to proceed vide 10 E 4. 6. 1 H 4. 1. vide Coke Lit fol 261. b. Or otherwise to prefer a Bill in the Parliament which ought to be passed by both houses and then it is Attainder by Parliament and so it was done 5 R 2. 54. But in this Case it being that part of the Treason objected against him was supposed to be done Oust le mere and made Treason by the Act of 3 Jac cap 4. that cannot be tryed but by Indictment to be taken before the Iustices of Assise and Gaol-delivery where the party was taken or before the Iustices of the Kings Bench and Law Custome Statute or usage to the contrary notwithstanding And so it cannot be tryed by the Statute of 35 H 8. cap 2. in what place or Shire that the Kings Bench shall be for this Statute had for this Treason prescribed a speciall form of Tryall and the place where he shall be taken shall be expounded the place where he is misprisoned as upon the Statute of Soldiers And he which is charged to have two Wives living shall be tryed in the place where he is taken which is the place where he is imprisoned vide 2. Inst 49. Trin. 12 Car. Quaeries concerning Aliens QUaeries upon the Statutes of 1 Riz cap 9. 1 H 7. cap 2. 14 H 8 cap 2. the Decrees in the Star-chamber made 20 H 8. and confirmed 21 H 8. cap 16. 22 H 8. cap 8. 32 H 8. 16. and other Statutes concerning Aliens and the Statute of 5 Eliz cap 4. 1. Whether the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap 4. doth repeal the former Statutes concerning Aliens taking Apprentices Iourny-men and Servants 2. Whether Aliens made Denizens may use any handycraft within the Realm otherwise then as Servants to the Kings Subjects Memorand That on the seventh day of July We met at Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet Mr. Attorney-generall being there and We debated the matter and upon perusall of the Statute of 1 R 3. cap 9. and the other Statutes And upon some mis-recitall of the Statute 1 R 3. by the Statute 32 H 8. cap 16. And upon differences of the Printed Statute from the Parliament Roll as was supposed upon shewing of an old Book of Statutes which was in French and brought by my Brother Crook and upon the intricacy of the Statute We could not resolve on the suddain upon these Questions at this time nor unlesse the Parliament Roll might be seen But upon perusall of the Statute of 5 Eliz cap 4. We all resolved and agreed That all Aliens and Denizens are restrained by the Statute of 5 Eliz cap 4. That they may not use any Handycraft mentioned in the said Statute Resolves upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 4. concerning Aliens unlesse they have served seven years as Apprentices within this Realm according to the provision of this Statute This was set down in writing by Sir John Banks his Majesties Attorney Generall present Sir John Bramston chief Iustice of England Sir John Finch chief Iustice of the Common Bench Sir Humphrey Davenport chief Baron Baron Denham Iustice Hutton Iustice Crook Baron Trevor Iustice Crawley and Baron Weston the other Iudges being absent viz. Jones and Vernon Hil. 12 Car. Souser versus Burton ONe Widow Souser brought an action of the Case against Burton for these words Thou old Witch thou old Whore leave oft thy witching or else thou shalt be hanged or burned if I can do it And upon Not guilty pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment And it seemed to Lord Finch Hutton and Vernon that the action lay not without shewing that she did any act of Witchcraft for which the pain of Pillory and Imprisonment for two years should be inflicted and the second time Felony And that the words Words Thou art an old Witch or go away thou old Witch are usuall words and old Whore bears no action And as to say Thou shalt be hanged if I can do it it is not possible that he could do it But Iustice Crawley doubted of it at first because that it was alledged that it had been adjudged in the Kings Bench that an action lies for calling one Witch But afterwards he said that he had spoken with the Iustices of the Kings Bench of their reason who said that they adiudged no such thing unlesse that he spoke further that the party had done any act of Witchcraft punishable by the Statute Hugles versus Drinkwater AN action of Account by William Hugles against Thomas Drink-water for receit of eighteen pounds In Account payment by appointment of the Plaintiff is no plea before the Auditors where the Issue was Ne unques receivor by the hands of one William Appowell to the use of the Plaintiff the Defendant plead Ne unquer receivor per manus c. and found or the Plaintiff And the Defendant before the Auditors plead that he by the appointment of William Appowell had paid it to one John Marsh for the Debt of the Plaintiff and therupon Demurrer And adjudged a bad Plea and against his former Issue And the said Appowell by whose hands he received the said summ had not any power to appoint the Defendant to pay it to John Marsh to whom the Plaintiff was indebted and if that had been pleaded in Bar of the Account to have been done by the appointment of the Defendant it had been a good Bar vide Dyer 29. 196. after ne unques receivor and the truth was that he had been Receiver and had paid it over by the appointment of the party and yet by this Plea be hath lost the advantage therof An. 2. Car. MEmorand That the 19. day of May An 2 Car. all the Iudges being assembled at Serjeants Inn in Chancery Lane by the commandment of the King the Attorney Generall propounded In what cases a prisoner arraigned shall have Councell that the King would be satisfied by our opinion Whether any person which is arraigned of Treason of Felony ought by the Fundamentall Lawes of this Realm to have Councell And We all una voce answered That when any one is indicted of Felony or Treason or any other such offence the party ought not to have any Councell unlesse it be upon matter in Law as where he demand Sanctuary or plead any speciall matter and that is agreed by Stamford fol. 151. Also this extends as well to Peers of the Realm as to others vide 1 H 7. 23. and the 9 E 4. 2. and so it was agreed by all that although the party shall have Councell in an Appeal of Murther yet if he be non-suited and the party be arraigned upon the Declaration then he shall have no Councell Also it was resolved that when the party who prosecute suppose that the Grand Iury will not find the Invictment and therfore requires that the Evidence should be given publickly to the Iury at Bar which is sometime done yet the party who
are not Affirmative or Positive but a supposition only as if he had said Nowels case I will indite him for such a matter it was vouched to be adjudged 51 Eliz. in Nowels case that to say of an Attornaâ—â— That he was Cooped for forging Writs maintain an action And 14 Eliz. He is infected of the Robbery and he smelleth of the Robbary adjudged actionable In balls case There is never a Purse cut in Northamptonshire but Ball hath a part of it will not bear action But the Court would not declare their opinion Quia sub spe Concordiae Griggs Case GRigg which is the Examiner at Chester preferred there this Bill in the Chancery vocat the Exchequer Prohibition â—i Chester against one which inhabite within the same County and another which inhabite in London being executors to one to whom the said Grigg was indebted by Obligation which Obligation was put in suit in the Court of Common Pleas and there proceed to processe before the Bill exhibited and the Bill concern equity of an Agreement that the Testator had promised that one Robert Grigg should assign a lease of Tithes to the Plaintiff in consideration of his entry into the said Obligation and if he could not procure it that then the Obligation should not be prejudiciall to him and he which was distributing in Chester answered therto And an Order was made by Sir Thomas Ireland Vice-Chamberlain that Processe should be awarded to him which dwelleth in London And an Inquisition was granted to stay the proceedings at Common Law And afterwards upon the motion of Serjeant Hitcharâ— Sir Thomas Ireland was in Court and shew all that he could to maintain the Iurisdiction viz. That the Contract was made in the County Palatine and that the priviledge pursued the Plaintiff and ipse qui est reus non potest eligere c. Yet it was resembled to ancient Demesn and Guildable And by Lord Hobart he which inhabit at Doveâ— by this way may be inforced to come and answer to a Bill in Chester which would be infinite trouble and the matter is transitory And it was resolved that the Court of Chester had not power in this case but it belonged to the Chancery of England And a Prohibition was granted Hil. 20 Jac. ONe case was in the Kings Bench viz. Trespasse Baron and Feme brought in action of Trespasse Quare clausum fregit Trespasse by Baron and Feme for breaking the Close of the Baron for the Battery of the Wife and for Battery of the Feme the Defendant pleaded a License to enter into the Close made by the Baron and not guilty as to the Battery And the Court was moved in Arrest of Iudgment because the Husband and Writ could not ioyn for the weaking of the Close of the Baron the Writ shall abate for all But the Lord chief Iustice and Iustice Dodderidge were of opinion that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment And it seems that the Law is clear accordingly vide 9 E 4. 51. Trespasse by the Husband and Wife for the Battery of them both the Iury found so much for the Battery of the Husband and so much for the Battery of the Wife and so Damages assessed severally because the Wife could not soon with the Husband in an action for the Battery of the Husband for that part the Writ shall abate and for the Battery of the Wife they shall recover for for that they ought or joyn in an action vide 46 E 3. 3. Baron and Feme brought Trespasse for the Battery and Imprisonment of the Wife and the Writ was ad damnum ipsorum and yet good vide 9 H 7. in the case of Rescous and 22 E 4. 4. there is a good diversity when the Writ is falsified by the shewing of the party himself and when it is found by Verdict And Iustice Haughton and Iustice Chamberlain were of opinion that the Writ should abate for it is apparent that as to the Trespasse Quare clausum fregit the Wife had no cause of action But this case being debated at Serjeants Inn in Chancery Lane at the Table the Lord chief Baron was of opinion that Plaintiff should have Iudgment for that part and he held the Writ good in part and Reddenda singula singulie Meâ—enest issint as it seems no more then in the case of 9 E 4. for there the Writ shall avate for part And if an action of forgery of Deeds be brought against two for forging and publishing and found that one forged and the other published the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment Howell versus Auger Trespasse IN an action of Trespasse brought by Noy Howell against Auger for breaking of a house and five acres of Land in Fresham upon Non Culp pleaded the Iury gave a speciall Verdict Devise of a Fee after a Fee Robert Howell seised of the Land in Question and of other Land by his Will in writing devised this Land to Dorothy his Wife for life and devised this Land to Thomas Howell his younger Son to him and his Heirs in Fee under the Condition which shall be afterwards declared And the other Land was also devised to Dorothy for life and to the Plaintiff and his Heirs in Fee under the Condition hereafter limited If Dorothy died before the Legacies paid then he will that they shall be paid by Noy and Thomas his Sons portion-like out of the Houses and Lands given them And if either of my Sons dye before they enter or before the Legacies paid or before either of them enter Then I will that the longer liver shall enjoy both parts to him and his Heirs And if both dye before they enter then his Executors or one of them to pay the Legacies and to take the profits till they be paid and a year after and made Dorothy his Wife and Christopher Roys his Executors and died Dorothy entred the Plaintiff Noy by his Deed In 33 Eliz. in the life of Dorothy released to Thomas all his right c. with Warranty Release of Lands devised before they be vested Thomas by his Will devised the Land for which the action is brought to Agnes his Wife and died in the life of Dorothy and before Legacies paid Dorothy died and Agnes entred and took to Husband Henry Ayleyard who leased to the Defendant upon whom Noy entred and the Defendant re-entred And Si super totam Materiam c. And this Case was well argued at Bar in two Terms and the first question was If this Devise of a Fes after a Limitation be good or not much was said for it and they relyed upon a case which was adjudged in the Kings Bench between Pell and Brown of such a limitable Fee Pell and Brown And many Cases put that this operate as a future Devise Executory as well as one may by his Will Devise that if his Son and Heir dye before he marry or before that he come to the age of
And the proof therof see Coke lib 6. fol 19. Gregories case and Dyer 236. a. Then the principall and sole point will be if this Offence will be by the act of 33 H 8. cap 10. made presentable and punishable by the Iustices of Peace at their six weeks Sessions and it was unanimously agreed that it is not First because the preamble of the act recite that the Offences recited therin escape punishment and for their more speedy and effectuall punishment and repeat the particulars but therin name not Brewers by expresse words and it cannot be intended that the intent of the Statute was to give them at their six weeks Sessions to intermeddle with things not determinable at their generall Sessions And it was objected by Aâ—tho that Lambert and Crompton had put it as an Article of their charge To which it was answered that it was in some respect inquirable at Common Law viz. Misdemeanors in Bear-brewers Conspiracies and agreements to sell at such prises and the making of wholsome Beer Also it might be that they â—ake the Law to be upon the Statute of 23 H 8. that the Sessions being a Court of Record was within this act that saies in any Court of Record And then if it be not suable by Information before the Iusticeâ— of Peace the consequence is plain that the Statute of 21 Jac. cap 4. extends not therto and the Statute of 37 of H 8. makes not any thing in this case but tolls the six weeks Sessions and makes it inquirable at the generall Sessions Ideo Iudgment for the Informer June 19. An. 22. Jac. MEmorand That upon a Conference at Serjeants Inn in Fleet-street it was resolved and agreed by the Lord chief Iustice Sir James â—ea the Lord Hobart Baron Bromley Baron Denham Iustice Hutton and Iustice Jones That any one may erect an Inn for lodging of Travellers without any allowance or License Resolutions concerning Innes and who may keep an Inne and how they may be suppressed as well as any one before the Statute of 2 E 6. might have kept a Common Alehouse or as at this day one may set up to keep hackney Horses or Coaches to be hired by such as will use them And all men may convert Barley into Mault untill they be restrained by the act of Parliament made for that purpose And as all men may set up Trades not restrained by the Act of 5 Eliz. which directeth no man that hath not been bound or served as an Apprentice by the space of seven years or by restraint of setting up Trades in Corporations by such as be not free by the like reason all men may use the Trade of Inne-keeping unlesse it could be brought to be within the Statute of 2 E 6. which hath never been taken to be subject to that Statute in point of license And vide that an Hostler is chargable to the party which is his Guest for the restoring of that which is lost in his House and that by the Common Law of the Realm vide 11 H 4. fol 45. see also 11 H 4. fol 47. That in an action upon the case brought by the School-master of Glocester for erecting another School to his prejudice adjudged that no action lies and also it is there said that if I have a Mill and another erect another Mill by which I lose my Custom no action lies unlesse he disturb the water And it was said by the chief Iustice that it was so resolved before by the Iudges and that Iustice Doderidge Iustice Haughton and Iustice Chamberlain were of the same opinion and so now was my Brother Crew the Kings Serjeant who went the Circuit of Surrey Kent and Essex but the chief Baron Tanfield was of a contrary opinion And it seemed to him that Innes were licensed at first and Originally by the Iustices in Eire but nothing could be shewne to that purpose But all the Iustices were of a contrary opinion and said that that was the ground that begot the Patent and Commission to Mounperson viz. That the King might licence them if the Iudges might And it was said by the Lord chief Iustice that there was not any such thing in the Eires but because that strangers which were aliens were abused and evilly intreated in the Inns it was upon complaint therof provided that they should be well lodged and Inns were assigned to them by the Iustices in Eire The second question was if an Inn be erected in a remote and inconvenient place so that it is dangerous to Travellers and there harbour men of bad same which are apt to commit Robbery whether that might be suppressed And as to that all agreed that it is a common Nusance and may be suppressed and that to be by Indictment and presentment to which the party may have his Traverse The third question was whether when one which had erected an Inn be a man of bad behaviour and such a person as is not fit to keep an Inn how it should be aided and helped And it was agreed by all that upon Indictment or presentment therof he may have his Traverse and if he be convicted then to be suppressed viz. that he which had so misdemeaned himself should not keep it as an Inn nor use it But that it being an Inn it may be used afterwards by another Fourthly how and by what way or means the multitude of Inns might be prevented by being suppressed or redressed upon complaint or how the number might be stinted This Point seemed to be difficult and to contradict the resolution upon the first question And therfore it was agreed that they should advise concerning it and the best way is that they be strictly inforced to keep the Assise and not to suffer any to tipple in their Inns and by this way they would desist from their Trade Mich. 4 Car. Mackerney versus Ewrin RIchard Mackerney brought an action upon the case against Jeffrey Ewrin and count Case That whereaâ— one I. S. was indebted to the Plaintiff in seven pounds four shillings for pasture feeding and Oates for an Horse kept in the Stable of the Plaintiff Consideration in an Assumpsit The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff at his request would deliver the Horse to him to the use of the said John S. promised to pay the said seven pounds four shillings And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff Serjeant Callis moved in Arrest of Iudgment that it is no good consideration for the Plaintiff had not any property in the Horse and he is not is do any other thing then the Law injoyn him to do As if I lose my goods and another find them and in consideration that he will deliver them to me I promise to pay him two hundred pounds that is not sufficient matter to ground an Assumpsit therupon But if a Taylor had made a Sute of Apparell for I. S. and I. D. request him to deliver it
if Rent he reserved at the time of the Distresse and it be refused and a Distresse taken that is Tortious 30 Ass 36. 20 H 6. 31. 48 E 3. 9. 2 H 6. 4. And in this case it was said that Reddenda singula singulis that the demand shall be used when the Penalty of the Rent comes in question and not for the Rent And though it be reserved payable at another place thal changeth not the Rent but it is issuable out of the Land and distrainable upon the Lands And lastly it hath been divers times adjudged that the Rent is payable upon the Land 1 Jac Rot 1818. Nich and Langford Skinner and Amery Borman and Bower In Replevin between Nich and Langford Trin 16 Jac. Rot. 954. Between Skinner and Amery vide before between Crawley and Kingswell Trin 3 Car Rot 2865. Rent reserved payable out of the Land And although that the Iudgment is by confession after demurrer yet it was for the reason afore recited Iudgment for the Defendant The Lord Audley's Case Wilts JUratores pro Domino rege super sacramentum suum present Quod Martinus Dominus Audley nuper de Fountell Gifford in Comitatu Wilts Aegideus Broadway de Fountell Gifford praedict in Comitatu praedicto generosus timorem Dei prae oculis suis non habentes Indictment for Rape sed Instigatione Diabolica moti seducti vicessimo die Junii Anno regni Domini nostri Caroli dei Gratia Angliae Scotiae Franciae Hiberniae fidei defensoris sexto Apud Fountell Gifford praedict Comitatu praedicto vi armis c. in super Annam Dominam Audley Uxorem praefati Domini Martini Audley in pace Dei dicti Domini Regis ibidem Existent insult fecerunt Et praedictus Aegidius Br. praedictam Annam Dominam Audley vi armis contra voluntatem ipsius Annae ad tunc ibidem violenter felonicae rapuit ac ipsam Annam ad tunc ibidem contra voluntatem suam violenter felonice carnaliter cognovit contra pacem Domini Regis nunc coron dignitat suas contra formam statuti in hujusmodi casu edit provis Et ultim Juratores praedicti dicunt super sacramentum suum praedict Quod praedictus Martinus Dominus Audley praedicto vicesimo die Junii An. sexto supradicto Apud Fountell Glifford praedictam in Comitatu praedicto felonice fuit presens auxilians Confortans abettans procurans â—adjuvans manutenens praedictum Egidium Br. ad feloniam praedictum in forma praedicta felonice faciend perpetrand contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc Coronam dignitatem suas ac contra formam statuti praedicti Wilts IUratores pro Domino Rege super sacramentum suum present Quod Martinus Dominus Audley nuper de Fountell Gifford in Comitatu Wilts Deum prae oculis non habens nec naturae ordinem respiciens Indictment for Buggery sed instigatione Diabolica motus seductus primo die Junii An. Regni Domini nostri Caroli c. sexto Apud Fountell Gifford praedictam in dicto Comitatu Wilts in domo Mansionali ejusdem Martini Domini Audley ibidem vi armis in quendam Florence Fitz-Patrick Yeoman insult fecit cum eodem Florente F. ad tunc ibidem nequit Diabolice felonice contra naturam rem veneream habuit ipsumque F. ad tunc ibidem carnaliter cognovit peccatumque illud Sodomiticum detestabile abominandum Anglice vocat Buggery inter Christianos non nominandum ad tunc ibidem cum eodem Florence F. nequit Diabolice felonice contra naturam Commisit perpetravit in magnam Dei Omnipotentis displicentiam ac totius humani generis dedecus ac contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc Coronam dignitatem suâ—s contra formam statuti in hujusmodi casu edit provis The like Indictment for the same Offence with the same person 10 June the same year at new Sarum in the Mansion house of the said Martin c. Memorand That these Indictments were sound 6 April An. 7 Car. at new Sarum by vertue of a Commission before Edward Lord Georges Nich. Hide Knight chief Iustice ad placita c. Thomas Richardson chief Iustice de Banco John Denham Knight one of the Barons c. Edward Hungerford Knight Walter Vaughan Knight Laurence Hide Knight Thomas Fanshaw Knight by Letters Patents Ipsius Domini Regis pro eis quibuscunque tribus vel pluribus eorum inde Confect ad Inquirendum c. Memorand That the 25. day of April An. 7 Car. A Commission was made for the Arraignment of the said Lord Audley upon the said severall Indictments by his Peers in which the Lord Coventry Lord Keeper of the Great Seal was made high Steward And the Peers were in number twenty seven And he pleaded Not guilty And one question was propounded to the Iudges which did attend viz. The Lord chief Iustice of the Kings Bench the Lord chief Iustice of the Common Pleas the Lord chief Baron Baron Denham Iustice Jones Iustice Whitlock Iustice Harvey and Iustice Crook If the Wife might be produced as a Witnesse against her Husband Where a Wife may give Evidence against her Huâ—band And it was resolved that in case of a common person between party and party she could not according to the opinion in Cokes first Institutes fol 6. but between the King and the party upon an Indictment she may although it concerns the Feme her self as she may have the Peace against her Husband Buggary sans Penetration Also it was reported to the Lords by the Lord chief Iustice when they were demanded whether this matter of Fact being as it was proved that Pollution and using of a man upon his Belly Sodomitically without penetration was Buggery by the Statute of 25 H 8. the Lord Richardson was of a contrary opinion upon the Conference yet his opinion was involved in the generall But as he said to me their opinions we delivered only upon this case and upon these examinations if the Lords gave credit to the matter in fact that it was Buggery but they gave not a generall opinion that may be a rule in other cases but upon the foulnesse and abominablenesse of this Fact And afterwards the Lords were not unanimously resolved that it was Buggery but this Point was resolved that they ought to believe and give credit to the Law as the Iudges had declared it And it seems that they could not give a speciall Verdict upon this tryall for it never was seen Also the Commission determines after Iudgment given And the Staff of the high Steward shall be broken And after long debate they seriatim laying their hands upon their hearts as the Mannor is said that he was guilty of Rape beside the Lord North. And for the Buggaries twelve of the Lords acquitted him and fifteen found him guilty and so he had Iudgment And at
and Iudgment against the Plaintiff 8 E 4. 3. 21 E 4 2. Lit. 264. b. 20 E 4. 17. If the Debtee makes the Debtor and others his Executors the Debt is discharged Mich 9 Car. Banco Regis Rot 373. Anne Dorchester Executrix of Anne Row Dorchester and Webb Plaintiff against William Webb in Debt upon an Obligation of five hundred pounds the Defendant demanded Oyer wherby it appears that the Defendant and one John Dorchester were obliged joyntly and severally in the said Obligation The Defendant plead in Bar that the said John Dorchester made the Plaintiff his Executrix who proved the Will and had Goods sufficient in her hands to pay the said Debt The Plaintiff reply that before the death of the said Anne Row the Obligee she had fully Administred all the Goods of the said John Dorchester Demurrer and Iudgment for the Plaintiff And in this case it is not shewn that the said Francis and Peter or any of them proved the Will of the said Obligee or that they administred his goods or that they had any goods of the Obligor to administer at the time of the death of the Obligee as it ought to have been shewn And the said Francis Executor of the Obligee and also of the Obligor refused to be Executor to the Obligee and never Administred and never meddled with the Goods of the Obligee and so the Debt is not released in Law as by the said Case and former Iudgment appears This case had been often argued by Serjeant Hedley and of the other part by Serjeant Hitcham and affirmed that once Iudgment was given for the Defendant but it yet depends Trin. 12 Car. MEmorand Vpon Petition exhibited to the King by the Prisoners of quality which were in execution in the Fleet Liberty may not be given to Prisoners by force of a Habeas Corpus Kings Bench and Marshalsey to have liberty in the time of Infection and for preservation of their lives to have liberty by Writs of Habeas Corpus to go into the Country upon security to be given to the Warden and Marshall for their return The King out of his great care of their safety referred their Petition to the Lord Keeper Coventry and that he with the advice of the Iudges should consider by what way it might be done And the eighteenth day of June we attended the Lord Keeper at Durham-house And therupon conference and consideration of a former Resolution which was at Reading in Mich. Term last before the said Lord Keeper where were present all the Iudges besides my self That these abusive Habeas Corpus were not lawfull and that the Warden and Marshall were then called and warned that they should not suffer their Prisoners to go into the Country as they had used to do by colour of such Writs This which followes was subscribed WEE are of Opinion that the Writ of Habeas Corpus is both Ancient and Legall But as the Writ doth not so no Rule can Authorize the Keeper of the Prison to give liberty to his Prisoner by colour of such Writ but the same is an abuse against Law and an Escape in the Keeper if he let the Prisoner go by such Writ We find that neither in the twenty fourth year of Eliz. when the Term was Adjourned to Hertford Nor in the 34. of Eliz. in which year it was Adjourned to Hertford Nor in the 35. of Eliz. in which year it was Adjourned to St. Albans Nor in 1 Jac. in which year the Term was Adjourned to Winchester Nor in the first of King Charles in which year it was Adjourned to Reading In all which years there were great and dangerous Infections of the Plague there was no such course to set Prisoners out of Prison by Habeas Corpus but we find it a Novelty begun of late years But We think that if the danger of Infection shall grow so great as it shall be found necessary to provide for the safety of the Prisoners who may at all times provide for themselves by paying their Debts and yeilding obedience to Justice then a course may be taken that some certaine house may be assigned for the Warden of the Fleet in some good Town remote from the Infection and the like for the Marshall of the Kings Bench in some other Town where they may remove such Prisoners as have been Petitioners to his Majesty and there keep them as Prisoners Sub arcta salva Custodia as they should be kept in their proper Prisons and not to be as House-keepers in their own houses and by this means they will have the like to avoid the Infection as other Subjects have and not make the Infection a cause to abuse their Creditors or delude the course of Justice John Bramsion 1. Richard Hutton 2. George Crooke 3. George Vernon 4. Francis Crawley 5. Humph. Davenport 6. William Jones 7. Thomas Trevor 8. Robert Barkley 9. Richard Weston 10. To Sir John Bramston Knight Lord chief Justice of England My very good Lord I Have acquainted his Majesty with your resolution and your Brethren about Writs of HABEAS CORPUS his Majesty doth exceedingly approve the same And hath commanded me to let you know that his Majesty would not recede from that which you have certified And praies you and the rest of my Lords the Judges to observe it constantly attending to that resolution under your hands Hampton Court 19 June 1636. Your Lordships assured Tho. Coventrey C. S. Mich. 14 Car. MEmorand That 28. Aprilis 14 Car. Iustice Hutton argued in the Exchequer Chamber in the Case Adjourned thither upon a Scâ—re facias by the King against Hampden for Ship-money in which he was of opinion that as well for the matter as for the form upon divers exceptions to the pleading Iudgment should be given against the King Afterwards viz. 4. Maij. Thomas Hanson Batchelor of Divinity and Parson of Creake in Northamp came to the Court of Common Bench Iustice Hutton and Iustice Crawley then being there giving Rules and Orders and said Words against Justice Hutton I accuse Mr. Justice Hutton of high Treason for which he was committed to the custody of the Warden of the Fleet by Iustice Crawley and after by the direction of the King he was indicted in the Kings Bench and convicted and fined to five thousand pounds to the King And Iustice Hutton preferred his Bill against him there and recovered ten thousand pound Dameges Lord Digbies Case MEmorand That in the Parliament holden primo Car. It was resolved by the Iudges upon conference concerning the Lord Digby That when any Peer shall be proceeded against for Treason that ought to be by Indictment and that being done Where tryall of Treason by the Statute of 3 Jac. cap. 4. shall be and how then the King is to appoint a Peer to be Steward for the time and then to proceed to Arraign him or otherwise to transmit this Indictment by Certiorari to the Parliament and there
was that none should use the Art of Weaving within the said Burrough or should have any Loom in his house or possession to have any benefit therby unlesse he had been an Apprentice to the said Art within the said Burrough for the space and term of seven years or had used the said Art within the said Burrough for five years before the making of the said Ordinance or shall be admitted therto by the Wardens and Society upon pain of forfeiture for every month twenty shillings And they further shew that after the said Ordinance made and confirmed the Defendant such a day before his inhabiting in the said Burrough and after such a day that one William Godwin being then Warden of the Weavers gave notice to the Defendant of the said Ordinance and that he afterwards c. during five months continued using the said Trade there and that he had two Looms in his possession where he had not been an Apprentice nor used the said Art for five years as before c. by which he forfeited to them five pounds viz for every month twenty shillings The Defendant pleaded Nil debet and after Verdict for the Plaintiffs it was moved by Arrest of Iudgment that this Ordinance was not reasonable and upon Arguments and Conference without arguments at the Bench it was agreed that the Ordinance was against Law and Iudgment against the Plaintiffs And Lord Hobart in Hil 15 Jac declared that we were all of opinion that Iudgment should be given against the Plaintiffs And he repeated the Case and the reasons of this Iudgment because the Ordinance was that none should use the Trade of Weaver nor have any Loom in the Town unlesse he had served c. before the making of this Ordinance so that all Apprentices which serve after shall be excluded unlesse they shall be admitted by them which is unreasonable And the Plaintiffs do not convey to themselves any good Title to be Wardens but as to the principall point of making such a restraining Ordinance the Court did not deliver any opinion Mich. 15 Jac. Rot. 2327. Dorrell versus Andrews SUsan Dorrell brought an action of Debt against Sir Eusebius Andrews London Debt The Visn of a Town within a Parish and John Cope for eighty five pounds and count upon a Lease made by her to the Defendants by Indenture by which she demised one Capitall Messuage Mannor or House called Causton within the Parish of Dunchurch in the County of Warwick and all the Stables c. in Causton aforesaid The Defendant protesting that the Rent was not behind for Plea saies that before any Rend arrear the Plaintiff entred into severall parts of the house and him dispossessed and upon that they were at issue and the Venice facias was de vicineto de Causton within the Parish of Dunchurch And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Venire facias should be of the Parish only and not of Causton for Causton is not alledged as a Town but the name of a house And the Court resolved that the Ven. fac was good for Causton is alledged as a Town in the Parish of Dunchurch and that by the addition and generall words in the Demise in which also there was an exception of part of the House as Mannor-house at Causton aforesaid so that the house is alledged to be in Causton in the Parish of Dunchurch if all be considered And if it appear that Causton is a Town or Village in the Parish of Dunchurch it will be without any doubt good And my Lord Hobart said that it had been divers times adjudged that on the Allegation of a thing done at the Town of Dale in the Parish of Sale that the Ven. fac of the Parish is good for though the Parish may contain more Towns yet it is not to be presumed but that it is of one Continent if the contrary appear not by the Record vide for that Pasch 9 Jac. between the Lord Candish and Sir George Savill c. There was another exception taken to the pleading Candish and Savill which I have not transcribed Trin. 14 Jac. Rot. 755 Swaine versus Holman RIchard Swaine Plaintiff Brownlow Dors. Wast against Thomas Holman and Elizabeth his Wife brought Wast and declared of a Lease made Anno the 8. of Eliz by the Queen under the Exchequer Seal to William Jolliff Thomas Jolliff and Elizabeth Jolliff for three lives and that William and Thomas were dead and convey the remainder to the King that now is and from him to the Plaintiff and that the Defendant Elizabeth took H. to Husband which did wast c. The Defendants confesse the Lease death and marriage as above c and say that the said Holman and Elizabeth his wife 2. Feb 40 Eliz. surrendred as well all their Estate of the said Elizabeth as the Letters Patents to the intent that the Queen should make a new Lease to the said Elizabeth and to Humphrey Holman and to Roger Holman for their lives successively which surrender the Queen accepted and the third of Febr next made such Demise and this they are ready to aver c. The Plaintiff replies and joyns Issue upon the Surrender and Demise in manner and form and the Issue was tried by a Venue which came from Westminster and the Iury found this speciall Verdict viz. the new Lease made the third of Felic in which it is recited that she had surrendred the Estate and the Letters Patents and the Queen as well in consideration of the surrender of the Letters Patents as in consideration of the payment of twenty Nobles made by the new Lease and the Iury found that the Demise made the third of Febr was with the consent of the said Thomas Holman and that the said Thomas Holman and Elizabeth his wife agreed therto and held in claiming by the said Demise And it was adjudged by the Lord Hobart and others the Iustices that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment First the consideration which procured the new Lease is the Surrender and the Surrender is not absolute but defeisable if the wife survive or if the Husband will disagree and therfore the Lord Hobart said that if Feme Lesses for years takes Husband and after the Feme takes a new Lease of the Queen for life this extinguisheth the term but if the Husband disagree then the Lease for yeers is revived And as in Barwicks Case the surrender of all the Estate where he had made a Lease for years before or where the Lease which he surrendred was void the new Lease made 〈◊〉 consideration therof is vein for the Surrender which is the consideration ought to be a good surrender of the former Estate And therfore if Lessee for life of the Blemise of the King surrender conditionally and the King reciting that he had surrendred all his Estate makes a new Lease this shall be intended an absolute Estate for a conditionall surrender within three years of
Court 12 E. a. granted a Rent-charge of two shillings out therof to John Milleton and Walter Milleton In Replevin one makes Conusance derive his Estate from one as Cosin and Heir and shews not how John Milleton dies and Walter survived and died seised and this Rent descended to one John Milleton of P. as Cosin and Heir to the aforesaid Walter and he was seised in Fee and one John Dinham was seised in Fee of one house and twenty acres of Land in Pensons and by Deed shewn in Court exchanged them with the said John Milleton for the said Rent and Walter de la Therne being seised of the Land out of which the Rent issued attorned and gave Seisin of the Rent to John Dinham wherby he was seised in Fee of the Rent and conveyed the Rent by three discents to this John Dinham for whom the Defendant makes Conuzance for ten shillings for five years arrear And the Plaintiff demurs generally upon the Conuzance And the cause was that it is not shewn how John Milleton is Cosin and Heir to Walter upon the discent First if it be good as this Case is viz. That he claimes not as Cosin and Heir but makes Title under him by conveyance afterwards Also because the Defendant makes Conuzance and is a stranger Secondly if it be but forme And this Case was argued at Bench briefly in Trin. 16. And I was of opinion because that this is the Conuzance of a Bayliff and it is a discent in one blood to which Dinham is a stranger and because that a good Issue might be taken therupon as it is alledged And if it had been a case of Bastardy the Iury might have tryell it therfore it is good by the Common Law and differs from a Formedon for there he which brings it is privy vide 41 Eliz. 13 14 in a Scire facias good without shewing how 33 H. 6. 34. Sir T. C. Case 27 H. 6. 2. 4 E. 3. 43. vide 19 E. 3. Quare impedit 58. And if it were not good by the Common Law yet it was but form and aided by the Statute of 27 Eliz cap. 5. vide in Doctor Leifeilds Case lib 10. fol 94. And Iustice Winch agreed with me but Warburton to the contrary and argued strongly that it was substance and was very materiall and he relied upon the Book in the 38 H 6. 17. and he put the cases of 11 H 6. 43. 8 H 6. 22. 2 H 2. and Wimbish and Talbois case Plowden There is debate and argued two against two and no Iudgment given because that it is not shewn Comment Cosin vide 2 H 5. 7. a good Issue there is no such Ancestor a generall Demurrer confesse not the matter as in Debt upon a Bill he plead payment and the Plaintiff demur that Demurrer doth not confesse the payment Lord Hobart would not speak of the Common Law but it seemed good to him by the Statute The Title of the Act is An Act for furthering of Justice Definitive Iustice and Interlocutery The Statute takes not away form but the intrappings and snares of form No place where the Obligation is made cannot be tried by them affirmatively Hough and Bamfields case matter and no form and so Dyer 319. But the point of Cousinage which comes by videlicet is form And if the case of Wimbish and Talbois had been at this day it should bee aided and Iudgment for the Defendant Sheriff ought to deliver the Moyety by meets and bounds IT was argued by the Court that upon an Elegit the Sheriff ought to deliver the Moyety by meets and bounds and if it be so that the Conuzor be Ioynt-tenant or Tenant in Common then it ought to be so specially alledged and contained in the return Pasch 16 Jac. Drury versus Fitch Case DRury an Attorney of this Court brought an action upon the case against Fitch one of the Serjeants of London for saying I arrest thee for Felony and after not guilty pleaded the Plaintiff was Non-suited Costs upon Non-suit where the Plaintiff hath no cause of action And now it was moved that no costs should be given to the Defendant because that the words will not beare action and therfore Iudgment shall be given Quod nil capiat per billam And they vouched one President in Grewstons case in Ban. Reg. vide that now by the last Statute costs shall be given to the Defendant in all cases where the Plaintiff should have costs if he recover but in such case where the Plaintiff if he recover shall not have costs the Defendant upon the Non-suit of the Plaintiff shall not have costs But it seemed to Lord Hobart that in this case the costs are for vexation and this is more vexation if he had no cause of action vide 29 H 8. fol 32. It is there resolved that an action lies for the costs notwithstanding a Writ of Error brought And the last day of this Term the Court was of opinion that the action lies for the words for it is more then these I charge thee with Felony and if the Action lies not yet the Defendant shall have costs for it was such an Action in which the Plaintiff ought to have costs if he recover Vpon motion in Court by the direction of Iustice Warburton who had caused a Iury to be drawn by reason of the slendernesse of the matter and for avoiding the charge of a speciall Verdict the Case was A Copyholder was a Lunatick and the Lord committed the custody of his Land to one which brought an Action of Trespasse Action brought by the Committee of a Lunatick which is a Copyholder and whether it ought to be brought by him or by the Lunatick was the question And the opinion of the Court was that the Committee was but as Bayliff and hath no Interest but for the profit and benefit of the Lunatick and is as his Servant and it is contrary to the nature of his Authority to have an Action in his own name for the interest and the Estate and all power of Suits is remaining in the Lunatick And it was ruled in this Court that a Lunatick shall have a Quare impedit in his own name vide Beverlies case Coke lib 4. the diversity between a Lunatick and an Ideot and H 8. Dyer fol 25. And though when Guardian in Socage as it was adjudged makes a Lease for years his Lessee shall have an Ejectione firmae yet there the Guardian hath the Interest and is accountable therfore But in this case the Committee hath no Interest but is as a Servant appointed by the Lord to keep the possession for him who is not able to keep it for himself Lord Hobart and the Court also agreed that the Lord of a Mannor hath not power to commit or dispose of the Copyhold of a Lunatick without speciall Custom no more then a man shall be Tenant by the Curtesie c. of a Copyhold
that the Plea is not good Harris argued for the Defendant for three reasons 1. Because by the Lease this was included vide 21 H 6. 61. grant of Conuzance c. gives power to make a Steward tempore E. 1. Fitz. 41. 2 E. 2. Bar 237. grant to fish in a Pond yet he cannot make a Trench 2. The Coles are the Inheritance and the bettering of them is the bettering of the Inheritance 3. For the profit of the Common-wealth 14 H 8. 18. 20 Eliz Dyer 361. Altams case Trench to make a Meadow the better is no wast vide 22 H 6. 6. digging of certain Loads of Gravell for the amending of the Land vide 12 H 4 5. And for telling this ought not to be answered any other way then by justifying of the Imployment and the Plaintiff may reply upon the sale if he will and the case is long debated 5 E 4. 10. vide Dyer 37. Malenders case And the last day of this Term the Lord Hobart declared that we were all of opinion that the Plea is not good for there though the Lease be of Mines and by vertue therof the Lessee might open new Mines as in Sanders case Coke lib 5. fol. 12. there it shall be intended of new Mines which in themselves is wast if it had not been by speciall words And the digging of a Mine is an impairing of the Inheritance and a great benefit to the Lesses and therfore if Lessee for years build a new house if he cut Trees off the same Lands for the making therof it is wast 17 E 2. Fit wast 118. And no more then one may make a Brick Kilne and burn Brick or a Lyme Kilne and burn Lyme with wood growing upon the ground and sell the Brick or Lyme no more may the Defendants in this case cut down wood for the making and supporting of these Mines for Coles which they sell vide 41 E 3. 17. And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Edmonds Case MEmorand That at the Assises holden at Winchester in Lent 15 Jac. one William Edmonds was indicted of Burglary because that he Burglariter and feloniously did break the house of one Richard Heydon in the night at Ramsey Burglary and the Iury gave a speciall Verdict We find that Richard Heydon and Christian his Wife were both in Bed and at rest in an upper Chamber in the Mansion house of the said Richard Heydon and that the said William Edmonds then was and yet is the Servant and Apprentice of the said Richard and that he then lay in another Chamber of the said house remote from the Bed-chamber of his said Master and Dame and that there was a Door with a Latch at the Stairs foot of the said Bed-chamber of the said Heydon but none at the Stair-head being the entrance into the said Bed-chamber of the said Heyedon We find that the said William at the said time in the Indictment drew the Latch of the Stair-foot door and opened the said door being then latched and went up the Stairs and entred into the Bed-chamber of his said Master with an intent to murther the said Heydon and that he did then and there with an Hatchet with an intent to murther his said Master strike and grievously wound him and gave him fifteen wounds on the head and other parts of his body And if upon the whole matter c. And this speciall Verdict was shewn by the Lord chief Baron Tanfield unto all the Iudges of Serjeants Inne in Chancery Lane viz. Iustice Warburton Crook Baron Bromely Iustice Dodderidge Houghton Winch and Hutton And they all besides Winch which doubted agreed that it was Burglary and afterwards in the same Term at a meeting in Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet it was shewn to Mountague Hobart and Denham which concurred Mich 16 Jac. Staffords Case FAlse Imprisonment was brought by Sir John Stafford the Defendant justifie Matter of Record tryed by the Country that Bristoll is an ancient City and that time wherof memory c. there hath been a Court holden there before the Sheriffs c. and justifie that there was a Plaint levied and Iudgment and that the now Plaintiff was taken in execution The Plaintiff replyed Quod non fuit aliqua querela levata according to the custom and requires this Quod inquiratur c. And it was tryed at Bristoll and found for the Plaintiff and damages twenty six pounds And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that this being matter of Record viz. the entry of the Plaint in a Court of Record it shall be tryed by the Record and not by the Country And it was adjudged that the tryall was good because that it is not meerly Record but whether it was according to the Custom And Non prosecutus est ullum breve is tryable by the Country Quaere if the King grant by Patent to hold plea under forty shillings if it be a Court of Record Sir Walter Rawleys Case MEmorand that on Friday the 23. of October upon conference between all the Iustices of England whether a privy Seal was sufficient it being directed to the Iustices of the Kings Bench to command them to award execution against Sir Walter Rawley which was attainted of Treason at Winchester Mich. 1 Jacobi How Prisoners which are attainted of Treason set at large shall be brought to execution before Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer or how they should proceed before execution be awarded It was resolved by all that he ought to be brought to Bar by Habeas Corpus to the Lieutenant of the Tower and then demanded if he could say any thing why execution should not be awarded for the proceedings against him being before Commissioners they are delivered only into the Court of Kings bench or they might have remained in a Bag or a Chest and no Roll made therof and so long time passing it is not a Legall course that he should be commanded by a privy Seal or great Seal to be executed without being demanded what he hath to say for he might have a pardon or he might say that he is not the same person As if one be Outlawed of Felony and taken he shall not be presently hanged but he shall be brought to Bar and so demanded c. And upon this resolution a privy Seal came to the Iustices of the Kings Bench commanding them to proceed against him according to Law And therupon a Habeas Corpus was awarded and Octob 28. he came to the Bar being brought by the Lievtenant and there he was demanded of whether he had any thing to say why c. and there he shewed that the King had imployed him as Generall of a Voyage and hath given him power De vita membris upon others And whether this did amount to a pardon or no he knew not The Attorney-generall said that the King pardoned no Treasons by any Implication but it ought to be by speciall words Then he said
inclosing Woods but suffering them to lye open after cutting by the space of one month he alledged the cutting the tenth of April and the lying open untill the second of May which was not a month And upon Not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and upon motion in Arrest of Iudgment it was awarded that the Defendant eat inde sine die and no costs And the Lord Hobart said that this Statute was made for the ease of the Subject and for avoiding and preventing of vexations and therfore did enumerate all the cases in which the Informer could not prevail and had many words that the Statute of 23 of H. 8. or any other Statute doth not give expresly costs upon demurrer and this is not within 23 H. 8. if upon discontinuance And now the matter passe against the informer be it by Verdict or Iudgment all is one for the makers of this Statute intended to curb all vexatious Informers And if it shall be suffered that Informers may inform upon Statutes not in force and pay no costs that would open a Window to the great vexation of the Subjects And for Presidents not inflicted upon they are of little esteem And I concurred and though Verdict be found for the Informer yet there being no Statute there can be no Offence and it is in Law as not guilty And this case is within the meaning and Letter of the Statute for the Statute intend costs where the cause passe against the Informer be it by default of matter or form Winch doubted of this speciall case because the matter is found for the Informer but he agreeh if it were upon Iudgment upon demurrer or speciall Verdict costs should be given And Iustice Warburton was of opinion that there should be no costs in this case for he is not capable to sue where the Statute is discontinued And so if the Venue be misawarded and he said that he had conference with the Lord chief Baron who also held that there should be no costs in this case And so the matter rests Blackburnes Case Norff. Debt AN action of Debt was brought by I. S. against Blackburne upon a Lease for a year and so from year to year And upon Nil debet pleaded the Iury gave a speciall Verdict to this effect A Devise to a Feme of a term upon condition Wells seised of Land in Fee devised them to his Daughter and her Heirs when she come to the age of eighteen years and that his Wife should take the profits of the Land to her use without any account to be made untill the Daughter come to the age of eighteen years And made his Wife his Executor and died And it was provided that the Wife should pay the old Rent and find the Daughter at School untill she could read and write English the Feme enters and proves the Will takes Husband and dies the Husband assign this term to the Lessor who brought this Action And it was found that all the Conditions were performed and that the Daughter was within the said age of eighteen viz. thirteen years And the sole question was whether it be a term for years in the Wife and whether when she takes Husband he shall have it after the death of his Wife and it was ruled clearly that it is and it being by Will it is a good Lease Another question was if this trust of Education be Quasi a Limitation personall and with intent that the Lease shall not be to the Wife any longer then she may educate her Daughter And it was agreed that it was not for any one may educate her and find her at School and there it is without any default in the Wife for it is the act of God and therfore Judgment for the Plaintiff Trin. 17 Jac. Whittingtons Case IVdgment in Debt against Ferdinand Earl of Derby Scire facias Sci. fac by the Baron and Feme the death of one of them shall abate it at the Suit of I. Whittington and his Wife she being Administrator to her Husband who had the Iudgment who brought a Sci. fac upon the Iudgment against 30. Ter-tenants they appear and all besides 3. plead that at the time of the Iudgment Ferdinand the Earl was seised in tail c. And the Plaintiff had Iudgment against the three with a cesset executio and afterwards Whittington the Husband died and this is surmised and entred vpon Record viz. the death of the Baron after the Darrein continuance and whether the Writ shall abate or no was the question And per totam Curiam the Writ shall abate for the Wife there cannot recover as a Feme sole and though this Writ be judiciall yet it is in nature of an Originall for she might have had an action of debt upon the Iudgment and ought to have that action solely after the year untill the Statute of Westminster 2. which give Scire facias and to this Writ they may plead But in Writs Iudiciall which are only Writs for the doing of execution there the death of one shall not abate it vide 19 Ass 10. 25 E 3. and vide Reads case Coke lib 10. fol. 134. Ruggles Case IN Ruggles Case upon the motion of Serjeant Arthure upon the Statute of 1 Jacobi cap. 15. concerning Bankrupts How the distribution of the Estate of a Bankrupt shall be a Commission was sued out by some of the Creditors and they pursued it and the Land was sold and it being opposed they defended their severall Suits and prevailed by a tryall at Bar And after other Creditors which before would neither partake nor aid them came and prayed to be joyned with them And the Commissioners doubted upon the Statute whether they might allow them to be joyned and the words of the Statute are That it shall be lawfull for any of the Creditors of the Bankrupt within four months after the Commission sued forth and till distribution shall be made by the said Commissioners for the payment of the Bankrupts Debts as in such case hath been used to partake and joyn with other Creditors that shall sue out the said Commission the said Creditors so joyning to contribute to the charges of the said Commission and if the Creditors came not in within four months then the Commissioners to have power to distribute It was resolved that the Commissioners may sell and prepare for distribution presently upon the execution of the Commission but untill the four months are passed they may not proceed to distribution for the Creditors which inhabite in the remote part of the Realm peradventure cannot have notice and it may be carried so secretly that if they might distribute presently that they which sued out the Commission should be only satisfied when indeed there was no default in the others Also it was resolved that the offer of Creditors to be joyned and before they be partakers is not an affectuall offer without offering to be contributory
font and twenty years that then I. S. shall have the Land and it shall be good vide Dyer 33. Coke lib 10.46 Lampets case But Tuesday the eleventh of February the Lord Hobart by our direction because that we were streightned of time and Howell was so importunate for Iustice that we could not argue delivered the opinion of the Court that Iudgment should be given for the Defendant And he declared that as to the point of a Fee-simple which he called the mounting of one Fee-simple upon another we now declared no opinion But we all without difficulty resolved that this release of Noy be it a Condition or not had discharged it And as to him it is an Interest used by the Devise but not executed untill it happen And therfore in Lampers case there the Release discharged it for there he had no Title executed but vested and commenced and so may have Noy Howell the Plaintiff in this case and it is not like to an Heir in the life of the Father for be is a stranger and he hath no Title at all and yet his Release with Warranty bars him and here this Release is accompanied with Warranty of which nothing was spoken Also as to Noy it is a Condition according to the words of the Will and therfore sans question that Noy had barred himself The Vacation after Hil. 20 Jac. MEmorand That on Munday the seventeenth of February at Serjeants Inn upon the assembly of all the Iustices to take consideration upon the Statute of 35 Eliz. cap. 1. for the Abjuration of Sectaries the Atturney-generall and Serjeant Crew being there Resolutions upon the Statute of Eliz. cap. 1. concerning Sectaries after the perusall of the Statute and the Continuances therof it was first upon debate considered whether this Statute was in force or discontinued and upon the perusall of the Proviso in the Statute of Subsidy and upon reasoning the matter these Points were resolved 1. If a Parliament be assembled and divers Orders made What shall be said a Session of Parliament and a Writ of Error brought and the Record delivered to the higher house and divers Bills agreed but no Bills signed That this is but a Convention and no Parliament or Session as it was An. 12 Jac. in which as it was affirmed by them which had seen the Roll it is entred that it is not any Session or Parliament because that no Bill was signed vide 33 H 6 Brook Parliament 86. every Session in which the King signes Bills is a Parliament 2. It was agreed that if divers Statutes be continued untill the next Parliament or next Session and there is a Parliament or a Session and nothing done therin as to continuance all the said Statutes are discontinued Beriatim Jones Chamberlain Hutton Denham Haughton Dodderidge Winch and Bromley declared their opinions that this Statute is discontinued And that the Statute of Subsidy is a Parliament and that every Parliament is a Session but not e converso for one Parliament may have divers Sessions as the Parliament 1 Jac had four and ended An 7 Jac. vide 33 H 6. Br. Parliament 86. And that this Proviso is not to any other purpose but to continue their proceedings in the same Estate as if this Act had not been made and if this Proviso had not been then this Statute had been discontinued by this act of Subsidy but when this ends and is determined then is the Session ended then it is a Session scilicet a Parliament which ought to be pleaded at the Parliament holden c. and all the Commissions of Subsidy are accordingly and the Proviso call it a Session Then this being done the Lord chief Baron did not deliver any opinion for he said that he had not considered the Statute and afterward it was desired that the Lords would deliver their opinions and therupon the Lord Hobart declared his opinion accordingly That it seemed to him that it was a Session and that it was not safe to meddle with such Law and that he would never refuse to declare his opinion with his Brethren After the Lord chiefe Iustice Ley made a long discourse concerning the purpose and intent of Parliament scilicet That it was not their purpose to destroy so good Lawes and therfore it was not any such Session as was within the intent of the preceding Parliament which was that these should determine when it is a Parliament or Session in which good Lawes are made And Doderidge said that it was fit to see the Commission and that that which hath been said was not to bind any one but every one spoke what then he was advised of and peradventure might change upon better consideration And afterwards upon Tuesday on an Assembly of the two chief Iustices the chief Baron Iustice Haughton Baron Denham Hutton Chamberlain and Jones the Attorney-generall brought the Commission de 12 El. June 1. and that had these words Pro eo quod nullus Regalis Assensus nec responsio per nos praestat fuit nullum Parliamentum nec aliqua Sessio Parliamenti lata aut tent fuit They have power to adjourn this Parliament thus begun And the Commission to dissolve this Parliament 38. Feb. An. 19 Jac. had the same words saving that he recite that he had given his Royall assent to an act of Subsidy by which was intended that it should not be a Session And upon view of the Commission the Lord chief Iustice moved that the King was mistaken in this that he had given power to dissolve this Parliament which had not any Session and if it be a Session then he had no power to dissolve it and then it is as it were a recesse and a Parliament cannot be discontinued or dissolved but by matter of Record and that by the King alone and if the Parliament yet continue then this Statute also continue during the Parliament by the Proviso but that would not serve for first it is against the intent of the King and against his Proclamation And also the case is truly put in the Commission as to the matter in fact and he is not mis-informed but mistaken in the Law and then the Commission for the dissolving is good semblable to the Lord Shandoi's Case and other Cases vide in Cholmleys case But because that all the Iudges were not at this Conference therfore it was deferred untill the next Term and in the interim the Grand Secretary and the Attorney-generall were to inform the King that the Statute is obscure and had not been put in ure and that we could not agree Mich. 20 Jac. Rot. 2805. Bawtry versus Skarlet Sussex JOhn Bawtry Clerk Case brought an action upon the case against Benjamen Skarlet one of the Attorneys of this Court by Bill and count In consideration that the Plaintiff will confesse Judgment the Attorney promise to defer the entry of the Judgment c. that wheras one William Carter Trin. 20 Jac.
and diversity of opinion which was between the Lord chief Justice and the Lord Hobart the now Lord Keeper and the Lords by an Order respited this matter as to the Fine of the Plaintiff and gave damages to the Defendant and referred it to the opinion of all the Justices And they all una voce except Iustice Harvey who insisted upon the damages given to the party that they should not be pardoned agreed that the Contempt and Offence for the scandalous Bill exhibited was pardoned and not within the Exception for it cannot be intended that the Plaintiff exhibited a Bill upon which he should not be fined but this exception was of that which was laid to the charge of the Defendant and the Defendant may have his remedy at Common Law and the Contempt which is accidentall to the Offence is pardoned and by consequence the Fine Pasch 2 Car. Crane versus Crampton Case CRane brought an action upon the case sur assumpsit against Crampton and count that in consideration of moneys paid the Defendant did assume to give to the Plaintiff a Ruff-band at the day of his marriage And he alledged in facto that such a day and at such a place he was married Notice and that the Defendant notwithstanding that he was requested such a day and a year after the said marriage had not given to the Plaintiff the said Ruff And upon Non assumpsit it was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff had not alledged any notice given to the Defendant of his marriage And by the opinion of me and my two Brothers Harvey and Yelverton Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff For the Defendant ought to take notice therof at his perill unlesse he had provided to deliver the Ruff after marriage and after notice therof for if he ought to have notice no place being agreed upon where it shall be given then he should be compelled to enquire and to find him and give notice and paradventure he could never give him notice Also it is agreed if one be obliged to pay to another twenty pounds within three months after he come from Rome there shall no notice be given of his return but the Obligor ought to take notice at his perill And if it were with a Condition that I. S. that is not party to the Obligation shall do such a thing there shall not be notice And this case of an Obligation is more strong for there is a penalty and if it were to pay ten pounds when a Fair shall be at Dale there he ought to take notice And they agreed the case of 8 E 4. fol. _____ an Obligation to perform an Arbitrement there no notice is necessary for it is the act of a third person And if any notice be requisite the Request imply it as it was adjudged in the Kings Bench between Hodges and Baldwin Hodges and Baldwins case But my Brother Crook seemed to be of a contrary opinion for when the duty arise upon the notice there notice ought to be Iudgment pro Querente Laicon versus Barnard Lincoln LAicon Plaintiff against Barnard one of the Attorneys of this Court Case for Trover and Conversion of a hundred Sheep the Defendant said that he brought Debt in the County Court of Lincoln Recovery in trespass for taking of goods is no baâ— to an action upon the case sur trover against one Hacliff for two hundred and eighty pounds upon an Obligation by Iustices and recovered and that these Sheep were delivered to him in Execution as the Sheep of the said Hacliff And that afterwards and before this action the Plaintiff brought an action of Trespasse against the now Defendant for taking of these Sheep Quare caepit abduxit And it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages to two pence And averred that they were the same Sheep and the Plaintiff replyed that the Damages found by the Iury were only for the taking and chasing and not for the value And that this Action was for another Trespasse wherupon the Defendant demurred and it was adjudged for the Plaintiff for for any thing that appears which the Defendant hath confessed upon his Demurrer it is not for the same Trespasse Also the Damages of two pence cannot be given for the value of the Sheep Also the Plaintiff when a Trespasse is done to him may retake his Goods and yet he shall have an action of Trespasse for the taking of them And every taking viz. abduxit import a chasing and no man will say that by the recovery in Trespasse when the Plaintiff had his Goods that therby the Defendant shall have the property But it is true that if the Plaintiff recover the value therby he waves the property and by this way the Defendant shall have the property vide 2 R. 3. 14. 4 H 7. 5. 6 H 7. 8. and Iudgment for the Plaintiff Yelverton at first baesitavit but afterwards agreed Pasch 2 Car. Wades Case AN action upon the case was brought by a Feme Case as Administratrir against the Lady Wade Executrix of Sir William Wade Non assumpsit was pleaded the Venire facias was well but the Hab Corp. Nisi pr. was entred the Plaintiff Where the Nisi prius shall be amended c. and the Defendant Executrix of Sir H Wade c. And it was amended by the Court and there was the difference taken that when the Nisi prius is so mistaken that if it should be amended the Iury should be prejudiced viz. that it may falsifie their Verdict then it shall not be amended but in this case it is but the Writ by which the Iury is warned to appear And the authority of the Iustice of Nisi prius is not by that but by the Juras which was well and as it ought to be Also they have their Authority by the Statute of Westm 2. vide Dyet 106. In Wootons Case there the Jurat was well and omitted in the Nisi prius Anthony Coke Also the Issue was between Wooton and Cooke and Temple where Temple had confessed the action vide there that many omissions of the Record of Nisi prius are to be amended Brown was of the contrary opinion to Walsh Weston and Dyer Trin. 2 Car. Farrington versus Arrundell Entred Hil. 22 Jac. Rot. 4462. Debt AN action of Debt was brought by Lionell Farrington Qui tam pro se quam pro Domino Rege Debt upon a penall Statute is not gone by the death of the King c. against Thomas Arrundell upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. for not coming to Church and the Defendant demurred upon the Count And then King James died And if this action be abated or not by the death of the King was the Question Vide the Statute of the 1 E. 6. cap. 7. vide Coke lib 7. fol 30. And concerning this was diversity of opinion in the Common Bench for my Brother
proceed by fiue to enforce him to lay it open yet these Affirmative Customs do not toll the Negative And to prove that the Lord had an Inheritance therin he vouched 14 E 2. Fitz. Grant 92. A Rent granted to one and his Heirs out of the Mannor of Dale which he hold of the Mannor of D. this is an Inheritance And if this shall not be a forfeiture then this Customary Inheritance which the Lord had in the feild-course might be tolled at the will and pleasure of the Copyholder Serjeant Hitcham argued strongly to the contrary First That it is no Inclosure because that all is not inclosed Secondly The forfeiture of a Copyhold is alwaies by some thing done to the Copyhold land it self but this is done as it is supposed to the feild-course of the Lord which is not Copyhold and it is better for the Copyhold and makes the land better and also the Feild-course is therby made better and more beneficiall to the Lord and therfore the Copyhold land is not altered but is meliorated and it is like so the case in Dyer 361. Althams case after no Wast done the Evidence was that a Trench was made in a Meadow by which the Meadow was Meliorated and adjudged no wast which might be given in evidence But he said that in Brooks case at the first comming of Popham to be chief Iustice it was adjudged that if a Copyholder build a new house it is a forfeiture for that altoreth the nature of the thing and put the Lord to more charge So if Tenant for yeare makes a Hay-yard in the land that is wast He said that this Custom is qualified by taking a Fine if he would or by imposing a pain in the Court to enforce the Defendant to lay it open And all the Court were of opinion that this is no forfeiture for the reasons before and that this Feild-course is a thing which commence by agreement and is but a Covenant and not of common right And Forfeitures which are odious in Law shall be taken strickly Trin. 5 Car. Starkey versus Tayler Case STarkey an Atterney of this Court brought an action upon the case against one Mr. Tayler of Lincolns Inn for saying of these words to him Words Thou art a common Barretor and a Judas and a Promoter And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that these words maintain not action for the generality and uncertainty that he shall be called a common Barretor And the chief Iustice seemed to be of opinion that those words are not more then if he had said That he was a common Brabler or Quarreller But it was urged by Serjeant Hicham that the action lies and that it is a generall Rule Quod sermo relatur ad personam As in Birchley's Case He is a corrupt man And in Mores Case it was said of an Attorney That he was a cousening Knave And if these words were spoken of a common person he doubted if they were actionable but being spoken of an Attorney action lies And if these words were spoken of Iudge without doubt they were actionable And in this case being spoken of an Attorney who is a Minister of Iustice and who hath the Causes of his Clients in his hands to gain them or to lose them The Statute of Westminster saies the Sheriffs are charged to expell all Barretors out of their Countries And in the Statute of 34 E. 3. is the description of a common Barretor and his punishment who is a stirrer of false and unjust Suits and that he shall be imprisoned during the pleasure of the King bound to his good behaviour and fined And Littleton in his Chapter of Warranties faith they are hired to keep Possessions and therfore an action lies But to say of another man That he is a common Barretor is not actionable unlesse he saith that he is convicted Hil. 3 Car Rot. 1302. Watt versus Maydewell Leicest WIlliam Watt brought an Ejectione firmae against Laurence Maydewell Where acceptance of a new Lease for years makes a surrender of the former upon a Lease made by Robert Rome upon Not guilty and a speciall Verdict found the Case was thus Francis Griffith seised of Land in Fee by Indenture bearing date the fourteen of November and 14 Iac. demised the said Land wherof c. for one and forty years to Robert Rome rendring two shillings Rent to commence from the Annunciation which shall be An 1619. and after the same year by another Indenture bearing date the third of December 15 Iac. to commence from the Annunciation last demised the same Lands for ninety nine years to Dame Frances Perroint who entred and was therof possessed And after that the said Francis Griffith by another Indenture the same year bearing date the fourteen day of November 16 Iac. to commence from the seventeenth of November An. 1619. devise it to the said Robert Rome for one and forty years who accepted it and afterwards entred and being possessed made his Will and appointed Executors and died the Executors administred and made the Lease to the Plaintiff who was possessed untill he was ousted by the Defendant And the only question of this Case was if the acceptance of the second Lease by Robert Rome had determined discharged or extinguished the former Lease And after Argument it was adjudged for the Plaintiff the reason was because that by the Lease made to the Lady Perpoint for ninety nine years and her Entry Francis Griffith had but a Reversion and could not by his Contract made afterwards with Robert Rome give any Interest to Robert Rome This Lease made to Robert Rome viz. his former Lease was good in Interest being to commence at a day to come and is grantable over and may be surrendred or determined by matter in Law before the Commencement therof as if he take a new Lease to commence presently which see in 37 H. 6. 29. 22 E. 4. for it tuures in Contract And in this case it had been without question that the taking of the new Lease had been a surrender of the former if it were not by reason of the Lease for ninety nine years which is for so great a number of years that disables him to contract for one and forty years 37 H. 6. 17. 18. 14 H. 7. 3. Dyer 140. Vide Smith and Stapletons case in Plowden If a man makes a Lease for one and twenty years and after makes a Lease for one and twenty yeares by Paroll that is meerly void but if the second Lease had beene by Deed and hee had procured the former Lease to Attorn he shall have the Reversion vide Ive's Case Coke lib 5. fol 11. there it is adjudged that the acceptance of a Leese for years to Commence at a day to come is a present surrender of a former Lease These Cases were vouched in this Case Baker and Willoughby Serjeant Bakers Case in the Court of Wards with the Lady Willoughby that a
use of the said Robert and Isaac and their Heirs for ever by force therof and of the Statute 27 H 8. they were seised of the said Rent in Fee and after the said Robert died and Isaac survived and is yet seised Per jus Accrescendi and for Rent arrear c. and for the said forfeiture of forty shillings they avow wherupon the Plaintiff demur And upon Conference between the Iudges they all agreed that by this Fine which granted to Brook and Jermy and the Heirs of Brook to the use of Brook and Jermy and their Heirs that they were in by the Statute of 27 H 8. and were Ioyn-tenants of the Rent for otherwise there would be such a Fraction of the Estato that Brook should be in by the Common Law and Jermy by the Statute and that is not according to the Statute And it appears that the use was limited by the Fine it self and not by any Indenture And the principall reason is upon the Statute of 27 H 8. which is where two or three are seised to the use of one or two of them Cestui que uâ—e shall be adjudged to have such Estate in possession as they have in use Iudgment pro Defendent Memorand That in this Term a motion was made for the filing of a Writ of Entry in a Common Recovery suffered by Sir John Smith upon a Purchase and all was well done and the Writ made and sealed Filing of a Writ of Entry many Termes after but by the negligence of the Attorney it was not filed and it was Unanimo assensu resolved that it should be filed and that after the death of Sir John Smith for it is but to perfect a Common Recovery which is a Common Conveyance And this was denied in the case of one Allonson for there Error was brought and Diminution alledged and a Certificate that there was no Writ by the Custos brevium And it is ordinary to file these Writs at any time within a year without motion Mich. 8 Car. Harbert versus Angell CHarles Harbert Plaintiff against Angell Case Words in an action upon the case of words which were Thou art a Theef and hast cousened my Cosin Baldwin of his Land And after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the words would not maintain action And at the first Iustice Crawley and Iustice Vernon were of opinion that the former part of the words were actionable and that they were not extenuated by the subsequent words but they agreed if it had been for thou hast robbed c. it would be otherwise And the Lord Heath and Iustice Hutton were of a contrary opinion and that the words And and For are in this case to have one effect and declare what Theef he intended And they relyed on Birtridges case Coke lib 4. And upon this diversity of opinion the Lord Heath conferred with the Iustices of Serjeants Inn in Fleetstreet and we with the Lord Richardson and they all agreed that the subsequent words explained his intent and meaning viz. the Robbery and cousening of the Land And Verba sunt accipienda in mitiori sensu As to say Thou hast stoln my Corn it shall be intended Com growing so in Arrowes case Arrowes case 19 Jac. Thou art a Theef and hast stoln ten Cart-loads of my Furzes adjudged not actionable for it shall be intended of Furzes growing Quaerens nil capiat per breve Ram versus Lamley Norff. RAm brought an action upon the case against Lamley and declared That wheras he was Bonus legalis homo and free a suspitione feloniae the Defendant maliciously want to the Major of Linn and requested a Warrant of him being a Iustice of Peace against the Plaintiff for stealing his Ropes The Major said to him Be advised and look what you do the Defendant said to the Major Sir Words I will charge him with flat Felony for stealing my Ropes from my Shop Quorum quidem verborum c. And after Not guilty pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff Hitcham moved in Arrest of Iudgment And the Court unanimously resolved that these words being spoken to the Iustice of Peace when he came for his Warrant which was lawfull would not maintain an action for if they should no other would come to a Iustice to make complaint and to inform him of any Felony Quaerens nil capiat per breve Mich. 8 Car. Lamb versus West Trin. 8 Car. Rot. 333. SIr John Lamb Knight brought Replevin against Thomas West and count Replevin that the Defendant took his Beasts at Blisworth in quodam loco vocat Thorny Close The Defendant avowed as Bayliff to Sir William Sheapherd and derived Title by a Lease to Michael West for ninety years if he and Thomas West the Defendant Demand of Rent and one Hutton West should so long live And the said Michael 19. Aprilis An 20 Jac. granted a Rent-charge of ten pounds per annum to the said William Shepheard and his Executors out of the place in which c. for the residue of his Tearm to be paid at the house of Thomas West in S. And the said Mich. granted that if the Rent he arrear by eight and twenty daies being lawfully demanded at the said house he should forfeit twenty shillings for every day that it should he arrear and if it be arrear by six months being lawfully demanded at the said house then he might distrain for that and the Nomine poenae And for Rent arrear by a year after demand due c. he makes Conuzance And therupon the Plaintiff demurred generalls And after many Arguments at Bar the Iustices delivered shortly their opinions severally and all argued that it is a Rent-charge and then a Distresse is incident to a Rent-charge which is in its creation a Rent-charge as well as if one makes a Lease for life or years rendring Rent and if it be lawfully demanded then it shall be lawfull to distrain for it None will deny but that he may distrain for this Rent without any demand And the diversity is between a Penalty and a Rent for if the Avowry had been for any part of the Nomine poenae then without actuall demand at the day he could not have distrained therfore vide Maunds case Coke lib 7. fol 28. And all agreed that when a Distresse is for Homage if it be once tendred and refused he cannot distrain without demand vide Litt 34. 21 E 4. 6. 16 17. 7. E 4. 4. That where a Rent is reserved upon a Lease and an Obligation to pay it yet that alters not the nature of the Rent 22 H 6. a good case Rent is reserved upon a Lease and an Obligation to perform Covenants that extends not to the Rent reserved but if it be to pay the Rent then it shall be demanded there it is said that if Rent be tendred and refused the Lord or Lessor may distrain without demand It was agreed that
shall be indicted shall not have Councell And the Attorney Generall was commanded to report our opinion to the King And this hapned to be demanded upon the generall inconvenience that might after ensue in the Case of the Earl of Bristoll to whom the King had allowed Councell Mich. 3 Car. MEmorand That the fifth of November at Serjeants Inne in Fleet-street there assembled the Lord Hide Lord Richardson Lord Walter Iustice Doderidge Baron Denham Iustice Hutton Iustice Jones Resolves concerning Souldiers Iustice Whitlock Iustice Harvey Iustice Crook Iustice Yelverton and Baron Trevor to consider of a Case which was propounded which was One receives Presse-money to serve the King in his Wars and is in the Kings Wages and with others is delivered to a Conductor to be brought to the Sea-side and with-draweth himself and runneth away without license The Question was if it were Felony And time being given before to advise concerning it all agreed besides Yelverton and my self that it was Felony And the sole question is if a Conductor be a Captain within the 7 H 7. cap 1. and the 3 H 8. cap 5. And they said that it is not necessary that he should be such a Captain as is to lead and command them in the War or that hath skill to instruct But such as hath the leading of them by agreement between the Deputy Lievtenants and them and that ought to provide for the Billeting of them and to carry them to the place of Randesvous And one part of a Captain is to conduct although that Conduxit be properly to hire a Souldier yet this name Conductor with whom it is so agreed by Indenture to conduct the Souldiers is a Captain within the intent of those Statutes and if it should not be so these Statutes which are for the defence of the Realm shall be of little force But it was agreed by them that if these Conductors which are so called of late times be hired to carry them but to one place and there another Conductor to receive them this is not within the Statute And it ought to be such a Conductor that can give license upon just cause to proceed It was said that they used to send Captains into the Country but then they were so chargable to the Country and full of disorder that upon complaint of the Iustices of Peace about 43 Eliz. this course was invented viz. That the Deputy Lievtenants should provide for them that were pressed for Coats and Conduct and they sent their Souldiers to a place appointed to be delivered to certain persons whom the Queen appointed to receive them And it was said that though this Case as it is propounded might be cleer yet there are many Circumstances which ought to be proved and that are loft to the discretion of them before that he should be tryed It was unanimously agreed that if one takes Presse-money and when he should be delivered over he withdraw himself that is not Felony although he is hired and retained to serve But my Brother Yelverton I were of opinion that this new name newly invented is not Captain within these penall Statutes which ought to be taken strictly vide Plowden 86. that penalties which concern life shall not be taken by equity but if they be within the words of the Statute then they shall As to kill his Mistresse is within the words for Mistresse is Master Another reason was that the Statutes provide punishment for Captains which want of their number or which pay not their Souldiers within six daies after they have received their pay upon pain of forfeiting all their Goods And the Statute did not intend other Captains in this point then was in the former and latter part therof But admitting that a Conductor is such a one to whom the Souldiers are delivered by Indenture with all Covenants usuall viz. To pay to them their Wages and to convey them to their appointed place and that he may give license to depart yet they agreed that it is the better and clearer way that they should be made Captains and so named in the Indentures for the King may change the Captain at his pleasure and then it should be no question It was agreed that 7 H 7. cap 1. extends only to them who are retained and pressed to serve the King upon the Sea or upon the Land beyond the Sea And the Statute of 3 H 8. cap 5. adds only the Land here And the Statute makes departure without license from the Captain Felony and the Statute 3 H 8. without license from the Lievtenant And the Statute of 7 H 7. makes the tryall to be in the County where they shall be taken before the Iustices of the Shire as they may try other Felonies within their Commission The Statute of 3 H 8. makes their tryall before the Iustices of the County where they are taken and this being a new Felony and made tryable against the Common Law which appoint tryals by Iurors of the County where the Fact is committed and appoint a speciall Iudge viz. Iustices of Peace that is only tryable before them and not before Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer who cannot try any thing but that which is done in the same County But this if all be not done in that County where they are taken makes it tryable only before the Iustices of Peace of the County where they are taken In this point all were not resolved but required longer-time vide 2 Inst 56. Sir Richard Champions Case A Writ of Covenant is prosecuted Jan 23. returnable Oct. Purisicat A Fine of Oct. Puris where the Caption was Feb. 14. 1. The Dedimus potestatem is tested 23 Jan the Iudge certifie the Concord takes Febr. 14. which is two daies after the Term at which time the Writ of Covenant is not depending the Fine is haec est finalis Concordia facta in Oct. Purif And after it is recorded in 15 Pasch and yet adjudged a good Fine vide the Statute of 23 Eliz. 3. Dyer 220. b. Carels Case Mich. 4 Car. Jones versus Powell JOhn Jones Plaintiff against James Powell Defendant in an action â—â— on the Case for a Nusance count That the Plaintiff 10. August 1 Caroli was and is and for forty years last past hath been possessed for divers years yet during of a Messuage Nusans 1. in which he and his family did by the time aforesaid dwell And by all that time hath been Register to the Bishop of Gloc. and kept his Office there that the said Defendant the tenth day of August and ever since hath held in possession another house over against the Plaintiffs And they being so possessed the Defendant the said 10. of Aug. erected a Brew-house and a Privy in the said house and burned Sea-coles in the said Brew-house so that by the Smoke stench and unwholsome vapors coming from the said Coles and Privy the Plaintiff and his family cannot dwell in the said house