King Edw. the 3. bereaving the King and Commonwealth of these great benefits and commodities is against the Law and so ought to be repealed And day was given accordingly to put in their Plea At which time many of the old Merchants-Adventurers being willing that trial should be made whether the benefit intended unto the Commonwealth might be compassed did shew to their obedience unto the King and desire of the good of their Country Surrender up their Patent into the hands of his Majesty since which time it being found by experience that the project had not that success which they expected and likewise Cloth and Wooll lay dead because there was no vent for them abroad The King according to his power reserved unto him in his Patent by which he erected and created the new Company of Merchants Adventurers of London did make repeal and revocation of the said New Patent and new Company and did redeliver unto the old Merchants their Patent confirming it and likewise by another Charter did enlarge the Liberties and Priviledges of the old Merchants by reason of which Grace of the King the old Company of Merchants-Adventurers of England are reestablished in that estate wherein they formerly were and they do now trade again as formerly they did to the great content of the Subject and benefit of the King and Country Certifying Indictments upon Certioraries IOhn Forner Iohn Evans and divers others being Indicted before Sir Thomas Hayes Lord Mayor of London Sir Henry Mountague Serjeant unto the King and Recorder of London Sir Thomas Lowe and divers others by vertue of a Commission granted unto them a Certiorari was directed unto them as Justices of Peace out of the Kings Bench for the certifying the said Indictment upon which Certiorari no return was made whereupon a second Certiorari was awarded unto the said Commissioners commanding them to certifie the said Indictment upon a pain upon which Certiorari a return was made in this manner That is to say that King H. 6. in the 23. year of his Reign by his Letters Patents bearing the same date did grant unto the Mayor Aldermen and Sheriffs of London that they should not be compelled upon any Writ directed unto them to certifie the Indictments themselves taken before them but only the Tenors of them the which they have done accordingly and Exception being taken unto this Return for the insufficiency of it it was resolved by Sir Edward Cook Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Sir Iohn Crook Sir Iohn Doddridg and Sir Robert Haughton that the return upon the reasons hereafter following was insufficient For first the Letters Patents being granted unto them by the name of the Mayor Aldermen and Sheriffs of the City of London warranteth only the not certifying of Indictments taken before them as Mayor Aldermen and Sheriffs of London and where the Writ is directed unto them by that name and they do not excuse them in Case where the Writ is directed unto them as Justices of Peace and where the Indictments are taken before them as Justices of Peace by virtue of the Kings Commission And howsoever the Mayor and Aldermen are Justices of Peace by Charter yet insomuch that they are distinct powers return made by them by the name of Mayor and Aldermen where the Writ is directed unto them as Justices of Peace will not be good Secondly there being a Resumption made by Act of Parliament in 28. H. 6. whereby all Lands Tenements Grants Rent and Fees granted since the first day of his Reign were resumed the Letters Patents made in 23. H. 6. unto the Mayor and Commonalty are annihilated and made void and so no hold may be taken of them and the Statute made in 1. Edw. 4. cap. 1. only confirmes those priviledges not heretofore revoked and repealed by Act of Parliament or otherwise and howsoever there be a Charter made by H. 7. in the first year of his Reign whereby restitution was granted of this priviledge yet no advantage may be taken of it because it was not spoken of upon the return and the Court may not intend it Thirdly the Letters Patents of the King being the sole ground and foundation to make the return good are not sufficiently returned unto the Court insomuch that it was said upon the return only that the King by his Letters Patents did grant unto the Mayor Commonalty and Sheriffs of London that they should not be compelled to certifie the Indictments themselves but it doth not appear that they were sealed with the Grand Seal and if they were not sealed with that Seal the Letters Patents may not be of any validity in Law howsoever they were sealed with the Exchequer Seal or Dutchy Seal in respect of which they may well be called the Letters Pattents of the King Fourthly the use hath alwayes been to remove Indictments and the Record of them upon a Certiorari awarded out of the Kings Bench and there was never any denial made of it before this time and in 5. Ed. 6. where a Certiorari was directed unto them for the removing of an Indictment of a Woman which was Indicted for being a common Whore the Indictment was certified in obedience unto the Writ although in the end of the return they shewed their Charter and prayed that it might be remanded because it was an Indictment only warrantable by the custome of the City and not by the Common Law And the Court was of opinion in the return at the Bar to have imposed a Fine and to have awarded a third Certiorari but it was stayed and the second return was amended Concerning Orphans Portions THe custome of London is that if any Freeman deviseth and or other Legacies of goods unto an Orphan that then the Mayor and Aldermen have used to take the profits of the Land and to have the disposition of the Legacies until such time as the Legatees shall attain unto the age of twenty one years or otherwise being a woman should be married and if the disposition of the profits of the Lands or of the personal Legacies were declared by the Testator in his Will that then the Mayor and Aldermen have used time out of mind of man to convent the person trusted by the Will of the Testator before them and to compel him to find Sureties for the true performance of the Legacies according to the Law of the Realm and the Will of the Testator and if they refuse to find Sureties then it is lawful to imprison them until they find Sureties The Widow of a Freeman of London dwelling in Middlesex bequeathed a Legacy of a thousand pound unto her Daughter after all Debts and Legacies paid and upon condition that she should not marry without the assent of her Executor and maketh a Freeman her Executor and dieth The Executor is convented before the Court of Mayor and Aldermen and required to put in Sureties unto the Chamberlain of London according to the
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
the Parish of Grace-Church street London for which house a rent of five pound yearly hath been reserved time out of mind in the third year of the King that now is by Indenture doth make a Lease for five years unto one Withers of part of the House and of the Shop rendring the Rent of five pound by the year at the four usual Feasts that is to say at the Feast of the Annuciation c. by even and equal portions And in the same Indenture it is further covenanted and agreed that Withers the Leassee shall pay unto Burrel the Leassor a hundred fifty pound in name of a Fine and Income the which said hundred and fifty pound is to be paid in manner and form following that is to say thirty pound yearly and every year during the said term at the four usual Feasts by even and equal portions the term of five years expired the said Burrel in the tenth year of the said King by Indenture maketh a new Lease for the term of seven years of the said part of the house and the Ware-house unto one Goff rendring the rent of five pound by the year at the Feast of S. Michael the Archangel and the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary by even and equal portions And in the same Indenture it is further covenanted and agreed that Goff shall pay unto the said Burrell 175. l. in the name of a Fine and Income in manner and form following that is to say twenty five pound yearly during the said teâ—m at the said two usual Feasts by even and equal portions Dunn Parson of Grace-Church exhibiteth his Petition unto the then Lord Mayor of London against the said Burrel and Goff wherein he supposeth that Tythes are paid unto him only according to the rate of five pound by the year where in truth he ought to have an allowance according unto the rate of thirty pound by the year The Lord Mayor by the advice of his Councel doth call the said Burrell and Goff before him and upon full hearing of the said cause doth order the pâ—yment unto Dunn according unto the rates of five pound by the year and not according to the rate of thirty pound by the year whereupon the said Dunn doth exhibit his Bill of Appeal unto the Lord Chancellour of England in the Chancery wherein he doth make a recital of the Decree made and established by Act of Parliament in 37. H. cap. 12. and also of the case special as it standeth charging the said Goff and Burrell with a practice of fraud and covin in the reservation of this twenty five pound by year by way of Fine and Income and defrauding him of that which belonged unto him The said Goff and Burrell do make their answer and shew that the rent of five pound by the year is the ancient rent reserved and that they are ready and have often tendred the payment of their Tythes according to that proportion but it hath been denied to be accepted and they do take a traverse unto the fraud and covin wherewith they stand charged And upon this answer Dunn the Parson demurreth in Law And this case was first argued in the Chancery by Sir Francis Moor Serjeant and Thomas Crew on the behalf of Dunn and by Sir Anthony Benn late Recorder of London and Iohn Walter on the part of the Defendants The Lord Chancellour having called Sir Henry Mountague Cheif Justice of the Kings Bench Sir Henry Hobart Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Iohn Doddridg one of the Justices of the Kings Bench and Sir Richard Hutton one of the Justices of the Common Pleas to be his Assistants and after two Arguments heard on each side in the Chancery upon Suit made to the King by Sir Francis Bacon then Lord Chancellour of England a special Commission was granted unto Thomas Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Sir Francis Bacon Lord Chancellour of England Thomas Earl of Suffolk late Lord Preasurer of England Edward Earl of Warwick Keeper of the Privy Seal William Earl of Pembrook Lord Chamberlain of the Kings houshold Iohn Bishop of London Bishop of Eli Sir Henry Mountague Sir Iulius Caesar Master of the Rolls Sir Iohn Doddridg and Sir Richard Hutton wherein there was a special recital of the question and cause depending between Dunn on the one part and Burrell and Goff on the other part and power given unto them for the hearing and determining of this cause and likewise for the mediating between the Citizens of London and the Parsons of the several Parishes and Churches in London and making an arbitrary end betwixt them whereby a competent provision may be made for the Ministers of the Churches of London and too heavy a burthen may not beimposed upon the Citizens of London with a command further that they shall certifie the King what was done in the premises And this Commission was sat upon at York-house where the case was argued at several times by Sir Randal Crew and Sir Henry Finch Serjeants of the King on the part and behalf of the Ministers of London and by Sir Henry Yelverton Attorney of the King and Sir Thomas Coventry Solicitor of the King on the behalf of the Citizens of London and because the main Question remained as yet undetermined and no resolution is given either in point of Law nor Arbitrary end by way of mediation I shall only open the parts of the case and make a summary report of them without further debate of them The Case divideth it self into six parts that is to say First whether any thing can be demanded by the person for houses in London according to the course of the Common Law Secondly whether custome can establish a right of payment of any thing unto the Parson for houses and of what nature the payment established shall be Thirdly what was anciently payable by the Citizens of London for their houses unto the Ministers of London and how grew the payment Fourthly whether this twenty five pounds reserved upon a covenant by way of fine and income be a rent within the words of the Decree made 37. H. 8. cap. 12 Fifthly whether this reservation of twenty five pounds by the year by way of fine and income shall be adjudged to be a rent within the intent and meaning of the Statute an Decree or no Sixthly who shalâ— be Judge of the Tithes for houses in London and the remedy for the Parson in case that payment be not made unto him according to the Decree As to the first part which is whether by the Common Law any thing can be demanded for the houses in London It is to be agreed and clear that nothing can be demanded For that which the Parson ought to demand of houses is Tythes and it is improper and cannot be that Tythes can be paid of houses First in regard that houses do not increase and renew but rather decrease for want of reparations and
come otherwise Process shall be 〈…〉 the Jury to come at the next Hust oâ— Pleas of â—ard by precept directed from the Major to the Sheriffs and the Sheriffs shall be ministers by commandement of the Major to serve the Writs and do the execution of the same albeit the original be directed to the Major and Sheriffs in common and you shall understand that as well the Tenants as Demandants may appoint their Attorneys in such Pleas. And if the Demandants plead against the Tenants in the nature of a Writ of Right and he parties come to a Jury upon the meer Right then shall the Jury be taken of twenty four in the nature of a grand Assize as alwayes the custome requireth that six of the Ward be of the Jury of twenty four And the Tenants in all such Writs may vouch to warrant within the said City and also in Forreign County if the Vouchers be not Tenants within the same City And if the Tenants in such Writs vouch to warrant in Forreign County In this Case Process cannot be made against the Voucher by the Law of the City Then shall the Record be brought before the Justices of the Common Pleas at the suit of the Demandant and then Process shall be made against the Vouchee And when the Voucher shall be ended in the same Court then all the Parol shall be sent back again into the Hust to proceed further in the Plea according to the custome of the City and certain Statutes And also if the Tenants in such Writ plead in Bar by release bearing date in Forreign County or Forreign matter be pleaded that it cannot be tryed within the City then the Defendant shall cause the Process to come into the Kings Court to try the matter there where it is alleadged as the matter is there found the proceeding shall be sent back again into the Hustings to proceed further therein as the Case requireth And all that time the Suit shall cease in the Hust as hath been heretofore And also it hath been heretofore accustomed that a man may say in Hastings of Pleas of Land to have execution of Judgement given in Hust in nature of Scirefacias without Writ And you must note that any such Summons made to the Tenants in a Writ of right Patent is made two or three days before such Hust or the Sunday next before the same Hust If Erroneous Judgement be given in the Hustings of London before the Major and Sheriffs it shall be reserved by Commission out of the Chancery directed to certain persons to examine the Record and Process If Erroneous Judgement be given before the Sheriffs in London the Defendant may sue a Writ of Error before the Mayor and Sheriffs in the Hustings Hustings of Common Pleas IN Hust of Common Pleas are pleadable Writs called Ex gravi querala to have execution of the Tenants out of Testaments which are enrolled of Record in the Hust Writs of Dower unde nihil habet Writs of Gavelets of Customes and Services instead of Cessavit Writs of Error of judgment given before the Sheriffs Writs of Waste Writs of Participatione faciend among partners Writs of Quid juris clamat per quae servitia and other the Writs which are closed directed to the Mayor and Sheriffs and also Replegiaries of for goods and distresses wrongfully taken These are pleadable before the Mayor and Sheriffs in these Hust of Common Pleas by plaint without Writ And not as before that the Sheriffs are Ministers to do the office of ferving these Writs and Replegiaries by the Majors Preceps directed to the same Sheriffs And the Process is thus FIrst in the Writ of Ex gravi querela warning before hand shall be given to the Tenants two or three dayes before the Hust or the Sunday be oâ—e as in Plea of Land And so shall be done of all other Summons touching the same Hust And if warning be given and testified by the Sheriffs or his Ministers the Tenants may not be essoyned and if the Tenants make default at the same warning testified then the Grand Cape shall be awarded And if they appear they may be essoyned at the view And hereupon all other Process are made plainly as is said in a Writ of Droit Patent in the Hust in a Plea of Land In a Writ of Dower unde nihil habet the Tenants shall have at the beginning three Summons and one Essoyn after the three Summons and after these shall have the view one Essoyn and the Tenant in such Writ of Dower shall have the view although they enter by the husband himself demanding the same albeit he died seized and also the Tenants may vouch to warranty and after be essoynâ—d after every appearance and all other Process shall be made as in a Writ of right in the Hust of Pleas of Land aforesaid And it the Demandant recover Dower against the Tenant by default â—o by judgement in Law in such Writ or Dower And the same wife of the Demandâ—nt alledgeth in Court of Record that her husband died seized Then the Major shall command â—he Sheriffs by Precept that they cause a Jury of the viâ—inity where the Tenants lâ—e against the next Hust of Common Pleas to enquire if the husband died seized and of the value of the â—enements and of the damages and 〈◊〉 recover by verdict the damages shall be enquiâ—ed by the same Jâ—y In a Writ of Gaviâ—et the Tenâ—nts shall have three 〈◊〉 and three Essoynes and they also shall have thaâ— view they may vouch to 〈…〉 and Forreign And they shall be essoyned and shall have other exceptions and all other Process shall be made as in a Writ of Right c. But if the Tenant make default after default then the Defendant shall have Judgement to recover and hold for a year and a day upon this condition that the Tenant may come within the same year and a day then next following and make agreement for the Arrearages and find Surety as the Court shall award to pay the rent or the services faithfully from thenceforth and shall have again his Tenements and within the same year and day the Tenant may come in Court by Scire fac and shall have again his Tenements doing as aforesaid and if the Tenant come not within the year and the day as is aforesaid then after the year and the day the Defendant shall have a Scire fac against the Tenant to come and answer whether he can say any thing why the Defendant ought not to recover the Tenements quite and clearly to him and his Heirs for ever and if the Tenant come not to shew what he can say then Judgement shall be given that the Defendant shall quite recover the Land for ever according to the Judgement called Shartford by custome of the same City In a Writ of waste process shall be made against the Tenants by Summons Attachment and distress according to the Statute in that behalf made