Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	advise_v	day_n	judgement_n	2,870	5	8.1685	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A32296	Reports of special cases touching several customes and liberties of the city of London collected by Sir H. Calthrop ... ; whereunto is annexed divers ancient customes and usages of the said city of London.	Calthrop, Henry, Sir, 1586-1637.	1670 (1670)	Wing C311; ESTC R4851	96,584	264

Ancestours although the same Ancestors held elsewhere out of the City of any other Lordship by what service soever and the same Mayor and Aldermen ought to enquire of all the Lands Tenements Goods and Chattels within the same City pertaining to such Orphans and the Lands Tenements Goods and Chartells within the same City pertaining to such Orphans to seize and safely keep to the use and profit of such Orphans or otherwise to commit the same Orphans together with their Lands Tenements Goods and Chatels to other their friends upon sufficient Surety of Record in the Chamber of the Guild-Hall in convenient sort to maintain the same Orphans during their minority and to repair their Lands and Tenements and safely to keep their Goods and Chattels and to give good and true accompt before the said Mayor and Aldermen of all the profits of the same Infants wen they come to age or be put to a trade or married at the advice of the said Mayor and Aldermen and that in all cases if it be not otherwise ordained and disposed for the same Orphans and their Lands Tenements Goods and Chattels by express words contained in the same Wills of their Ancestors and no such Orphans may be married without consent of the said Mayor and Aldermen And in like sort where Lands Tenements Goods or Chattles within the same City are devised to a Child within age of a Citizen of the same City his Father living and the same Child be no Orphan yet by custome of the same City the said Lands Tenements Goods and Chattels shall be in the custody of the Mayor and Aldermen as well as of an Orphan to maintain and keep the said Lands Tenements c. to the use and profit of the said Infant and shall give good and true accompt for the same as is aforesaid And note that where a Citizen of the same City hath a wife and children and dieth all debts paid this Goods shall be divided into three parts whereof the one part shall come to the dead to be distributed for his Almes the other part shall come to his wife and the third part to his children to be equally parted amongst them notwithstanding any device made to the contrary and for the same the wife or children or any of them may have their recovery and suit to demand such Goods and Chartels against the Executors or Occupiers of the same Goods and Chattels before the same Mayor and Aldermen by plaint Item by ancient custome of the said City it was not lawful to any Stranger or Forreigner to sell Victuals or other Merchandizes to any other Stranger or Forreigner within the same City to self again nor to any such Forreigner or Stranger to sell Victuals or any other Merchandize within the said City by retail Item by ancient custome of the said City of London the Citizens and Ministers of the same City are not to obey any Commandment or Seals except the Commandment and Seal of our Sovereign Lord the King immediate neither can any of the Kings Officers make any Seisure or Execution within the said City nor within the Franchises of the same by Land nor by Water except only the Officers of the City aforesaid Item touching the Judgements given in the Sheriffs Court in Actions personal or in Assizes taken before the Sheriffs and Coroners by custome of the said City the parties against whom such Judgements are given may sue a writ of Errour directed to the May or Aldermen and Sheriffs to reverse the said Judgements in the Hust and if the Judgements be found good yea though the same Judgements be affirmed in the Hust yet the same party may sue another writ of Error directed to the Mayor and Sheriffs to cause the Record to come before the Justices assigned at Saint Martins le Grand as hath been heretofore done But if any party by such Judgemenn given before the said Sheriffs be convict in Debt or Damages and is therefore committed to Prison until he hath made agreement with the party and afterwards pursueth a Writ of Error to reverse the Judgement in the Hust where although the Judgement be affirmed and the same party will sue a-another Writ of Error to reverse the same Judgement before the Justices assigned at Saint Martins as is aforesaid yet nevertheless the same which is so in person must not be delivered out of Prison by ancient custom of the same City by means of any such Writ of Error until he have found sufficient Sureties within the said City or laid in the money into the Court to pay him that recovered the same if in case that the Judgement be afterwards affirmed And in case that such Writ of Errour be sued to reverse any Judgement given in the Hust before the Justices assigned at Saint Martins le Grand and it be commanded by Writ to safe keep the parties and to cause the Record and Process to come before the same Justices then shall the parties be kept as the Law requireth But no Record may be sent before the same Justices but that the Mayor and Aldermen shall have fourty dayes respite by appointment of the same Justices after first Sessions then to advise them of the said Record and of the Process of the same and at the first Sessions of the Justices after fourty dayes shall the said Process and Record be recorded before the same Justices by mouth of the Recorder of the said City And of Judgements given before the Mayor and Aldermen in the Chamber of the Guild-Hall according to the Law Merchant no Writ of Error is wont to be sued Item by ancient custome of the said City all the Liberties and Priviledges and other customes belonging to the said City are usually recorded by mouth and not to be sent or put elsewhere in writing Item the Citizens of London by custome of the City ought not by any Writ to go out of the City in any sort to pass upon an Enquest Item the Wife after the death of her Husband by custome of the City shall have her Frank Bank viz. a woman after the death of her husband shall have of the Rents within the same City whereof her husband died seized in Fee And in that Tenement wherein the husband and she did dwell together at the time of the death of the husband the woman shall have to her self wholly the Hall the principal chamber and the cellar wholly and shall have the use of the Oven the Stable Privy and Yard in common with other necessaries thereunto belonging for her life and at that hour that she is married she loseth her Frank Bank and her Dower of the same saving her Dower of other Tenements as the law requireth Item every Freeman of the said City using Trade may by custome of the same City take an Apprentice to serve him and learn him his Art and Mystery and that by Indenture to be made between him and his said Apprentice which Indenture shall be examined and

It was agreed and resolved That it may and doth well enough hold For howsoever that none was charge able at the Common Law by the name of an Administrator inasmuch as by the Statute of 31. Ed. 3. cap. No accusation lay against an Administrator by that name And that A custome may not commence since the making of that Statute yet inasmuch as he was chargable at the Common Law as an Executor for his Administration so that the name of the charge is only changed and yet in substance is all one For every Executor is an Administrator and the pleading is upon an action brought against an Executor that he never was Executor nor ever administred as an Executor And an Administrator hath the quality and office of an Executor Therefore the custom of Forreign Attachments will hold against an Administrator as well as against an Executor As to the third Question which is Whether the Forreign Attachment for the debt due unto the Intestate after the promise broken be such a dispensation with the promise that no Action now lieth for the Administrator upon the breach of the promise It was agreed and resolved that the promise was dispensed with and no action lay upon the breach of it for the debt due by Tenant unto the Intestate which was the ground and cause of the promise made unto Spink the Plaintiff is taken away by the judgement had in London upon the custome of Forreign Attachments Et sublato fundamento fallit opus And therefore if after the promise broken there had been a Recovery had of the principal debt by the Plaintiff as Administrator or otherwise there had been a Release made unto the Defendant Now the Action upon the Case upon the promise would have failed inasmuch as the debt which was the consideration and ground of the promise is gone and so the dampnification which he should have had by not performance of the promise faileth And agreeing to this resolution was the Case of one Bardeston and Humfry cited to be adjudged whereupon an accompt he that was found in Arrearges upon a consideration of forbearance by one moneth promiseth payment of them And those Arrerages thus due being attached in the hands of the Accomptant after the promise broken It was held that no Action might afterwards be maintained upon the breach of promise The Case concerning the Prisage of Wine KIng Edward the third in the first year of his Reign doth by his Letters Patents bearing date the same time grant unto the Mayor and Commonalty of London that no prisage shall be of any of the Wines of the Citizens of London But they shall be free and discharged from the payment of all manner of Prisage George Hanger being a Citizen and Freeman of London and Resient within the City fraughteth four several Ships with Merchandize to be transported beyond the Seas the which four Ships being disburdened of the said Merchandize are laden with Wines Two of the Ships came up the Thames at London and before any unbulking of them George Hanger maketh Frances Hanger being his wife his Executrix and dieth Afterwards the other two Ships came up to London Sir Thomas Waller being cheif Butler of the King by virtue of Letters Patents made unto him Demandeth the payment of Prisage of the said Frances Hanger for the Wines in the said four Ships that is to say To have of every of the Ships one Tun before the Mast and one other Tun behind the Mast She denieth the payment of it whereupon the said Sir Thomas Waller as chief Butler exhibiteth his Information into the Kings Bench against the said Frances Hanger Whereunto the said Frances pleadeth a special Plea in Barre shewing the whole matter as abovesaid opon which Sir Thomas Waller demurreth in Law The Questions of this case are two The first is whether for the Wines which came up the Thames in the two Ships before the death of George Hanger any Prisage ought to be paid unto the King or not The second is whether any Prisage ought to be paid for the Wines which were upon the Sea in the Ships before the death of the said George Hanger but came not up the Thames until after the death of George Hanger The case was argued at several times by Sir Henry Mountague Knight then Recorder of London now Lord chief Justice of the Kings Bench Thomas Coventry then Utter Barister now Solicitor General unto his Majesty and Francis Mingay an Utter Barister of the Inner Temple on the behalf of Frances Hanger and by Henry Yelverton then an Apprentice of the Law of Graies-Inn and now Attorney General unto his Majesty and Thomas Crew of the same Inn likewise an Apprentice of the Law on the part of Sir Thomas Waller Likewise it was argued at several times by the Judges of the Kings Bench that is to say first by Sir Thomas Fleming Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Sir Christopher Yelverton Sir David Williams and Sir Iohn Crook and afterwards by Sir Edward Cook Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Sir Iohn Crook Sir Iohn Dodridge and Sir Robert Houghton And Sir Edward Crook Sir Christopher Yelverton Sir David Williams and Sir Iohn Dodridge were of opinion that judgement ought to be given for Frances Hanger against Sir Thomas Waller for they conceived upon the reasons following that no Prisage ought to be paid neither for the Ships that came in after the death of George Hanger nor for the Ships that came in before the death of George Hanger but they all were to be discharged of the payment of Prisage by vertue of the said Charter made by Edward the third unto the Mayor and Commonalty of London First in regard thath these Wines thus in each of the four Ships aforesaid remained notwithstanding the death of George Hanger to be still the Wines of George Hanger for if Frances Hanger the Executrix were to bring an Action for the recovery of them she should bring an Action as for the Wines of George Hanger if Frances Hanger should be wained or attainted of Felony or Treason those Wines should not be forfeited insomuch as they are not the Wines of Frances Hanger but of George Hanger If a Judgement in Debt or other Action should be had against Frances Hanger as Executrix of George Hanger these Wines should be taken in execution as the Wines of George Hanger and so these Wines thus brought in before and after the death of George Hanger continuing as yet the Wines of George Hanger to be recovered as his Wines to be taken in execution as his Wines and to prevent a Forfeiture because these Wines shall be said to be the Wines of George Hanger whereby they may be protected and priviledged from the payment of Prisage within the words intent meaning of the before recited Charter made by King Edward the third which pointeth rather at the Wines then at the person of George Hanger