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	parliament_n	reverse_v	1,638	5	12.7742	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A32252	The reading of that famous and learned genrleman, Robert Callis ... upon the statute of 23 H.8, Cap. 5, of Sewers, as it was delivered by him at Grays-Inn in August, 1622.	Callis, Robert, fl. 1634.	1647 (1647)	Wing C304; ESTC R23882	167,039	246

dispose of them Fourthly the Commissioners have a Clerk proper to themselves to Register their Laws Fifthly the Commissioners have power to make Orders and Decrees which are Judgements in effect and some of them cannot be reversed but by Act of Parliament And lastly Writs of Error have been brought to reverse Judgement given in that Court For all which causes I do conclude That the Commissioners of Sewers have a Court of Record although it be not holden in aliquo loco certo So was the Kings Bench a Court of more Eminency then this But ubicunque fuerimus in Angliae and for express Authority in the point of Gregories Case in the 6 Report of Cook chief Justice that the Sewers is a Court of Record Imprisonment imposed by the Commissioners of Sewers IT is a point of high consequence whether Commissioners of Sewers have power by these Laws to Imprison the body of a man for any thing touching the same for that Imprisonment of the body seemeth to sway somewhat against the grand Charter of England and against the liberty of a free-born Subject and it is said in Bonhams case 28 H. 8. in Dyer that liberty is a thing which the Law much favoreth and I finde in our Books of Law That the Judges have been very careful and curious in not extending words contained in Charters to the Imprisonment of mens bodies unless they were express in the point And therefore in Clerks case in Sir Ed. Cooks 5 Report fol. 64. Clarks Case The case is That the Term was to be kept at St. Albans and the Major there and his brethren did assess every townsman towards erecting and building of the Courts of Justice and made an Order That he which should refuse to assist and pay should be imprisoned and one being Arrested and imprisoned brought his Action of false imprisonment against the Major who pleaded in effect That they were incorporate by King Edward 6. and had power granted to them in their Major of St. Albans Charters to make Ordinances by reason whereof they made the said Order and so justified the imprisonment But it was adjudged against the Major for that by the said Charter they had not any power to make an Ordinance to imprison a mans body for that were against the grand Charter in Magna Charta cap. 29. Quod nullus liber homo imprisonetur Magna Charta nisi per legem terrae But by that Book they might have inflicted a penalty and have distrained or brought an Action of Debt for it In Doctor Bonhams case in the 8. Report King Hen. 8. incorporated the Physitians of London and gave them power by Charter to examine the Imperites to finde out the defects Et pro delictis suis in non bene exequendo faciendo utendo illos per punitionem eorum delinquentium per fines amerciamentum imprisonomentum corporum suorum So hereby it appears that by the Kings Letters Patents they had power to imprison the Body but I finde their Charters confirmed by Act of Parliament Yet in 2 Eliz. Dier fol. 175. the Case is That the Queen did award a Commission directed to certain Commissioners to Hear and Determine the controversies betwixt Scrogs and Colshil touching the Office of the Exigenter and that if Scrogs should refuse to obey to make answer before them they should commit him to Prison but the validity of this last Commission I much doubt of I am of Opinion That the Commissioners of Bankrupts and charitable uses have no power to commit any man but if any abuse or misdemeanor be committed in contempt or derogation of their Authorities they may make Certificate thereof into the Chancery and refer the punishment thereof to the will and discretion of the Lord Chancelor or Lord Keeper for the time being In Godfreys Case in the 11 Report there is a discourse what Godfreys Case Courts have power to Imprison and which not and there it is said Some Courts may Fine but not Imprison as the Courts Leet and Sheriff turn some others could neither Fine nor Imprison as Courts Baron and County Courts and some could neither Fine Imprison nor Amerce as Ecclesiastical Courts And some may Imprison and not Fine as chief Constables at their Petty Sessions for an affray done in disturbance of them And other Courts there were which might Fine Imprison and Amerce as the eminent Courts of Westminster So that Imprisonment is not incident to every Court nor to every offence Yet I am of opinion that the Commissioners of Sewers may Imprison the body for it is not only a Court of Record but is authorized by Act of Parliament and I suppose that there be words in the Commission and Statute which will bear this construction which are as follow viz. And all such as ye shall finde negligent gainsaying or rebelling in the works reparation or reformation of the premises or negligent in the due execution of the Commissioners That ye Compel them by Distress Fines and Amerciaments and by other Punishments ways or means c. Which words are strong and large enough to authorize the Commissioners of Sewers upon just Cause to Imprison the body But here they are to be careful and not to think that they may Imprison Fine or Amerce in any case because the words be generally put together But this construction must be thereof made That they may Imprison where Imprisonment is due and Fine in cases Fineable and Amerce in cases Amerciable and Distrain where a Distress properly lyeth by the Rules of Law and they may not Imprison where by the Laws Imprisonment is not due but every one of the said punnishments is to be used in its proper kinde for these words promiscuously put together must be ordered by a just and legal construction according to the Rules of Law and Reason And I have known the words of a Statute generally and promiscuously put together have been marshalled according to their distributive operations as the Statute of 1 Rich. 3. which is That all Feoffments Gifts Grants Releases and Confirmations of Lands made by Cestui que use should be good Yet though these words were generally put together notwithstanding the wise and discreet Sages and Expositors of our Laws have so Marshalled the words of this Statute that they made construction thereof according to the Rules and reason of the Laws That is That Cestui que use in Possession might make a Feoffment and that Cestui que use in Reversion or Remainder might grant the Land and Cestui que use of a discontinued Estate might release or confirm and yet the words of this Statute were general howsoever Reason must be the Expositor that every thing be done in due form of Law and not in preposterous maner And these matters being thus passed over I shall endeavor my self to declare in what cases Commissioners of Sewers may Imprison Fine and Amerce and where not Imprisonment Fine and Amerciament Fines IF one

altering former Laws It appears in Esther that the Laws of the Medes and Persians were so perdurable as they could never be changed And in my opinion there is required as great foresight judgement and as sound discretion and mature deliberation in repealing of old Laws as in making new ones For Quae preter consuetudinem morem major ' fiunt neque placent neque recta videmur I have noted how carefully and constant the Lords of the Parliament House were in the 20 year of H. 3. when they all cried out aloud Nolumus leges Angliae mutare Seeing therefore there ought to be great care in making Laws so must there be great heed taken in repealing of Laws And because Commissioners of Sewers have power herein I will therefore deliver my opinion how far that power will extend And if one note this Branch of the Statute well he shall well perceive the Judicious care taken by the Parliament in penning of it For the words be That the Commissioners of Sewers should have Power and Authority to make constitute and ordain Laws Ordinances and Decrees and the same Laws and Ordinances omitting the word Decrees to alter repeal and make void for a Decree is a Judgement and is Finis operis and a Judgement cannot be reversed without a Writ of Error Neither can a Sentence or a Decree in Chancery be reversed without a Bill of Review neither can the Commissioners of Sewers reverse a Judgement or Decree of Sewers Judiciously pronounced which is a Judgement upon a Tryal betwixt the King and the party or betwixt party and party without a Bill of Reversal for it is truly said Quod naturale est unum quod● dissolvi eo ligamine quo ligatum est A Writ of Error lay at the Common Law for to reverse a Judgement given by Commissioners of Sewers when the Commission was in Latine as is set forth in the Register being then one of the special Commissions of Oyer and Terminer but since the Commission was put into the English frame the Writs of Error ceased A Law for sale of Lands ingrossed into parchment and certified into the Kings Court of Chancery with the Kings Royal assent had thereto is not reversable without an Act of Parliament but then the said sale must be made according to the form frame and power of this Statute For put the Case that A. B. holdeth his Lands of I. S. by the payment of Twenty shillings yearly towards the repair of such a Bridge Bank or Wall it fortuneth that A. B. paid the Twenty shillings yearly to his Lord for that purpose who neglecteth to pay it though he be thereto Ordered and Assessed to pay the same to the said repairs by the Commissioners of Sewers the seigniory of Twenty shillings yearly is to be decreed and not the Land for that the fault was in I. S. and not in A. B. the owner of the Land If any persons be by Prescription Custom Tenure Covenant or otherwise bound to repair Walls Banks or other defences of Sewers the Commissioners have not any power by their Commission to repeal alter or make void any of these because these are establisht by the Common Law and Customs of the Realm and not by the power of the Commission of Sewers But their power is to repeal alter or make void Laws and Ordinances made by themselves or by the power of their Commission And so the words of their Commission plainly describe it For thereby they have power to make Laws and Ordinances and the same to repeal alter and make void so they must be the same and no other And herein I end all my Arguments and discourse upon this Statute for I accompt all the rest which remaineth unspoken of not to be worthy of a Readers dialect because I have fully handled all the materials of this worthy Law And therefore I may justly ●●●clude my Argument with this That Finitum est hoc opus ● consumatum FINIS

or custome can fetch lands further then the low water-mark Grounds left But now what grounds shall be said a leaving by the Sea is a point in my Case also for it is certain that at spring-tides the Sea useth to overflow the Marshes in Lincolnshire and Norfolk and returneth within a short space again these being usual and annual be not accounted grounds left or gained from the sea so because the Marshes in Lincolnshire and the Sands in Lincolnshire be overflown every twelve hours and then dry again are not accounted grounds left or gained from the sea because the sea hath daily her recourse thereon and therefore in 15 and 16 Eliz. in Dier fo 326. 15. Eliz. Dyer 326. in the Case there was a quantity of ground was left by the Sea and whether the King or he whose grounds were adjoyning should have them was there made a question but in that Case there is an excellent president set down very apt for the handling of this point put in 43 E. 3. Contra 43. E. 3. Abbot'de Ramsey de quodam processu in Scacario facto versus dict' Abbot ad ostendendum quare Sexagint ' acrae marisci in manus dom ' Regis non debent sesiri quas predict ' Abbas appropriavit sibi domui suae sine licentia Regis super quandam presentation virtute cujusdam generalis Commission ' de terris à Rege detentis concelatis Abbas respondit quod ipse tenet maner ' de Brauncest quod scituatum est juxta mare et quod est ibid quidam mariscus qui aliquando per fluxum maris minoratur aliquando per de fluxum maris augetur absque hoc quod appropriavit sibi prout per presentation ' predic ' supponebatur And the Attorney of the King maintained the contrary and therupon the King and the Abbot were at an issue so by the Case I gather these matters First That if by little the Sea sometimes decrease and leave some parcel to the Land and some other times run over the same again this ground belongs not to the King for these be grounds whereto the subject may have a property as in the grounds of the shore but otherwise it is where great quantity of ground which had always been drowned before is left that belongs to the King Also by this president the Law was taken to be that these grounds left by the Sea to the Land were in the County of Norffolk whereto they did adjoyn and in my opinion within that Parish whereto they lay for there was a Presentment which was by a Jury of Nofolk and the Jury taken to try an Issue must be de viceneto ejusdem commitatus but note there the Presentment was by a Jury de Corpore Commitatus in 22. lib. Assis pl. 93. The Case was That 22. lib. Ass pl. 93. a River of water did run between two Lordships and the soil of one side together with the River of water did wholly belong to one of the said Lordships and the River by little and little did gather upon the soil of the other Lord but so slowly that if one had fixed his eye a whole day thereon together it could not be perceived by this petty and unperceivable increase the increasement was got to the owner of the River but if the River by a sudden and unusuall flood had gained hastily a great parcel of the other Lords ground he should not thereby have lost the same and so of petty and unperceivable increasements from the sea the King gains no property for De minimis non Curat Rex but put the case the sea overflow a field where divers mens gounds lye promiscuously and there continueth so long that the same is accounted parcel of the sea and then after many years the sea goes back and leaves the same but the grounds are so defaced as the bounds thereof be clean extinct and grown out of knowledge it may be the King shall have those grounds yet in Histories I finde that Nilus every year so overflows the grounds adjoyning that their bounds are defaced thereby yet they are able to set them out by the Art of Geometry These grounds in my Case which are left by the sea and The Prince count Palatine of Chester lye from the haven next to the shore are as I have formerly delivered it within the county Palatine of Chester and therefore whether the Prince or the King shall have them is now my question The Prince hath not only Jura Regalia but also Escheta Regalia within his said Palatinate and so in my opinion is not only owner of the county but Lord of the Prerogatives there and all Jurisdiction is to the Prince only a Writ of Error lieth in the Kings Bench of a Judgement there like an Appeal to Caesar then he is Lord of those Laws by which the Freehold and Inheritance of those lands be ruled wherefore then should not these lands belong to his Grace And first it is usual to have a Commission directed to enquire of these Lands ut de terris concelatis and this inquiry shall be by Commission if that Commission be to issue out of the county Palatine of Chester then the Lands would questionless fall to the Prince and the inquiry to be made of the Freeholders of the said county Palatine The Case put in Barkleys Case in the Comment of Mr. Plowden fo 129. doth force much against the Princes Title for there it is put that the Bishop of Durham had Liberties and Priviledges in Terris suis inter Fluvios de Tyne de Tese and afterward purchased moe Lands between these two Rivers the said Liberties and Priviledges shall not extend thereto and so if one have a Warren in his Lands in Dayle and he purchaseth other Lands there his Warren cannot be extended upon these new purchased Lands for saith the Book Things or Priviledges confined to certain Precincts or Dominions cannot be extended further though the Dominion be inlarged and that they shall not be inlarged with the inlargement but the County Palatine vested in the Prince is prescribed within no other bounds then the word County doth confine it and therefore this falling to be within the county should be properly his and as I am imformed the Prince hath special words therefore in his Charters if it were granted that these grounds could be claimed by Charters but I am clear of Opinion That no increase of the new left grounds can possibly become within the county of the city of Chester for the bounds thereof cannot extend over that circle which their Charter hath confined them to and so for the causes and reasons formerly declared I take it That the said Island is the Kings the ground left between the haven and the ancient shore belongs to the Prince as Earl of Chester and the shore because of the said prescription appertains to C. the Subject as parcel of the said Mannor and so