appeare that he did it wittingly Stanhop brought an action against Blith for these words Mr. Stanhop hath but one Mannor and that he hath got by swearing and forswearing resolved that the words were not actionable for this reason amongst others for that hee might recover or obtaine a Mannor by swearing and forswaring and yet he not procuring or assenting to it And now I am come to the second part or clause of that generall rule layed downe before where I am to shew you That scandalous words which touch or concerne a man in his Liberty will beare an Action By the Bookes in the Margent the Law is plaine that if I publish and claime B. to be my Villeine that in such case no action will lie because I my selfe claime an interest in him and the Law will not in such case punish a man for then no man durst claime his owne for feare of an action But upon these Bookes I conceive the Law is evident that if a man had published another to be the Villein of I. N. that in such case an action would have layne because these words tend to the inslaving of him and his posterity and to the utter deprivation of his Libertys which the Law so much favours for as it is well knowne he that was a Villaine he was subject both in person and estate to the will of the Lord soâ— that he might seize all his Estate reall and personall and vassalise his person at pleasure so that he did not kil or maime him But I conceive that at this day an action in such case will not lie because that time and inconvenience hath quite abolished and worne out this Bondage our Books have little upon this ground therefore I shall thus passe it over Scandalous words which touch or concerne a man in Member or in any corporall punishment will beare an Action A man brought an Action for calling him Theefe and that he had stollen 2. Sheepe from B. the Defendant justifies the calling of him Theefe for that the Plaintiffe did steale the Sheepe and it was good by the whole Court without expressing the value of the Sheepe for if they be not worth twelve pence so that it is but petty Larceny and not capitall yet it is Fellony in its nature By this it is evident that to say a man hath stollen six-pence from B. will beare an Action though it be but petty Larceny because the Offender by Law may be imprisoned and whipt for it If a man say of another that he is perjured or that he hath forsworne himselfe in such a Court an action will lie for these words For by the Statute of 5. Eliz. cap. 9. A man convict of perjury forfeits 20. l. and is to have six Moneths imprisonment and his testimony taken away while that conviction stands and if hee have not Goods and Chattels to the value of 20. l. then he is to be put in the Pillary and his Eares to be nailed so that you see here is an immediate corporall punishment given by this Statute which is imprisonment And if a man say of another that hee can prove him perjured an action will lie though it be but an implied affirmative Hearle against Tresham thou hast taken a false Oath in the Session of c. resolved the words were actionable for the Court shall intend this to bee a Court of Record as Records of which they ought to take conusance Adams against Flemming he hath forsworne himselfe before the Counsell of the Marches of VVales in the suit I had against him there for perjury adjudged actionable In Lelicke and VVrinskemores case Mich. 7. of King Iames in the Kings Bench one Cossimans Case was cited which was thus thou wast forsworne in such a Bishops Court it was said that these words were adjudged actionable so it was agreed by the Court. It was moved by Williams in Arrest of Judgement for these words thou art a forsworne knave thou wast forsworne in Ilcon Court innuendo the Court Leete there holden it was agreed that the innuendo should not stretch the words further then they were spoaken And VVilliams put this case which was in the Kings Bench thou art a forsworne man thou wert forsworne in White Church Court which was affirmed by all the Serjeants to be adjudged not actionable Which case I conceive cannot bee Law because it is adjudged as I have put the case before that if one say of another that he hath forsworne himselfe in such a Court that the words are Actionable and in this case judgement was given accordingly If a man say of a Woman that shee hath a Bastard an action wil lie for these words because that shee is punishable by the Statute of 18. of the Queen cap. 3. at the discretion of the Iustices who alwayes inflict a corporall punishment upon them as imprisonment whipping or the like Morgan and Rookes case Morgan said of the Wife of Rookes shee is a Bawde and keepes a Bawdy house adjudged that the words were Actionable upon a writ of Error brought by Morgan to reverse the judgement given in the Common Pleas and judgement was affirmed Chambers and his Wife against Ryly for the same words Chambers his wife is a Bawd and keepes a Bawdy house Adjuded the words were Actonable and in this case it was agreed that to say of a Woman shee is a Bawde will not beare an Action because shee is not punishable by the Law for it but to say of her that shee keepes a Bawdy house will be Actionable for that shee is punishable by the Law for keeping a house of Bawdry A Prohibition was prayed because that Elizabeth Thorne had Libelled in Court Christian against Turnam for defamation for these words thou art a Bawde and dost keepe a bawdy house and it was granted by the whole Court because that an Action lies at Common Law for these words The reason why an Action lies in these cases is because the party may be indicted for keeping of a Bawdy house and if shee be thereupon convicted shee shall be imprisoned and most ignominiously Carted which are corporall punishments If a man say of another that hee hath forged a Leafe Obligation Release or Accquitrance or the like an Action will lie for these words Because that by the Statute of 5. of the Queene cap. 14. there are great and grievous corporall punishments inflicted upon such offenders if it bee to disturbe a Title the punishment is the greater but if onely in the cases aforesaid the Offender is to be put in the Pillory one of his Eares to be cut off and to bee Imprisoned for a yeare Hawes brought an Action for these words my Cousen Hawes hath spoken against the Booke of Common Prayer and said it is not fit to bee read in the Church Heath Iustice was of opinion that the words were actionable though the offence
or avoide his sentence and certainely they doe not for this differs much from a submission to an Arbitration for in such case a man ties his interest and binds his person which every one is not of capacity to doe but in this case what he doth as an arbitrator is onely to charge or discharge others And besides they are chosen by the parties themselves and if they they be not competent Jvdges the fault is theirs that chose them And now I shall proceed to shew you what Arbitrators are and their power by which you will easily perceiue of what high concernement it is to men to have a speciall care of the choise of Arbitrators What arbitrators are and there power An Arbitrator is as our bookes say a Judge indiffâ—rently chosen by the parties to end the matter in controversy betweene them Ad Arbitrium and therefore they are said to be Arbitrators because they have an Arbitrary power and may judge according to there will aud pleasure so that their judgment be according to the submission these Judges are not tied to any formalities or punctuallities in Law neither are they sâ—orne as other Judges established by publike authority are Besides their power is farre greater for as they may judge as they please keeping themselves to the submission so their sentence is absolutely definitive and conclusive from which there lies no Appeale as it was excellently well said by Heath Iustice in arguing of the case of Rudston and Yates cited before the judgement of Arbitrators said he provided that they keepe themselves to their jurisdiction is higher then any judgement given in any Court for if they erre no Writt of Error lies to reverse their judgement no not so much as Equity against them This is true where they keep themselves close to the submission but if they do not in such case though no Writt of Error lies to reverse their judgement upon an Action brought upon a Bond or promise for not performing an awaâ—d if the Defendant plead that the Arbitrators made no award and the Plaintiffe replies that they did make an award and sets it forth in speciall if it do appeare that the award is void as it may be in many cases which I shall set forth hereafter the Action in such case will not lie as every dayes experience teaches and in which our Bookes are plentifull By that which I have said before it is manifest how it concerns every man to have a care what Arbitrators hee makes choice of but of this sufficient The next thing considerable is Whether the power of Arbitrators be Assigenable or not The Law is cleere that Arbitrators cannot assigne over their power the reason is because that it is but a nude power or Authority which is evident in that it is revocable as I shall shew you hereafter and therefore by the Law not assignable To which may be added that it is a power coupled with a great trust and confidence and therefore not assignable I confesse that the Booke in 47. E. 3 doth tacitely admit this power to bee assignable where the case is thus In Debt the Defendant pleaded that they submmitted themselves to the Arbitrement of two persons who did award that they should stand to the award of W. P. which W. P. made an award which he hath performed c. here it is tacitely admitted that the Arbitrators might award that they should stand to the Arbitrement of another but Brooke in abridging this case saith the Law seemeth contrary In 8. E. 4. prototam Curiam except Yelverton where a man is bound to stand to the award c. who award that an Action shall be commenced betwixt the parties by the advise of VV. and P. this is a good award for by this W P. are not Arbitrators but onely executors of the Arbitrement And in this case the Arbitrators judged the Title to bee tryed betwixt them but know not what action should be brought But if they had awarded that the parties should stand to the Arbitrement of W and P. this had beene void because that they cannot assigne ouer their power Yelverton held in the first case that the award was void for the incertainty because that W. and P. are to give their advise which is not certaine vntill it be notified and in this case he hath made them Judges I confesse that I doe somewhat doubt of the case because the judgment of the arbitrators ought to be finall and this is no concluding of the matter in controversy but a transâ—erting of their power over to the Lawe to determine it Besides W. and P. may never give their advise or may refuse to doe it and in such case the arbitrement will prove idle And I do not conceive this case to be like the case in 19. E. 4. where the Arbitrators awarded a certaine sume and in surety of payment thereof to be bound by the advise of Counsell for here their judgement of the matter in controversie is certaine and finall and here is a some certaine awarded for which an Action will lie only the security is to be advised by Counsell which is no assignement of their power but of this more hereafter Emery and Emerys case the chiefe point whereof was thus the arbitrators award that the plaintiffe should make such a Release as one of the Arbitrators should like of in this case the arbitrement was held to be void because this was an appointing of an authority committed to them all unto one which they cannot do I shall conclude this point with Samons case in Coâ—kes 5. Booke where the case is â—hus Arbitrators award that the defendant should enter into an Obligation to the plaintiffe and doe not judge of what some the Bond shall be adjudged the Arbitrement was void for the incertainety and that the Arbitrators could not assigne over their power but that themselves ought to determine it and therefore neither the plaintiffe nor the defendant could assesse the someâ— the next thing considderable is VVhether the authority of Arbytrators be countermandable or not In his case also the Law will bee strong and evident that this authoritie is countermandable at any time before the award made but not after because then the authoritie is executed and cannot be countermanded and so are all our Bookes but 5. E 4. where it is said that if a man be bound to stand to the Arbitrement of I N he cannot discharge the Arbitrator contrary if he were not bound to stand to his arbitrement yet Brooke upon this case saith that it is cleere that he may discharge the arbitrator in both cases but in the one case he shall forfeit his Bond in the other he shal loose nothing because that ex nuda submissione non oritur actio so likewise it is resolved in Vinyors case which I shall put you presently In 28. H 6. by Ashton Iustice if there be two plaintiffs and one
But I cannot thus baulke that observation of that learned Chiefe Justice whoâ—ses that in our old books Actions for scandalls are very rare and such as are brought are for words of eminent slanders and of great importance This must needs bee acknowledged to be a most exact and true observation for in searching of the Books I cannot finde that any Action for scandalous words was brought before E. 3. time and so rare then that I finde but one in 50. yeares of E. 3. and that is Sir Thomas Setons case of Justice for calling of him Traytor Felon and Robber no frivolous cause of action And I finde but three Actions for words brought in 22. yeares of E. 4. and those for one and the same words for publishing one to bee the Pilleine of I. S. a slaunder of no small importance neither for so long as that base and slavish Tenure of Pilleinage held hee that was a Pilleine was subject both in person and estate to the will of his Lord so that he might seize all his estate reall and personall and Vassalize his person at his pleasure so that he did not kill or mayme him In all the 21. yeares of H. 7. there is not one action that I can find brought for scandalous words And in 38. yeares of H. 8. our books tell us but of five actions brought for scandalous words two whereof were in 27. H. 8. so that I find none before that time neither The other were in 30. H. 8. and 28. H. Dyer And these for no trifling words for you shall finde that one of them was for calling a man Heretike another for saying a man was perjured and the other three for calling of one Thiefe all of which are high scandals to a mans reputation and most of them tending to the losse of life and fortunes so that it is very true that that Reverend Chiefe Justice observed that these Actions were very rare in our old bookes and such as were brought were for words of emminent slander and of great importance But these few have now got such a numerous progeny that I feare we cannot turne over many leaves in our new books but wee shall finde one of these Actions They began thus to multiply in the Queenes time as wee finde in my Lord Cockes 4. book where there is no lesse then 17. adjudged cases together upon these Actions And you may easily judge they did not abate in King Iamses his time for if I mistake not there is no lesse then two and twenty adjudged cases upon these Actions in my LORD Hobarts Book And I am certaine they are not fallen in His Majesties Raigne that now is for I my selfe have reported no lesse then three and twenty judgments upon these Actions but from Easter Tearme in the sixteenth yeare of the King to Trinity Tearme in the eighteenth Well therefore might Wray Chiefe Iustice say that the malice of men doth more increase in these times then in times past and as he saith the malice of men ought to be with stood as much as may be which I am sure the too frequent tollerating of Actions of this nature wil not effect no more then fire can be extinguished by adding fewell unto it You have heard my advise and direction before therfore I will here close this with one word though the tongues of men be set on fire I know no reason wherefore the Law should bee used as Bellowes to bow the Coles It is the saying of the Prophet David I will take heed to my ways that I offend not with my tongue I will keepe my mouth as it were with a Bridle It were happy for all men if they could make the like resolution and keep it But seeing that wee are but men whilest wee carry this lump of flesh and masse of corruption about us we shall be subject to the like passions and affections that oâ—â—erâ— have beene before us and the flesh will rebell against the spirit And therefore I have provided this Treatise upon Actions of slander as a Bridle for all rash and inconsiderate â—ongues that seeing the mischiefe they may the better know how to avoyd it And here I shall lay downe this as a generall rule which I shall by the way as I goe make good in every perticular That all scandalous words which touch or concerne a man in his life Liberty or Member or any corporall punishment or which scandall a man in his Office or place of Trust or in his Callâ—ng or function by which he gaines his living or which tend to the slandering of his Title or his disinheritance or to the losse of his advance me it or preferment or any other particular damage or lastly which charge a man to have any dangerous infectious disease by reason of which he ought to seperate himselfe or to be seperated by the Law from the society of men all such words are actionable And first for the first part of this Rule viz. Scandalous words which touch or concerne a man in his life such words are actionable If a man call another Traitor Felon Theefe or Murderer an Action lies for these words because they call a mans life in question So it is all one if one shall say of another that he killed or murdered I. S. or that he stole his goodâ— or that he poysoned him if it appeare to be intended to be wittingly done or the like these words likewise are Actionable as appeares by the Bookes in the Margent So if one shall say of another he hath burnt my Bâ—â—ne with Corne which is Felony this likewise will beare an Action I have a Report of a case which was thus a Servant of one Mr. Roger Brook said of one Mis. Margaret Passey that she sent a Letter to his Master and in the said letter willed his Master to poyson his Wife Bridget Brooke and in this case it is said that upon a Writ of Error brought in the Cnequer Chamber it was resolved the words were actionnable and the judgement affirmed which case I confesse I much doubt because here was but bare advise and nothing appearing to be done like Eatons case in Cooks 4 Booke Where the Defendant said of the Plaintiffe that Hee gave his Champion Councell to make a Dâ—ed of gift of his goods to kill him c. adjudged that the words were not Actionable because that the purpose or intent of a man without act is not punishable by the Law And I conceive it will not be like the case put by Tanfiâ—ld Iust. in Harris and Hixons case where he saith that to say of another that he lay in wait to Rob or to murder I. S. will beare an Action because that he accuses him of an act viz. The preparation and lying in wait which is punishable by the Law but in the former case there is nothing but bare advise which is not punishable by the Law Hawly
to poyson or to murder I. S. that these should be actionable for I think the like punishment is in these cases as in the former which I conceive is only the good behaviour or at most indictable for it and thereupon fined And if an action should lye in such case by the same reason to say of a man that he is a common Quarreller breaker or perturber of the Peace or that hee is a Riotter or the like would beare an action because that for these likewise the good behaviour is grantable and likewise a man may bee indicted for them therefore quaere of the former cases Seventhly words which are apparently impossible will not be actionable Benson brought an action against Morley for these words Thou hast robed the Church innuendo Ecclesiam sic Alhagi extra Creplegate London and hast stollen the Leads of the Church Upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the plaintiffe and it was moved in arrest of judgement that the words were not actionable because the Church shall be intended the Universall Church and not any materiall Church and the Church Militant cannot bee robbed and so the words are impossible but by Popham Chiefe Iustice and Tanfield Iustice the action will well lie and so it was adjudged because the words in this case cannot be intended of an invisible Church as is objected but of a materiall Church as is explained by the subsequent words and hast stollen the leade of the Church which cannot bee understood of the invisible Church In this case Reader you may observe that it is admitted that to say of a man that hee haâ—h robbed the Church generally will not bee actionable because that it shall be understood of the invisible Universall Church and so the words impossible because that cannot be robbed So I conceive to say of a man that he hath robbed a Church will be actionable because this must of necessity be understood of some perticular materiall Church Dickes a Brewer brought an action against Fâ—nne for these words I will give a picke of Malt to my Marâ— and leade her to the water to drinke and shee shall pisse as good beere as Dickes doth brâ—w adjudged the words were not actionable because impossible and therefore they could be no scandall to the plaintiffe Britteridge brought an action for these words Britteridge is a perjured old Knave and that is to bee proved by a stake parting the land of H. Martin and M. Wright adjudged the words were not actionable because that it was impossible that a stake could prove him perjured Lastly where it doth appeare that the speaking of the words could bee no dammage to the plaintiffe there likewise no action will lye The Plaintiffe shewes in his Count that the defendant hath a wife yet in life and that the defendant said of the plaintiffe Thou hast killed my VVife adjudged that the words were not actionable because that it doth appeare by the plaintiffes Declaration that the Wife of the defendant was in life so that by these words the Plaintiffe could not bee in any jeopardy nor scandaled or damnified by them The like case was put in 〈◊〉 Thomas Hâ—lt and Taylors case Pasch. 5. of King Iames if one say of a woman That she hath murdered her husband and shee and her husband bring the action it will not lye because it doth appeare by the Record that the slander is not prejuditiall And as when it doth appeare by the Record that the speaking of the words could be no dammage to the plaintiffe no action will lye So where the speaking of the words might bee a dammage to the plaintiffe yet if the ground of tâ—at damnification doe not sufficiently appeare by the Record the action will not lye A brâ—ught an action against B. for saying That hee kept false waytes by which he did cousen c. and declared that hee gained his living by buying and selâ—ing but did not shew of what profession he was adjudged that the action would not lye because it cannot appeare without shewing of his profession that the speaking of the words could bee any dammage to the Plaintiffe A. Brought an action against B. for these words Thou hast killed my brother innuendo G. c. fratrem c. nuper mortuum adjudged that the words were not actionable because the Plaintiffe did not averre that hee was dead at the time when the words were spoken and if hee were living then the speaking of the words could be no slander or damage to the Plaintif So where a man brings an action for Welsh words or the like which are scandelous and doth not aver or set forth that they were spoken to one who understood the meaning of them the action will not lye because it doth not appeare by the Record that the speaking of the words could be any damage to the Plaintiffe For if they were spoken to one that did not understand the meaning of them no action would lie because they could bee no scandall to the Plaintiffe And now I shall adde to the rest only this one ground where words shall not be actionable and that is in this case VVhen a man is charged with a crime or offence by scandalous words where it doth not appeare by the words that he had notice or knowledge of the ground or occasion of the crime or offence in such case no Action will lie for such words Bridges brought an Action for those words he prefat Bridges innuendo is a maintainer of T'heeves and he keepeth none but Theeves in his â—ouse and I will prove it upon a writte of Error in the Chequer Chamber it was holden the words were not actionable because he might maintaine Theeves without notice and therefore the first Judgement was reversed Like the case in my Lord Hobarts Booke where an Action was brought against another for saying that the Plaintiffe kept men which did robbe upon the Highway adjudged that the words would not beare an action because that he might keepe them and not know them to be such persons In the case of Reade and Saule which was Mich. 40. eâ— 41. of the Queene this case was remembred by Walmesley Iustice a man brought an action in that Court for these words he meaning the Plaintiffe is a receiver of Theeves and he said that in this case the Plaintiffe could have no judgement because that he might receive Theeves and yet not know them to be so A. said of B. that he kept false waites for which B. brought his action adjudged that the action would not lie because that it did not appeare that he did use them and besides for that hee might keepe false waites and not know them to be so The case of Miles and Iacob cited before is likewise to this purpose where an action was brought for these words thou hast poysoned Smith adjudged that the words would not beare an action because that it did not
which no Action will lie I have sufficiently proved the ground laid downe before and therefore I shal now proceed to the second thing which I have touched before very considerable in all Actions for words and that is Quo animo with what affection the words are spoken whether ex malitia or not for if it do appeare that they were not spoken out of malice they will not be actionable Ralph Brook York Harrauld brought an Action against Henry Mountague Knight Recorder of London for saying of the Plaintiffe that he had committed Felony The Defendant pâ—eaded how that he was a Counseller and earned in the Law and that he was retained of Counsell against the Plaintiffe at such a Tryall and set forth all the matter in certaine and that hee in giving evidence to the Jury spoake the words in the Count which words were pertinent to the matter in issue in this case it was resolved that the Action would not lie because that the words were not spoken out of malice for that they were spoken to the purpose and being to the purpose though the words were false no Action will lie against the Defendant As in an Appeale of Murder if the Counsell with the Plaintiffe saith that the Defendant committed the murder though it be not true yet he shall not he punished for it because that what he said was pertinent so that it cannot be taken to be spoken out of malice but only as of Counsell for the Plaintiffe But if that which he saith be impertinent in scandall of him against whom he speaks it as in Trespasse of battery to say that the Defendant is a Felon there an Action will lie for that they cannot be otherwise taken but to bee spoken out of malice And in this case it was further said that if a Counseller be informed of any matter of slander apt to be given in evidence and hee speakes it at other places and at another time then in evidence an Action lies for it for the same reason In confirmation of the former case there was this case put and agreed for Law which was the case of Parson Prit in Suffolke the case was thus In the Acts and Monuments of Mr. Fox there is a relation of one Greenwood of Suffolke who is there reported to have perjured himselfe before the Bishop of Norwich in the testifying against a Martyr in the time of Queene Mary and that afterwards by the judgement of God as an exemplary punishment for his great offence his bowels rotted out of his belly And the said Parson Prit being newly come to his benefice in Suffolke and not well knowing his Parishoners preaching against perjury cited this story for an example of the justice of God and it chanced that the same Greenwood of whom the story was written was in life and in the Church at that time and after for this slander brought an Action to which the Defendant pleaded not guilty c. and upon evidence all the matter appeared and by the rule of Anderson Justice of Assise he was acquitted because it did appeare the Defendant spoak the words without malice and this rule was approved by the Kings Bench in this case In the arguing of Sanderson and Rudds case which I remembred before these cases following were cited by Gotbolt Serjeant who was of Counsell with the Defendant and agreed by the Court for Law Iames and Rudlies case the Defendant spoake by way of advise to his friend telling him that the Plaintiffe was full of the French Pox and therefore advised him not to keepe him company adjudged he said that no Action would lie for these words of advise the reason is because that these words were not spoken out of any malice to the Plaintiffe but meerely cut of good will to his friend Norman and Simons case remembred before the Plaintiffe brought an Action for words and declared that they were spoaken falso malitiose the Jury find the words and that they were spoken falsâ— injuriose judgement was given that the Action would not lie because that they did not find the malice for if the words were not spoaken malitiously no Action will lie And therefore I conceive that if a man bring an Action for words and do not declare that the words were spoken malitiose as well as falso that the Action will not lie In the case of the Lady Morrison that I have cited before this case was put by Popham chiefe Iustice If one say in Counsell and good will to his friend that it is reported that he hath done such or such an ill Act and advises him to purge himselfe and avoid such occasion afterwards it se mes saith he that an Action will lie for such counsell but quaere saith the Reporter for it is without malice And truly for my part I conceive an Action will not lie for that reason but I submit it to the judgement of the Reader And now I have finished my labour of shewing you what words are Actionable in the Law and what not It will in the next place be very necessary to be knowne where a mans Suit or prosecution at Law shall subject a man to an Action and where not and here I shall lay downe this as a rule That for any Suit or other legall prosecution in course of Iustice if not out of malice and touching a mans life no action will Lie A Man brougâ—t a Writ of Forger of false deeds against a Lord pending which Writ the Lord for the slander of the said Forgery by the said Suit brought his Action de scandalis Magnatum the Defendant justifies the said flander by bringing of the said Writ by the better opinion there which is also agreed for Law in Bucklies case in my L. Cokes 4. Booke the justification was good for saith the Booke no punishment was ever appointed for a Suit in Law though that it were false and for vexation Cutler and Dixons case adjudged that if one exhibit Articles to a Justice of Peace against a certaine person containing divers great abuses and misdemeanours not only touching the Petitioners themselves but many others and all this to the intent that he should be bound to his good behaviour in this case the party abused shal not have for any matter contained in such Articles an Action upon the Case because that they have pursued the ordinary course of Justice in such case and if actions should be permitted in such cases those which have good cause of complaint will not dare to complaine for feare of infinit vexation Oâ—en Wood exhibited a Bill in the Starchamber against Sir Richardâ— Buckley and charged him with divers matters examinable in the same Court and further that he was a maintainer of Pirates and Murderers and a procurer of Murders and Pyracies which offences were not determinable in the said Court upon which Sir Richard Buckley brought an Action In this case it was adjudged
to the arbitrement of I. S. concerning a matter in controversie which did arise of the part of the wife of B. before covertute I. S. awarded that A. should pay so much to B. and his wife In this case it was moved by Seriant Rolls that the award of paiment of mony to the wife was out of the submission and therefore nought But by the whole Court the award was held good because it doth appeare upon the submission that the controversy did arise on the part of the wife Secondly an award may be void where it is not according to the submission in respect of the things or matters submitted If one be chosen arbitrator to make an Arbitrement upon one thing and he makes an Arbitrement upon another thing the Abitrement is void In the case of Moore and Bedel cited before who submitted themselves to an Arbitrement of all matters in varience betwixt them the Arbitrators award amongst other things that whereas Bedle being possessed of a certaine coppy hould â—oulden of the Mannâ—r of L. in the Country of B. had made a Lease for years of the said Copihould by Indenture contrary to the Custome that one William Salter Pro Posse suo should cause that no advantage should be taken of the forfeiture in this case it was adjudged that the award concerning this Coppihould not being within the submission was void Two submitted themselves by recognisance to an Arbitrement of the right and interest of 200. Acres of Land c. the Arbitrators award that the Defendant should have Brakes during his life in the land resolved that the award was not according to the submission because that that was of the right and interest in the land and the award is only of parcell of the profits out of it If I. N. and three others put themselves upon an award of I. S. of all Actions and demands betwixt them In this case the Arbitrator hath good authority to make an award of all joynt matters betwixt them and of all severall matters also but he cannot arbitrate any matter betwixt the three only because they are one party against the fourth but he may determine betwixt any of the three and the fourth In 9. E. 4. two submitted themselves to the arbitrement of one I. L. de omnibus actionibus personalibus sectis querelis c. betwixt them c. who awarded that because the Defendant had committed divers offences to the Plaintiffe and that the Plaintiffe was seised of such a house in Fee that the Defendant should release to the Plaintiffe all the right which he hath in this house c In this case I conceive the better opinion to be that the Arbitrement is void because that the power of the Arbitrator who is a Judge privatly chosen by the parties shall be taken stricti juris in that thing onely of which the compremise is and not in another thing and here the compremise was but of a thing personall and the Arbitrator hath awarded a satisfaction reall to wit aâ—release of a right to a house which was not comprised within the submission And Littleton in this case said that if he had awarded that the Defendant should serve the Plaintiffe two yeares this would be void And by Choke if we put our selves in Arbitrement de jure titulo possessionâ— Manerij de Dale and the Arbitrator makes an award of the Mannor of Sale this is void Haynes against Aâ—nsteed in Debt upon an obligation to stand to an Arbitrement in all causes that have bin depending betwixt the parties ab initio mundi the award is that the Defendant shall release all causes to the Plaintiffe from the beginning of the world usque c. Tanfield Iustice that the award is void for it is that the Defendant shall release all causes generally and the submission is of all causes depending then and so the award void and then the obligation not forfeited quod Curia concessit and judgement was given for the Defendant In a Writ of Error upon a judgement given in the Common Bench in debt upon an obligation to stand to the award of I. S. concerning an action of account pending the arbitrator made an award touching the account and further awards that every of the parties should release to the other all Actions the error in point of Law was that the award was void for though the Arbitrement may be good in part and void in part yet if it be void in any part the obligation is void quod non allocatur for per curiam when the award is made for more then is submitted as in this case it is good for the thing submitted and void for the surplusage but if the award bee made of lesse then is submitted then it is void for the whole If divers Covenants be and a man is bound in an obligation to performe them and some of the Covenants are void and against Law and the residue good yet he ought to performe those that are good otherwise the obligation is forfeited and this was one Alderman Lees case vide 14. H. 8. wherefore judgement in this case was affirmed Goffe against Browne upon an Obligation dated the 23 of February to performe an award of all causes untill the day of the Date of the Bond. The Defendant pleaded that the Arbitrators made no award The Plaintiffe replyed that the 28 of March following they made an award de super premissis that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiffe 20. l. at Midsummer following in full satisfaction of all matters between them and that they then should make the one to the other generall releases of all matters betweene them and assigned the breach for the non-payment of the 20. l. The Defendant demurred because the award did seeme to exceed the submission being for discharge and satisfaction of all matters to the day of the award which was more then was submitted for it may bee that the Arbitrators might meane some part of the 20. l. in discharge of the causes that might arise betweene the 23. of February and the 28. of March which were not within their power and so for the release Yet judgment was given for the Plaintiffe either because de super Premissis may import a restraint to the thing submitted or else that no new causes shall be supposed except they were alledged as in pleading of awards of causes they neede not averre that these were all c. There was a case which was betwixt Robert Tiderby the Father and Robert Tiderby the sonne which was thus they bound themselves to stand to the award of I. S. concerning all controversies quarrels and debates right title and possession of or concerning the Mannor of Dale I. S. awarded a convayance of the Mannor of Dale to certaine uses and that Robert Tiderby the Father should deliver all evidences and charters concerning the Mannor In this case it was objected that