Informations on the same day c. Bar. If two Informers on one and the same day exhibit Informations against the same person for the same Offence they are both void and may be pleaded the one in Bar of the other for that there is no priority to Attach the right of Action in one of the Informers more than in the other Hobart 128. Pie versus Coke Although Sunday

Statute to proceed against Recusants and taken from them by 29 Eliz. nor doth that following Clause in 3 Jac. touching Conviction by Proclamation impeach this or restrain the Justices of Peace to proceed to Conviction upon Proclamation only and default of appearance no more than the Justices of Assize or Gaol delivery are restrained thereby or by 29 Eliz. which gives them likewise Authority to proceed by Proclamation For both these Clauses of 3 Jac. are in the Affirmative viz. First That the Justices of Peace shall have power to hear and determine the Offence of not coming to Church according to former Laws in such manner as Justices of Assize and Gaol delivery might do And those Justices might hear and determine that Offence according to this Statute of 23 Eliz. 23 Eliz. 1. And then comes the next Clause of 3 Jac. That the Justices of Peace shall have power to convict by Proclamation which is purely Affirmative also and therefore abrogates no part of the power given them by the former Clause And this agrees with what Sir Edward Coke saith lib. 12. fol. 13. That if a man be Indicted for Recusancy at the Assizes or Sessions of the Peace the Court may waive the proceedings by Proclamation upon the Statute of 3 Jac. 4. and may still if they please proceed against the party by Process upon this Statute of 23 Eliz. Upon this Stature In which Case the Process must be by Venire facias capias c. as in Indictments of Trespass And if saith he the party be fugitive in another County the Indictment may be removed into the Kings Bench and then Process may be there made out against him into any County of England In their open Quarter Sessions of Peace What is meant by Quarter Sessions By Quarter Sessions is intended here only the Sessions of the Peace held at four times of the year and not any other although it be a general Sessions And therefore the Justices of Peace in London who hold a Sessions every month cannot take Indictments upon this Statute at any of them unless it be the Quarter Sessions For that their Authority is given them only at a certain time as was resolved in the like Case upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 9. of Perjury Mich. 17 Jac. B.R. Palmer 44. Taylors Case Stat. 5 Eliz 9. 3 Jac. 4. And the Statute of 3 Jac. c. 4. which gives Justices of Peace Power to take Indictments of Recusancy at their General or Quarter Sessions for so the word said there imports having reference to the General or Quarter Sessions mentioned before about Presentments yet doth not enlarge the Power of the Justices of Peace in this particular nor enable them to take such Indictments at any Sessions but their four Quarter Sessions For although it be put there dis-junctively General or Quarter yet the latter word is but Explicative of the former and shews what General Sessions are meant as appears by the said Statute of 3 Jac. 4. and that other of 7 Jac. cap. 6. touching the Oath of Allegiance 7 Jac. 6. For in 3 Jac. 4. 't is said That if the party refuse the Oath he shall be committed to Goal until the next Assizes General Quarter Sessions and General or Quarter Sessions or General or Quarter Sessions And if he refuse the Oath tendred him by the Justices of Assize and Goal delivery in their open Assizes or by the Justices of Peace in their said general Quarter Sessions he shall incur a Praemunire And in 7 Jac. 6. That the party refusing shall be committed to Goal until the next Assizes or general Quarter Sessions and if he refuse the Oath tendred him by the Justices of Assize and Goal delivery in their open Assizes or Goal delivery or the Justices of Peace or the greater part of them in their general or Quarter Sessions he shall incur a Praemunire which clearly shews that the same thing is intended by general Quarter Sessions and General or Quarter Sessions And that all general Sessions which are not Quarter Sessions are excluded out of the meaning of those Statutes Vide Stat. 3 Jac. cap. 4. Sect. 11. 7 Jac. cap. 6. Sect. 5. Indictments only here intended To enquire hear and determine The Justices named in this Branch of the Statute are hereby impowered to proceed by Indictment only and no other way For they are to hear and determine after Inquiry And the word enquire implies an Indictment and is always so to be expounded And so are the other words hear and determine where other proceedings are not specially named as here they are not For the Action of Debt Information c. in any Court of Record is given to the Informer Qui tam c. afterwards in a distinct Branch by it self without any reference to this so that by this Statute and before that of 35 Eliz. cap. 1. Stat. 35 Eliz. 1 which gave the Queen an Action of Debt c. The Queen had no other remedy to recover the entire forfeitures given hereby but by Indictment only Co. 11. 60. Rolls 1. 93. C. 41. Dr. Fosters Case Vide Jones 193. For that and the Suit by the Common Informer are the only ways appointed by this Statute and the subsequent Clause of Submission which names the Justices before whom the party is to submit viz. the Justices before whom he is Indicted Arraigned or Tried shews what proceedings are meant which are to be had before the Justices here named that is by Indictment Hobart 205. Pie versus Lovell Offence and Penalty by two several Statutes Talbot and Shelden were Indicted for Recusancy Contra formam Statuti 23 Eliz. in which Indictment the penalty was demanded and in a Writ of Error the Judgment was reversed For the Offence is made by the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 2. Stat. 1 Eliz. 2 and the penalty is given by this Statute and therefore it should have been Contra formam Statutorum Owen 135. Wests Case Feme Covert when chargeable If a Feme Covert be Indicted at the Kings Suit for an offence within this Act she may be charged with the penalty after her Husbands death but the Husband is not chargeable nor shall pay the penalty for that he is no party to the Judgment And this was one of the causes of making the Statute of 35 Eliz. cap. 1. Stat. 35 Eliz. 1 By which Statute the King may have an Action of debt and recover the forfeiture against the Husband Rolles 1. 93. 94. Roy versus Foster Savile 25 C. 59. Except Treason and misprision of Treason This exception of Treason and misprision of Treason extends not to the Justices of Oyer and Terminer or of Assize and Goal delivery as Wingate hath mistaken in his Abridgment of this Clause tit Crown numb 46. Where the Justices of Peace cannot meddle but only to the Justices of Peace who are not to meddle in those two Cases

Sorrell Leonard 1.119 C. 161. Stretton and Taylors Case Cro. Trin. 31 Eliz. 138. the same Case Ibid. Mich. 39 40 Eliz. 583. Hammon versus Griffith 1 H. 7. 3. Co. 3. Inst 194. Such Entry of a non vult prosequi by the Attorney General hath the same effect with a Nonsuit of a private person The King cannot be non-suited But the King cannot be said properly to be nonsuited because he is in Judgment of Law ever present in Court Co. 1. Inst. 139.227 Hutton 82. Goldsborough 53. Leighs Case Savile 56. C. 119. Weare versus Adamson Where upon the demise of the King the proceedings shall be void 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 died 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 Defendant should plead de novo Cro. Pasch 1 Jac. 14. Co. 7. 30 31. Case Of discontinuance of Process And to that purpose the Case of Pasch 5 E. 6. Rot. 38. is there cited where in a popular Action the King died after Demurrer upon the Evidence and before Judgment and the Defendant pleaded de novo And where not But yet in a popular Action of Debt brought upon this Statute against Prince and his Wife where the Defendants demurred upon the Declaration and the Plaintiff Qui tam c. joyned in 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 Stat. 1 E. 6. 7. and is aided by the Statute of 1 E. 6. cap. 7. of Discontinuances and he only joyned in Demurrer Cro. Trin. 1 Car. 10. 11. Lionell Farringtons Case Hobart 82. the same Case Which Resolutions are in appearance flatly contrary each to other for that upon the death of the Queen 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 Farringtons Case the Plaintiff only joyned in Demurrer and not the Kings Attorney 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 joynes in Demurrer or Replies and not the Kings Attorney there the Suit may properly be said to be depending between party and party and within the express words of 1 E. 6. which provides that although the King die all proceedings in Suits depending between party and party shall stand But the Resolution of the Judges upon the death of the Queen is to be understood of such Cases where after a Plea or Demurrer by the Defendant the Attorney General alone replies or joyns in Demurrer there the proceedings shall be void and the Defendant 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 I conceive are these two Opinions which seem so contrary to be reconciled An Informer Qui tam Nonsuit release c. of the Informer c. may be nonsuited although the King cannot Co. 1. Inst 139. Hutton 82. Farrington versus Arundell If pending the popular Action or Information the Plaintiff or Informer Qui tam c. be nonsuited or release or enter a nolle prosequi or dye none of these shall Bar the King but the Attorney General may proceed upon the Information for the Kings part Leonard 1. 119. C. 161. Stretton and Taylors Case No Bar for the Kings part Cro. Trin. 31 Eliz. 138. The same Case Ibid. Mic. 39 40 Eliz. 583. Hammon versus Griffith Co. 3. Inst 194. Moore 541. C. 715. Co. 11.66 Dr. Fosters Case Bulstrode 2. 261 262. Sir Thomas Waller versus Hanger Rolles 2.33 Smith versus Carter And therefore the Opinions in 37 H. 6.5 and 38 H. 6. 2. That if the Plaintiff in a Decies tantum which is a popular Action be nonsuit the King is without Remedy but by Indictment or if such Plaintiff will relinquish his Suit the King hath nothing further to do seem not to be Law at this day Information in a wrong Court And if a popular Information be brought upon a penal Statute in a wrong Court where the Informer cannot sue yet it was held in Agar and Candishes Case that the King should not for that lose his advantage of the Suit but the Information should be good for his part of the penalty Moore 564 565 566. C. 770. Stat. 18 Eliz. 5. By the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. if an Informer or Plaintiff upon a penal Statute where any forfeiture is generally limited to him that will sue shall delay or discontinue his suit or be non-suit The Informer shall pay costs or shall have the trial or matter pass against him by Verdict or Judgment of Law he shall pay to the Defendant his Costs Charges and Damages Vide Addition to Bendloes 141. Rhobotham versus Vincent and if it be upon special Verdict or Demurrer those Cases are within the Statute and he shall pay Costs by force thereof Hutton 36. Pies Case But not find Sureties 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 Defendant answer the Information Bulstrode 2.18 Martin and Gunnystons Case It was held in the Exchequer Chamber That if a Writ of Error Writ of Error be brought upon a Judgment given for the King at the Suit of an Informer a Scire facias Scire facias ought to be awarded against the Informer Savile 10. C. 26. Wilkes Case Courts of Record in penal Statutes are the four Courts at Westminster In any Court of Record By any Court of Record is here meant the four Ordinary Courts of Record at Westminster For they are the general Courts of Record and the Courts where the Kings Attorney may acknowledge or deny and the words of this Statute being general are left to the construction of Law where the Rule is verba aequivoca in dubio posita intelliguntur in digniori potentiori sensu 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 Borough or Corporate Towns or in a Court of Pipowders Stannary Courts