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	reverse_v	writ_n	13,861	5	10.3556	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54244	Truth rescued from imposture, or, A brief reply to a meer rapsodie of lies, folly, and slander but a pretended answer to the tryal of W. Penn and W. Meade &c. writ and subscribed S.S. / by a profest enemy to oppression, W.P.	Penn, William, 1644-1718.; Rudyard, Thomas, d. 1692. An appendix, wherein the fourth section of S.S. his pamphlet ... examined.	1670 (1670)	Wing P1392; ESTC R36662	46,879	75

had been more knowing and so more proper per Judges who might give a better and more equal Determination of such Facts which for decision came before them then a Jury of twelve men could or would do Surely the Law would then have left all Controversies to their sole Arbitrary Determination and never have required and commanded Tryals by Jurors which are not only chargeable to the Iury-men Free-holders of this Nation by reason of their Attendance and Expence at Assizes and Sessions but also dangerous and hazardous to perform and do their Duty there But according to that Maxime Lex intendit vicinum vicini facta scire The Law presumes that each man best knows his Neighbours Actions Therefore the most proper Judge whether to condemn his Neighbour as guilty or to acquit him as innocent So we must either lose our Reason or conclude it Illegal and Irrational that Justices whom the Law quo ad hoc concludes Ignorant should judge or condemn Jurors for Ignorance whom the Law quo ad hoc concludes more knowing then themselves 5. Fifthly the fifth Reason and Argument to evince the Illegality of such Arbitrary Proceedings may be drawn from that Maxime of Law more then once used by the learned Cook viz. Lex est tutissima Cassis The Law is the surest Sactuary that a man can take and the strongest Fortress to protect the Weakest Yea saith that Author Sub clipeo Legis nemo decip●tur It fails none that put their trust in it We have no reason to believe that that Author put an Encomium upon the Laws of England we mean the Fundamental Laws the Charters of Liberties of which he then treated beyond their real Worth and Value But must rather conclude that such Arbitrary Proccedings which leave the Freemen of England void of Defence and Remediless of Relief are not according to the Rules and M●xims of Law but clearly otherwise And th●t the Fining and Imprisoning of Jurors are such may further app●ar in these Particulars First In that the Jurors are condemned without a Tryal whether they have done their Duty or not that is whether they have found with or against their Evidence c. 2. Secondly In that the Iudgement against them be it Vitious or Erroneous either in respect of the irregularity of the Proceedings or nullity of the Fact charged upon them cannot be examin'd or revers'd by Writ of Error 3. Thirdly In that no such Superiour Court can receive or hear their Appeal as upon Indictments and all other Proceedings by due course of Law they might Manifesting that such Arbitrary Proceedings against Jurors are far more severe and hard then any Convictions of Traitors Thieves and Murderers who are apprehended Flagranti Delicto and tryed by due Course of Law And since they are so unreasonable that they allow not a Iury of twelve Boni Legales Homines Good and Lawfull Men neither liberty of defence before Iudgment nor an after Tryal or Examination of the Fact for which they were condemned we must necessarily conclude them Illegal and Irrational so null and void according to that known Maxime Cessante ratione Legis cessat ipsa Lex And leave them to that just Censure of the Parliament of the Commons of England THAT THEY WERE INNOVATIONS IN THE TRYALS OF MEN FOR THEIR LIVES AND LIBERTIES S.S. his 2d 3d and 4th Remarks Examined Saith S.S. If it be objected That in the present Case being an Indictment for a Trespass an Attaint doth lie and therefore ought to be punished in Attaint Which he thus himself answers Brook Title Attaint 130. saith Et sic admittitur quod si le Roy fuit merement Party Attaint negist Where the King is sole Party Attaint doth not lie In our present Case the King is sole party and therefore by the old Law no Attaint doth lie In the answering of his own Objection the Author has taken up no less then four or ●●ve Pages of his Discourse and the whole of his second third and fourth Remarks in quoting nine or ten Book-Cases and Statutes to prove his Assertion that no Attaint lies where the King is Party Ending his Libel thus From these four Remarks I conclude Nothing but leave the Determination of this important Affair to the honorable Sages of our Law and Pray that in this and in all other Businesses of Concernment that God the Great Iudge of Heaven and Earth would guide and direct them Answ 1st The Righteous God whom this Libeller imprecates has declared That the Prayers of the Wicked are an Abomination to him Prov. 15.9 and 28.9 2d The Frivolousness and Impertinentness of this Ribaldry to the Controversie in hand will appear to the meanest Capacity that will take the pains to compare it to the Libellers own Text viz. The fining of that Jury that gave two Contrary Verdicts Justified 3d The King being Party so no attaint lies the matter of these three last Remarks is so far from being an Objection to be offered by the Friends of those oppressed Iurors that they not only grant to him that no attaint lies against such Iurors but that it is horrid Injustice and Oppression to punish them by that or any other way which we shall clear briefly in these Particulars 1. First It might suffice any rational man That Iurors betwixt the King and Prisoners ought not thus by Arbitrary Fines or other Means to have punishment inflicted upon them in as much as the Ancient Common Law of England is so far from directing of Pai●es that it declares That all Restraints of Jurors are Abusions of the Law Which we have from Andrew Horn a learned Writer of the Law in the time of Ed. 1. who amongst the great abuses of the Common Law for some of which King Alfred executed several of his corrupt Judges sets down this viz. It is Abuse to compel Jurors to say that which they know not by distress of Fine and Imprisonment after their Verdict And that this is the Statute Law to this day may appear 2d In that the Grand Councels of England in Parliament have no less then Twenty several times given their Judgments about the false or vitious Verdicts of Jurors Enacting twenty one Statutes for the correcting and punishing of such Defaults And doubtless they having been so often near the Point had the Law of England and Right and Liberty of its People admitted of such Punishments as the Adversaries of both at this day put in practice they would have let us understood it and not suffer the Law so many Ages to be Vagum incognitum But those Councels making no such Breach upon our Fundamental Laws Rights and Liberties and this our present Parliament by their Resolves confirming the same we may and must aver the contrary procedures Innovations so illegal and opressive But to conclude 3d Lex semper intendit quod convenit Rationi The Law says Cook alwayes intends that which is agreeable to Reason