Court. See 21 Eliz. Dyer 362. If Tenant in Socage dyeth seised in possession his Heir within the age of fourteen years he shall not sue Livery but shall have an Ouster le main una cum exitibus but otherwise it is if the Heir be of the age of fourteen years which is his full age for Socage and therewith agreeth 4 Eliz. Dyer 213. And two presidents were shewed which were decreed in the same Court by the advice of the Iustices Assistants to the Court. One in Trinity Term 16 Eliz. Thomas Stavely the Father enfeoffed William Strelley and Thomas Law of the Mannor of Ryndly in the County of Nottingham upon condition that they re-enfeoff the Feoffor and his Wife for their lives the remainder to Thomas Stavely son and heir apparent of tho Feoffor in Fee which Mannor was holden of Queen Elizabeth in Socage in capite and upon consideration of the saving in the Statute of 32 H. 8. next after the clause concerning Tenure in Socage in chief it was resolved That no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in such case and the reason was because that the precedent clause giveth liberty to him who holdeth in Socage in chief to make disposition of it either by act executed or by Will at his free will and pleasure and before the said act no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in such case and the words of the Saving are Saving c. to the King c. all his Right c. of primer seisin and relief c. for Tenure in Socage or of the nature of Tenure in Socage in chief as heretofore hath been used and accustomed But there was no use or custom before the Act that the King should have any primer seisin or relief in such case and the words subsequent in the said Saving depend upon the former words and do not give any primer seisin or relief where none was before Another president was in Pasc 37 Eliz. in the Book of Orders fo 444. where the case was that William Allet was seised of certain Lands in Pitsey called Lundsey holden of the Queen in Socage in chief and by Deed covenanted to stand seised to the use of his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of Richard his younger son in Fee and dyed his Heir of full age and all that was found by Office and it was resolved ut supra That no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in that case but the doubt in the case at Bar was because that Henry the Feoffor had a Reversion in Fee which descended to the said VVilliam his eldest son XXI Trinity Term anno 7 Jacobi Regis The Case of the Admiralty A Bill was preferred in the Star-Chamber against Sir Richard Hawkins Vice Admiral of the County of Devon and was charged that one William Hull and others were notorious Pirats upon the High Seas and shewed in certain what Piracy they had committed the said Sir Richard Hawkins knowing the same did them receive abet and comfort within the body of the County and for bribes and rewards suffered them to be discharged And what offence that was the Court referred to the consideration of the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron who heard Councel of both sides divers days at Serjeants Inn. And first it was by them resolved that by the Common Law the Admirals ought not to meddle with any thing done within the Realm but onely with things done upon the Sea and that appeareth fully by the Statute of 13 R. 2. cap. 5. by which it appeareth that such was the Common Law in the time of King Edw. the third and therewith agreeth the Statute of 2 H. 4. cap. 11. and the Statute of 15 H. 2. cap. 3. That because the Admirals and their Deputies encroach to themselves divers Iurisdictions and Franchises more then they ought to have Be it enacted that all Contracts Pleas and Complaints and all other things arising within the bodies of the Counties as well by Land as by Water as also of Wreck of the Sea the Admiral Court shall not have any conusance power or jurisdiction c. Nevertheless of the death of a man and of Mayheme done in great Ships being in the main stream of great Rivers onely below the Bridges nigh to the Sea and not in other places of the same Rivers and to arrest Ships in the great Flotes for the great Voyage of the King and of his Realm and by the Statute of 2 H. 5. cap. 6. the Admirals of the King of England have done and used reasonably according to the ancient Law and Custom upon the main Sea See the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 5. And all this appeareth to be by the common Law and with that agreeth Stamford fo 51. And if a man be killed or slain within the Arms of the Sea where a man may see from the one part of the Land to the other the Coroner shall enquire of it and not the Admiral because that the Country may well know it and he voucheth 8 E. 2. Coron 399. So saith Stamford the same proves that by the common Law before the Statute of 2 H. 4. cap. 11. the Admiral shall not have Iurisdiction unless upon the High Sea See Pla. Com. 37. 6. If the Marshal holdeth Plea out of the Verge or the Admiral within the body of the County the same is voyd See 2 R. 3. 12. 30 H. 6. 6. by Prisoit 2. It was resolved that the said Statutes are to be intended of a power to hold Plea and not of a power to award execution scil de jurisdictione tenendi placiti non de jurisdictione exequendi For notwithstanding the said Statutes the Iudg of the Admiralty may do execution within the body of the County and therefore in 19 H. 6. 7. the case was W. T. at Southwark affirmed a Plaint of Trespass in the Court of Admiralty before the Steward of the Earl of Huntington against J. B. of a Trespass done upon the High Sea upon which issued a Citation to cite the said J. B. to appear before the Steward aforesaid at the common day then next ensuing directed to P. who served the said Citation at which day the said J. B. made default and the usage of the Court is that if the Defendant maketh default he shall be amerced by the discretion of the Steward to the use of the Plaintiff The which J. B. for his default aforesaid was amerced to twenty marks whereupon command was made to the said P. as Minister of the Court aforesaid to take the goods of the said J. B. to make agreement with the beforesaid W. T. by force of which he for the said twenty marks took five Cows and an hundred sheep in execution for the mony aforesaid in the County of Leicester And there it is holden by Newton and the whole Court that the Statutes restrain the power of the Court of Admiralty to hold Plea of a thing done
VVillowes all his Right Estate c. of and in the Tenements aforesaid in which c. The Plaintiff surjoyneth and saith that the said summ of five pounds six shillings eight pence c. was not rationabilis finis as the said Thomas Bradye above hath alledged c upon which the Defendant doth demur in Law And in this Case these points were resolved by Coke chief Iustice VValmesly VVarberton Daniel and Foster Iustices 1. And principally If the Fine assessed had been reasonable yet the Lords ought to have set a certain time and place when the same should be paid because the same stands upon a point of forfeiture As if a man bargains and assures Land to one and his heirs upon condition that if he pay to the Bargaines or his heirs ten pounds at such apiace that he and his heirs shall re-enter In that case because no time is limited the Bargainor ought to give notice to the Bargaines c. when he will tender the money and he cannot tender it when he pleaseth and with that agrees 19 Eliz. Dyer 354. For a man shall not lose his Land unlesse an expresse default be in him and the Bargaineein such Case is not tied to stay alwaies in the place c. So in the Caseat Bar the Copyholder is not tied to carry his Fine alwaies with him when he is at Church or at Plow c. And although that the Rejoynder is that the Plaintiff refused to pay the Fine so he might well do when the request is not lawfull nor reasonable for in all cases when the request is not lawfull nor reasonable the party may without prejudice deny the payment And he who is to pay a great Fine as a 100 l. or more it is not reasonable that he carry it alwaies with him in his Pocket and presently the Copyholder was not bound to it because that the Fine was uncertain arbitrable as it was resolved in Hulbarts Case in the fourth part of my Reports amongst the Copyhold Cases 2. It was resolved that although the Fine be incertain and arbitrable yet it ought to be secundum arbitrium boni viri And it ought to be reasonable and not excessive for all excessivenesse is abhorred in Law Excessus in re qualibet jure reprobatur Communi For the Common Law forbids any excessive distresse as it appeareth in 41 E. 3. 26. Where a man avowed the taking of sixty Sheep for 3 d. Rent and the Plaintiff prayed that he might be amerced for the Distresse And the Court who is alwaies the Iudge whether the Distresse be reasonable or excessive held that six Sheep had been a sufficient Distresse for the said Rent and therefore he was Vi. F. N. B 82 a reasonable Aid incertain untill the Statute of Glanvi lib. 9. fol. 70. 14 H. 4 9. by Hill 14 H. 4. 1. 3. amerced for so many of them as wereabove six Sheep And the Court said that if the Avowant shall have return he shall have a return but of six Sheep And this appeareth to be the Common Law for the Statute of Artieuli super Cartas extends only where a grievous Distress is taken for the Kings Debt See F. N. B. 174. a. and 27. Ass 51. 28. Ass 50. 11 H. 4. 2. and 8 H. 4. 16. c. Non Capiatur gravis Districtio c. And so if an excessive or an unreasonable Amerciament be imposed in any Court Baron or other Court which is not of Record the party shall See Glanvil lib. 9. cap. 8. Optime B. rationabilibus auxiliis ita tamen moderat secund Quantitatem feodorum suorum secundum facultates ut nemini gravidae viderentur c. Vide Bracton 84. b. cationab relev 1. quod rationem mensuram non excedat and see him there 86. optime c have Moderata Misericordia And the Statute of Magna Charta is but an affirmance of the Common Law in such point See F. N. B. 75. Nullus liber homo amercietur nisi secundum quantitatem delicti And gravis Redemptio non est exigenda And the Common Law gives an Assise of Sovient Distresse and Multiplication of Distresse found which is excessive in respect of the multiplicity of vexation And therewith agreeth 27. Ass 50 51. Non Capiatur multiplex districtio F. N. B. 178. b. And if Tenant in Dower hath Villains or Tenants at Will who were rich and she by excessive Tallages and Fines makes them poor and Beggers the same is adjudged Wast And therewith agreeth F. N. B. 61. b. 16 H. 3. Wast 135. and 16 H. 7. And see the Register Iudiciall fol. 25. b. Wast lieth in exulando Henricum Hermanum c. Villeius Quorum quilibet tenet unum Messuagium unam virgat terrae in Villinagio in praedict villa de T. by grievous and intollerable Distresses By all which it appeareth That the Common Law doth forbid intollerable and excessive oppressing and ransoming of Villains whereby of Rich they become Poor And yet it may be said that a man may do with his Villain what he pleaseth or with his Tenant at Will but the Law limits the same in a reasonable and convenient manner For it appeareth that such intollerable oppression of the poor Tenants is to the disinherizin of him in the Reversion So in the Case at Bar Although that the Fine is incertain yet it ought to be reasonable and so it appeareth by the said Custome which the Defendant hath alledged And therefore in such Case the Lord cannot take as much as he pleaseth but the Fine ought to be reasonable according to the Resolve of the Court in the said Case of Hubbard in the fourth part of my Reports 30. Vide 14 H. 4. 4. by Hill It was resolved That if the Lord and Tenant cannot agree of the Fine but the Lord demandeth more then a reasonable Fine that the same shall be decided and adjudged by the Court in which any Suit shall be for or by reason of the denying of tho Fine And the Court shall adjudge what shall be said a reasonable Fine having regard to the quality and value of the Land and other necessary circumstances which ought to appear in pleading upon a Demurrer or found by Verdict And if the Fine which the Lord or his Steward assesseth be reasonable Bracton l. 2 fo 51. Quam longuin debet esse tempus non definitur in jure sed pendet â—ex justicianorum discretiono Let the Copyholder well advise himself before he deny the payment of it And alwaies when reasonablenesse is in question the same shall be determined by the Court in which the Action dependeth As reasonable time 21 H. 6. 30. 22 E. 4. 27. 50. 29 H. 8. 32. c. So if the Distresse be reasonable and the like c. It was resolved That the said Fine in the Case at the Bar was unreasonable viz. To demand for a Cottage and an acre of Pasture five pounds six
shillings eight pence for the Admittance of a Copyholder in Fee-simple upon a Surrender made For this is not like to a voluntary Grant as when the Copyholder hath but an Estate for life and dieth Or if he hath an Estate in Fee-simple and committeth Felony there Arbitrio Dom. res estimari debet but when the Lord is compellable to admit him to whose use the Surrender is And when Cestui que use is admitted he shall be in by him who made the Surrender and the Lord is but an Instrument to present the same And therefore in such Case the value of two years for such an Admittance is unreasonable especially when the value of the Cottage and one acre of Pasture is a Rack at fifty three shillings by the year 5. It was resolved That the Surjoynder is no more then what the Law saith For in this Case in the Iudgment of the Law the Fine is unreasonable and therefore the same is but ex abundanti and now the Court ought to judge upon the whole speciall matter And for the Causes aforesaid Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And Coke chief Iustice said in this Case That where the usage of the Court of Admiralty is to amerce the Defendant for his default by his discretion as it appeareth in 19 H. 6. 7. That if the Amerciament be outrageous and excessive the same shall not bind the party and if it be excessive or not it shall be determined in the Court in which the Action shall be brought for the levying of it And the Writ of Account is against the Bayliff or Guardian Quod reddat ei rationabilem Computum de exitibus Manerii And the Law requireth a thing which is reasonable and no excesse or extremity in any thing II. Mich. 6 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. Porter and Rochesters Case THis Term Lewis and Rochester who dwelt in Essex within the The Statute of 23 H 8. of citing out of Dioces Dioces of London were sued for substraction of Tithes growing in B. within the County of Essex by Porter in the Court of the Arches of the Bishop of Canterbury in London And the Case was That the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Iurisdiction of fourteen Parishes called a Deanry exempted from the Authority of the Bishop of London whereof the Parish of S. Mary de Arcubus is the Chief And the Court is called the Arches because the Court is holden there And a great question was moved If in the said Court of Arches holden in London within his Peculiar he might cite any dwelling in Essex for substraction of Tithes growing in Essex Or if he be prohibited by the Statute of the twenty third year of King Henry the eighth cap. 9. And after that the matter was well debated as well by Councell at the Bar as by Dr. Ferrard Dr. James and others in open Court and lastly by all the Iustices of the Common Pleas A Prohibition was granted to the Court of Arches And in this Case divers Points were resolved by the Court. 1. That all Acts of Parliament made by the King Lords and Commons of Parliament are parcell of the Laws of England and therefore shall be expounded by the Iudges of the Laws of England and not by the Civilians and Commonists although the Acts concern Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall Iurisdiction And therefore the Act of 2 H. 4. cap. 15. by which in effect it is enacted Quod nullus teneat doceat informet c. clam vel publice aliquam nefandam opinionem contrariam sidei Catholicae seu determinationi Ecclesiae sacro-sanctae nec de hujusmodi secta nephandis Doctrinis Conventiculas faciat And that in such Cases the Diocessan might arrest and imprison such Offender c. And in 10 H. 7. the Bishop of London commanded one to be imprisoned because that the Plaintiff said that he ought not to pay his Tithes to his Curat and the party so imprisoned brought an Action of False Imprisonment against those who arrested him by the commandment of the Bishop and there the matter is well argued What words are within the said Statute and what without the Statute So upon the same Statute it was resolved in 5 E. 4. in Keysars case in the Kings Bench which you may see in my Book of Presidents And so the Statutes of Articuli Cleri de Prohibitione regia De Circumspecte agatis of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. and all other Acts of Parliament concerning Spirituall Causes have alwaies been expounded by the Iudges of the Common Law as it was adjudged in Woods Case Pasch 29 Eliz. in my Notes fol. 22. So the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. hath been expounded by the Iudges of the Realm concerning Pluralities and the having of two Benefices Common Laws and Dispensations see 7 Eliz. Dyer 233. The Kings Courts shall adjudge of Dispensations and Commendams See also 17 Eliz. Dyer 251. 14 Eliz. Dyer 312. 15 Eliz. Dyer 327 18 Eliz. Dyer 352. and 347. 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. Construction of the Statute cap. 12. Smiths Case concerning Subscription which is a meer Spirituall thing Also it appeareth by 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. That for want of subscription the Church was alwaies void by the said Act of 23 Eliz. and yet the Civilians say that there ought to be a Sentence Declaratorie although that the Act maketh it void 2. It was resolved by Coke chief Iustice Warberton Daniel and Foster Iustices That the Archbishop of Canterbury is restrained by the Act of 23 H. 8. cap. 9. to cite any one out of his own Diocesse or his Peculiar Iurisdiction although that he holdeth his Court of Arches within London And first it was objected That the Title of the Act is An Act that no person shall be cited out of the Diocess where he or she dwelleth except in certain Cases And here the Archbishop doth not cite the said Party dwelling in Essex out of the Diocesse of London for he holdeth his Court of Arches within London 2. The Preamble of the Act is Where a great number of the Kings Subjects dwelling in divers Diocesses c. And here he doth not dwell in divers Diocesses 3. Far out of the Diocesse where such men c. dwell and here he doth not dwell far out c. 4. The body of the Act is No manner of person shall be cited before any Ordinance c. out of the Diocesse or peculiar Iurisdiction where the person shall be inhabiting c. And here he was not cited out of the Dioces of London To which it was answered and resolved That the same was prohibited by the said Act for divers Causes 1. As to all the said Objections One answer makes an end of them all For Diocesis dicitur distinctio vel divisio sive gubernatio quae divisa diversa est ab Ecclesia alterius Episcopatus Commissa Gubernatio in unius and is derived a Diâ— quod est duo electio id est
were meer Spirituall such a Defamation is not examinable before the high Commissioners As to the last Article It appeareth now by the Iudgment of this Court that he might well justifie the said words Also the high Commissioners shall not have Conusance of any Scandall to themselves for Judex non potest injuriam sibi datam punire Vi. the Stat. of 23 H. 8. c. 9. that they are parties and such Scandall is punishable by the Common Law as it was resolved in Hales Case which see in the Book of the Lord Dyers Reports and see in my Book of Presidents the Copy of the Indictment of Hales for scandaling of the Ecclesiasticall Commissioners Note the Bishop of Winchester being Visiter of the School of Winchester of the Foundation of Wickam Bishop of Winchester and the Bishop and Cant. and other his Colleagues An. 5 Car. cited the Vsher of the said School by force of the said Commission to appear before them and proceed there against him for which they incurred the danger of a Premunire And so did the Bishop of Canterbury and his Colleagues by force of a high Commission to them directed cite one Humphrey Frank Master of Arts and Schoolmaster of the School of Sevenock of the Foundation of Sir William Sevenock in the time of King Henry the sixth to appear before the high Commissioners at Lambeth the sixth day of December last past which citation was subscribed by Sir John Bennet Doctor of Law Doctor James and Doctor Hickman three of the high Commissioners and Sir Christopher Perkins procured the said Citation to be made and when the said Frank appeared the Archbishop being associated with Sir Christopher Perkins and Doctor Abbot Dean of Winchester made an Order concerning the said School scil That the said Frank shall continue in the said School untill the Annunciation and that he should have twenty pounds paid to him by Sir Ralph Bosoile Knight IV. Mich. 6 Jacobi Regis Taylor and Shoiles Case TAylor informed upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 4. Tam pro Domino Reg. quam pro seipso in the Exchequer That the Defendant had exercised the Art and Mystery of a Brewer c. and averreâ— that Shoile the Defendant did not use or exercise the Art or Mystery of a Brewer at the time of the making of the Act nor had been Apprentice by seven years at least according to the said Act c. The Defendant did demur in Law upon the Information and Iudgment was given against him by the Barons of the Exchequer And now in this Terme upon a Writ of Error the matter was argued at Serjeants-Inne before the two chief Iustices and two matters were moved The One That a Brewer is not within the said Branch of the said Act For the words are That it shall not be lawfull to any person or persons other then such as now lawfully use or exercise any Art Mystery or manuall Occupation to set up use or exercise any Art Mystery or manuall Occupation except he shall have been brought up therein seven years at the least as an Apprentice And it was said That the Trade of a Brewer is not any Art Mystery or manuall Occupation within the said Branch because the same is easily and presently learned and he needs not to have seven years Apprentiship to be instructed in the same for every Huswife in the Country can do the same and the Act of Henry the eighth is That a Brewer is not a Handycraft Artificer 2. It was moved That the said Averment was not sufficient for the Averment ought to be as generall as the exception in the Statute is scil That the Defendant did not use any Art Mystery or Occucupation at the time of the making of the same Act for by this pretence if any Art c. then as a Taylor Carpenter c. he may now exercise any other Art whatsoever As unto the first It was resolved That the Trade of a Brewer scil to hold a common Brewhouse to sell Beer or Ale to another is an Art and Mystery within the said Act for in the beginning of the Act It is enacted That no person shall be retained for lesse time then a whole year in any of the Services Crafts Mysteries or Arts of Cloathing c. Bakers Brewers c. Cooks c. So as by the judgment of the same Parliament The Trade of a Brewer is an Art and Mystery which words are in the said Branch upon which the said Information is grounded Also because that every Huswife brews for her private use so also she bakes and dresseth Meat And yet none can hold a common Bakehouse or a Cooks Shop to sell to others unlesse that he hath been an Apprentice c. for they are expresly named also in the Act as Arts and Mysteries And the Act of 22 H. 8. cap. 13. is explained That a Brewer Baker Surgeon and Scrivener Alien are not handycrafts mentioned within certain penall Lawes But the same doth not prove but that they are Arts or Mysterys for Art or Mystery is more generall then Handycrafts for the same is restrained to Manufactures As to the second Point It was resolved That the intention of the Act was That none should take upon him any Art but he who hath skill or knowledge in the same And therefore the Statute intendeth That he who useth any Art or Mystery at the time of the Act might use the same Art or Mystery for Quod quisque norit in hoc se exerceat And the words of the Act are As now do lawfully use c. And it was said That it was very necessary that Brewers should have knowledge and skill in brewing good and wholsome Beer and Ale for that the same doth greatly conduce to mens healths And so the first Iudgment was affirmed V. Mich. 6 Jacobi In the Common Pleas. The Case of Modus Decimandi SHerley Serjeant moved to have a Prohibition because that a person Tithes sued to have Tithes of Silva Cedua under twenty years growth in the Weild of Kent where by the Custome of it which is a great part of the County Tithes of any Wood was never paid And if such a Custome in non Decimando for all Lay people within the said Weild were lawfull or not was the question And to have a Prohibition it was said That although one particular man shall not prescribe in non decimando yet such a generall Custome within a great Country might well be as in 43 E. 3. 32. and 45 E. 3. Custome 15. It was presented in the Kings Bench That an Abbot had purchased Tenements after the Statute c. And the Abbot came and said That he was Lord of the Town c. And the custome of the Town was That when the Tenant cesseth for two years that the Lord might enter untill agreement be made for the Arrerages And that he who held these Tenements was his Tenant and cessed for two years and he entred and
Iudg of the Prerogative Dr. James Dr. Martin and divers other Doctors of the Civil and Canon Law came attending upon them to the King to Whitehall the Thursday Friday and Saturday after Easter-Term in the Councel-Chamber where the Cheif Iustice and I my self Daniel Iudg of the Common-Pleas and Williams Iudg of the Kings-Bench by the command of the King attended also where the King being assisted with his Privy Councel all sitting at the Councel-Table spake as a most gracious good and excellent Soveraign to this effect As I would not suffer any novelty or Innovations in my Courts of Iustice Ecclesiastical and Temporal so I will not have any of the Laws which have had judicial allowances in the times of the Kings of England before him to be forgotten but to be put in execution And for as much as upon the contentions between the Ecclesiastical and Temporal Courts great trouble inconvenience and loss may arise to the subjects of both parts namely when the controversie ariseth upon the jurisdiction of my Courts of ordinary Iustice and because I am the head of Iustice immediately under God and knowing what hurt may grow to my Subjects of both sides when no private case but when the Iurisdictions of my Courts are drawn in question which in effect concerneth all my Subjects I thought that it stood with the Office of a King which God hath committed to me to hear the controversies between the Bishops and other of his Clergy and the Iudges of the Laws of England and to take Order that for the good and quiet of his Subjects that the one do not encroach upon the other but that every of them hold themselves within their natural and local jurisdiction without encroachment or usurpation the one upon the other And he said that the onely question then to be disputed was If a Parson or a Vicar of a Parish sueth one of his Parish in the Spiritual Court for Tythes in kinde or Lay-fee and the Defendant alledgeth a custom or prescription De modo Decâ—mandi if that custom or prescription De modo Decimandi shall be tryed and determined before the Iudg Ecclesiastical where the Suit is begun or a Prohibition lyeth to try the same by the common Law And the King directed that we who were Iudges should declare the reasons and causes of our proceedings and that he would hear the authorities in the Law which we had to warrant our proceedings in granting of Prohibition in cases of Modo Decimandi But the Archbishop of Canterbury kneeled before the King and desired him that he would hear him and others who are provided to speak in the case for the good of the Church of England and the Archbishop himself inveighed much against two things 1. That a Modus Decimandi should be tryed by a Iury because that they themselves claim more or less modum Decimandi so as in effect they were Tryors in their own cause or in the like cases 2. He inveighed much the precipitate and hasty Tryals by Iuries and after him Doctor Bennet Iudg of the Prerogative Court made a large Invection against Prohibitions in Causis Ecclesiasticis and that both Iurisdictions as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal were derived from the King and all that which he spake out of the Book which Dr. Ridley hath lately published I omit as impertinent and he made five Reasons why they should try Modum Decimandi And the first and principal Reason was out of the Register fo 58. quia non est consonans rationi quod cognitio accessarii in Curia Christianitatis impediatur ubi cognitio Causae principalis ad forum Ecclesiasticum noscitur pertinere And the principal cause is Right of Tythes and the Plea of Modo Decimandi sounds in satisfaction of Tythes and therefore the Conusance of the original cause scil the Right of Tythes appertaining to them the Conusance of the bar of Tythes which he said was but the accessary and as it were dependant upon it appertained also to them And whereas it is said in the Bishop of VVinchesters Case in the second part of my Reports and 8 E. 4. 14. that they would not accept of any Plea in discharge of Tythes in the Spiritual Court he said that they would allow such Pleas in the Spiritual Court and commonly had allowed them and therefore he said that that was the Mystery of iniquity founded upon a false and feigned foundation and humbly desired the reformation of that Error for they would allow Modum Decimandi being duly proved before them 2. There was great inconveniency that Lay-men should be Tryers of their own Customs if a Modus Decimandi should be tryed by Iurors for they shall be upon the matter Iurors in their own cause 3. That the custom of Modo Decimandi is of Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and Conusance for it is a manner of Tything and all manner of Tything belongs to Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and therefore he said that the Iudges in their Answer to certain Objections made by the Archbishop of Canterbury have confessed that suit may be had in Spiritual Courts pro modo Decimandi and therefore the same is of Ecclesiastical Conusance and by consequence it shall be tryed before the Ecclesiastical Iudges for if the Right of Tythes be of Ecclesiastical Conusance and the satisfaction also for them of the same Iurisdiction the same shall be tryed in the Ecclesiastical Court 4. In the Prohibitions of Modus Decimandi averment is taken That although the Plaintiff in the Prohibition offereth to prove Modum Decimandi the Ecclesiastical Court doth refuse to allow of it which was confessed to be a good cause of Prohibition But he said they would allow the Plea De Modo Decimandi in the Spiritual Court and therefore cessante causa cessabit effectus and no Prohibition shall lie in the Case 5. He said that he can shew many consultations granted in the cause De Modo Decimandi and a Consultation is of greater force then a Prohibition for Consultation as the word imports is made with the Court with consultation and deliveration And Bacon Solicitor-General being as it is said assigned with the Clergy by the King argued before the King and in effect said less then Doctor Bennet said before but he vouched 1 R. 3. 4. the Opinion of Hussey when the Original ought to begin in the Spiritual Court and afterwards a thing cometh in issue which is tryable in our Law yet it shall be tryed by their Law As if a man sueth for a Horse devised to him and the Defendant saith that the Devisor gave to him the said Horse the same shall be tryed there And the Register 57 and 58. If a man be condemned in Expences in the Spiritual Court for laying violent hands upon a Clark and afterwards the Defendant pays the costs and gets an Acquittance and yet the Plaintiff sueth him against his Acquittance for the Costs and he obtains a Prohibition for that Acquittances and Deeds
within the body of the County but they do not restrain the execution of the same Court to be served upon the Land for it may be that the party hath not any thing upon the Sea and then it is reason to have it upon the Land and if such a Defendant have nothing wherewithall to make agreement they of the Court have power to take the body of such a Defendant upon the Land in execution In which case these points were observed 1. Although that the Court of Admiralty is not a Court of Record because they proceed there according to the Civil Law see Brook Error 77. acc yet by custom of the Court they may amerce the Defendant for his default by their discretion 2. That they may make execution for the same of the goods of the Defendant in corpore Comitatus and if he hath not goods then they may arrest the body of the Defendant within the body of the County But the great Question between them was If a man committeth See this point resolved 8 Eli. Dyer per curiam which is omitted out of the printed Book Piracy upon the Sea and one knowing thereof receiveth and comforteth the Defendant within the body of the County if the Admiral and other the Commissioners by force of the Act of 28 H. 8. cap. 16. may proceed by Indictment and conviction against the Receiver and Abettor in as much as the offence of the Accessary hath his begining within the body of the County And it was resolved by them that such a Receiver and Abettor by the common Law could not be indicted or convicted because that the common Law cannot take conusance of the original Offence because that is done out of the Iurisdiction of the common Law and by consequence where the common Law cannot punish the principal the same shall not punish any one as accessary to such a principal And therefore Coke chief Iustice reported to them a Case which was in Suffolk in anno 28 Eliz. where Butler and others upon the Sea next to the Town of Laystaft in Suffolk robbed divers of the Queens subjects and spoyled them of their goods which goods they brought into Norfolk and there they were apprehended and there brought before me then a Iustice of the Peace within the same County whom I examined and in the end they confessed a cruel and barbarous Piracy and that those goods which then they had with them were part of the goods which they had robbed from the Queens subjects upon the High Sea and I was of opinion that in that case it could not be Felony punishable by the common Law because that the original act scil the taking of them was not any offence whereof the common Law taketh knowledg and by consequence the bringing of them into a County could not make the same Felony punishable by our Law and it is not like where one stealeth goods in one County and brings them into another there he may be indicted of Felony in any of the Counties because that the original act was Felony whereof the common Law taketh knowledg and yet notwithstanding I committed them to the Gaol until the coming of the Iustices of Assises And at the next Assises the Opinion of Wray chief Iustice and Periam Iustices of Assise was That for as much as the common Law doth not take notice of the original Offence the bringing of the goods stoln upon the Sea into a County did not make the same punishable at the common Law and thereupon they were committed to Sir Robert Southwell then Vice-Admiral of the said Counties and this in effect agrees with Lacies case which see in my Reports cited in Binghams case in the 2 Reports 93. and in Constables case C. 5. Reports 107. See the Piracy was Felony the Book of 40 Assis 25. by Schard where a Master or Captain of a Ship together with some Englishmen robbed the Kings sujects upon the High Seas where he saith that it was Felony in the Norman Captain and Treason in the Englishmen his companions and the reason of the said case was because the Normans were not then under the Obedience and Allegiance of the King of England for King John lost Normandy and for that cause Piracy was but Felony in the Norman but in the English who were under the Obedience and Allegiance of the King of England the same was adjudged Treason which is to be understood of Pettit Treason which was High Treason before and therefore in that case the Pirates being apprehended the Norman Captain was hanged and the English men were hanged and drawn as appeareth by the same Book see Stamford 10. And some objected and were of opinion That Treasons done out of the Realm might have bin determined by the common Law but truly the same could not be punishable but onely by the Civil Law before the Admiral or by Act of Parliament as all Foreign Treasons and Felonies were by the common Law and therefore where it is declared by the Statute of 25 E. 3. That adherence to the Enemies of the King within England or elsewhere is Treason the same shall be tryed by the common Law but where it is done out of the Realm the Offendor shall not be attainted but by Parliament until the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 2. although that there are Opinions in some Books to the contrary see 5 R. 2. Quare impedit c. XXII Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Pettus and Godsalves Case IN a Fine levyed Trinity Term anno quinto of this King between John Pettus Esq Plaintiff and Roger Godsalve and others Deforceants of the Mannor of Castre with the appurtenances c. in the County of Norfolk where in the third proclamation upon the Foot of the same Fine the said proclamation is said to have been made in the sixth year of the King that now is which ought to have been anno quinto of the King and whereas upon the Foot of the same Fine the fourth proclamation is altogether left out because upon the view of the proclamations upon Dorsis upon Record not finis ejusdem Termini per Justiciarias remaining with the Chyrographer and the Book of the said Chyrography in which the said proclamations were first entered it appeareth that the said proclamations were rightly and duly made therefore it was adjudged that the Errors or defects aforesaid should be amended and made to agree as well with the proclamation upon Record of the said Fine and Entry of the said Book as with the other proclamations in Dorsis super pedes aliorum finium of the same Term and this was done upon the motion of Haughton Serjeant at Law XXIII Mich. 7 Jacobi In the Court of Wards Sammes Case JOhn Sammes being seised of Grany Mead by Copy of Court Roll of the Mannor of Tollesham the great of which Sir Thomas Beckingham c. and held the same of the King by Knights service in capite Sir Thomas by
certain Lands in Hetherset and Windham in Norfolk and doth not say in two parts in three parts to be divided and yet it was good as well in the Declaration as in the Writ for without question the Writ is good de duabus partibus generally and so is the Register See 4 E. 3. 162. 2 E. 3. 31. 2 Assis 1. 10 Assis 12. 10 E. 3. 511. 11 Ass 21. 11 E. 3. Bre. 478. 9 H. 6. 36. 17 E. 4. 46. 19 E. 3. Bre. 244. And upon all the said Books it appeareth that by the intendment and construction of the Law when any parts are demanded without shewing in how many parts the whole is divided that there remains but one part not divided As if two parts are demanded there remains a third part and when three parts are divided three remains a fourth part c. But when any demand is of other parts in other form there he ought to shew the same specialty as if one demandeth three parts of five parts or four parts of six c. And according to this difference it was so resolved in Jourdens Case in the Kings-Bench and accordingly Iudgment was given in this Term in the Case at Bar. XXVI Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Muttons Case AN Action upon the Case was brought against Mutton for calling of the Plaintiff Sorcerer and Inchantor who pleaded Not-guilty and it was found against him to the damages of 6 d. And it was holden by the whole Court in the Common-Pleas that no Action lieth for the said words for Sortilegium est rei futuri per sortes exploratio Et Sortilegus sive Sortilegista est qui per sortes futura praenunciat Inchauntry est verbis aut rebus adjunctis aliquid praeter naturam moliri whereof the Poet saith Carminibus Circes socios mutavit Ulyssis See 45 E. 3. 17. One was taken in Southwark with the Head and Visage of a Dead man and with a Book of Sorcery in his Mail and he was brought into the Kings-Bench before Knevet Iustice but no Indictment was framed against him for which the Clarks made him swear that he should never after commit any Sorcery and he was sent to prison and the Head and the Book were burned at Tuthill at the charges of the Prisoner And the ancient Law was as it appeareth by Britton that those who were attainted of Sorcery were burned but the Law is not such at this day but he who is convicted of such imposture and deceit shall be fined and imprisoned And it was said that it was adjudged That if one calleth another Witch that an Action will not lie for it is too general Et dicitur Latine Venefica But if one saith She is a Witch and hath bewitched such a one to death an Action upon the Case lieth if in truth he be dead Conjuration is derived of these words Con and juro Et propria dicitur quando multi in alicujus pernitiem jurant And in the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 16. it is taken for Invocation of any evil and wicked Spirits i. est conjurare verbis conceptis aliquos malos iniquos spiritus the same is made Felony But Witchcraft Inchantment Charm or Sorcery is not felony if not by them any person be killed or dyeth So that Conjuration est verbis conceptis compellere malos iniquos spiritus aliquod facere vel dicere c. But a Witch who works any thing by any evil spirit doth not make any Conjuration or Invocation by any powerful names of the Devil but the wicked spirit comes to her familiarly and therefore is called a Familiar But if a man be called a Conjurer or a Witch he shall not have any Action upon the Case unless that he saith That he is a Conjurer of the Devil or of any evil or wicked spirit or that one is a Witch and that she hath bewitched any one to death as is before said And note that the first Statute which was made against Conjuration Witchcraft Sorcery and Inchantment was the Act of 33 H. 8. cap. 8. and by it they were Felony in certain cases special but that Act was repealed by the Statute of 1 E. 6. cap. 12. XXVII Mich. Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Court of Wards Sir Allen Percies Case SIr John Fitz and Bridget his Wife being Tenants for life of a Tenement called Ramshams the remainder to Sir John Fitz in tail the remainder to Bridget in tail the Reversion to Sir John and his Heirs Sir John and Bridget his Wife by Indenture demised the said Tenement to William Sprey for divers years yet to come except all Trees of Timber Oaks and Ashes and liberty to carry them away rendering Rent and afterwards Sir John dyed having issue Mary his daughter now the Wife of Sir Allen Percy Knight and afterwards the said William Sprey demised the same Tenement to Sir Allen for seven years The Question was Whether Sir Allen having the immediate inheritance in the right of his Wife expoctant upon the Estate for the life of Bridget and also having the possession by the said Demise might cut down the Timber Trees Oaks and Ashes And it was objected that he might well do it for it was resolved in Saunders Case in the fifth part of my Reports fo 12. That if Lessee for years or for life assigns over his term or Estate unto another excepting the Mines or the Trees or the Clay c. that the exception is voyd because that he cannot except that which he cannot lawfully take and which doth not belong unto him by the Law But it was answered and resolved by the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron That in the Case at Bar the Exception was good without question because that he who hath the Inheritance joyns in the Lease with the Lessee for life And it was further resolved That if Tenant for life Leaseth for years excepting the Timber Trees the same is lawfully and wisely done for otherwise if the Lessee or Assignee cutteth down the Trees the Tenant for life should be punished in Waste and should not have any remedy against the Lessee for years and also if he demiseth the Land without exception he who hath the immediate Estate of Inheritance by the assent of the Lessee may cut down all the Timber Trees which when the term ended all should be wasted and then the Tenant for life should not have the Boots which the Law giveth him nor the pawnage and other profits of the said Trees which he lawfully might take But when Tenant for life upon his Lease excepteth the Trees if they be cut down by the Lessor the Lessee or Assignee shall have an Action of Trespass Quare vi armis and shall recover damages according to his loss And this case is not like to the said case of Saunders which was affirmed to be good Law for there the Lessee assigned over his whole interest and therefore could not except the Mines
CERTAIN SELECT CASES IN LAVV REPORTED BY Sir EDVVARD COKE Knight LATE Lord CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND And one of His Majesties Council of STATE Translated out of a Manuscript written with his own hand Never before Published With two Exact Tables the one of the Cases and the other of the Principal Matters therein contained LONDON Printed by Tho. Roycroft for J. Sherley H. Twyford and Tho. Dring and are to be sold at their Shops at the Pelican in Little-Brittain in Vine-Court Middle Temple and at the George in Fleetstreet 1659. TO THE READER READER IT may seem altogether an unnecessary work to say any thing in the praise and vindication of that Person and his Labours which have had no less then the generall approbation of a whole Nation convened in Parliament For if King THEODORICK in Cassiodore could affirme Neque enim dignus est a quopiam redargui qui nostro judicio meretur absolvi That no man ought to be reproved whom his Prince commends How much rather then should men forbear to censure those and their Works which have had the greatest allowance and attestation a Senate could give and to acquiesce and rest satisfied in that judgement Such respect and allowance hath been given to the learned Works of the late Honourable and Venerable Chiefe Justice Sir EDWARD COKE whose Person in his life time was reverenced as an Oracle and his Works since his decease cyted as Authentick Authorities even by the Reverend Judges themselves The acceptance his Books already extant have found with all knowing Persons hath given me the confidence to commend to the publick view some Remains of his under his owne hand-writing which have not yet appeared to the World yet like true and genuine Eaglets are well able to behold and bear the light They are of the same Piece and Woofe with his former Works and in respect of their owne native worth and the reference they bear to their Author cannot be too highly valued Though in respect of their quantity and number the Reports are but few yet as the skilfull Jeweller will not lose so much as the very filings of rich and precious mettals and the very fragments were commanded to be kept where a Miracle had been wrought Propter miraculi claritatem evidentiam So these small parcels being part of those vast and immense labours of their Author great almost to a Miracle if I may be allowed the comparison were there no other use to be made of them as there is very much for they manifest and declare to the Reader many secret and abstruse points in Law not ordinarily to be met with in other Books so fully and amply related deserve a publication and to be preserved in the respects and memories of Learned men and especially the Professors of the Law and to that end they are now brought to light and published If any should doubt of the truth of these Reports of Sir EDWARD COKE they may see the originall Manuscript in French written with his own hand at Henry Twyfords Shop in Vine-Court Middle Temple Farewell J. G. MICH. AN. 6 JACOBI REGIS In the Common Pleas. Willowes Case IN Trespasse brought by Richard Stallon one of the Attorneys of the Court against Thomas Bradye which began in Easter Copyhold Fine reasonable Term An. 6 Jacobi Rot. 1845. for breaking of his House and Close at Fenditton in the County of Cambridge And the new Assignment was in an Acre of Pasture The Defendant pleads that the place where c. was the Land and Freehold of Thomas Willowes and Richard Willowes and that he as Servant c. And the Plaintiff for Replication saith that the place where was parcell of the Mannor of Fenditton and demisable c. by Copy of Court-roll in Fee-simple And that the Lords of the Mannor granted the Tenements in which c. to John Stallon and his heirs who surrendred them unto the said Willowes and VVillowes Lords of the said Mannor to the use of the Plaintiff and his heirs who was admitted accordingly c. The Defendant doth rejoyn and saith That well and true it is that the Tenements in which c. were parcell of the Mannor and demisable c. And the surrender and admittance such pro ut c. But the said Thomas Bradye further saith that the Tenements in which c. at the time of the Admission of the said Richard Stallon were and yet are of the clear yearly value of fifty three shillings and four pence And that within the said Mannor there is such a Custome Quod rationabilis denariorum summa legalis monetae Angliae super quamlibet admissionem cujuslibet personae sive quarumcunque personarum tenent vel tenent per Dom. vel Dominos Manerii praedict sive per Seneschallum c. ad aliquas terras sive Tenementa Customaria Manerii praedict secundum Consuetudinem Manerii illius debetur a tempore quo c. debitum fuit Dom. c. tempore ejusdem admissionis pro sine pro admissione illa quod idem Dominus vel idem Dom. praedict vel Seneschallus suus Curiae ejusdem Manerii pro tempore existen usus fuit vel usi fuerunt per totum Tempus supradict in plena Curia Manerii illius pro Admissione ejusdem personae seu earundum personarum sic facta assidere appunctuare Anglice to Assesse and appoint eandem rationabilem denariorum summam pro fine pro eadem Admissione sic praefertur facta nec non superinde eandem denariorum summam sic assessam appunctuatam praefatae personae sive personis sic admissae sive admissis solveret solverent c. eidem Domino c. praedictam rationabilem denariorum summam pro fine pro Admissione sua praedict sic assessam appunctuat And further saith That the Steward of the said Mannor at a Court holden 1. Octob. in the fourth year of the Reigne of the King that now is admitted the Plaintiff to the Tenements in which c. and assessed and set a reasonable summ of money that is to say five pounds six shillings eight pence that is to say Valorem corundem tenementorum per duos annos non ultra pro fine pro praedict Admissione praedict Richard Stallon to the said Lords of the Mannor to be paid And also the said Steward at the same Court did give notice and signifie to the Plaintiff the said summ was to be paid to the said Lords of the Mannor c. And further saith that the said VVillowes and VVillowes afterwards that is to say the second day of November in the fourth year aforesaid at Fenditton aforesaid requested the said Richard Stallon to pay to them five pounds six shillings eight pence there for the Fine for his admittance c. which the said Rich. Stallon then and there utterly denied and refused and as yet doth refuse By which the said Richard Stallon forfeited to the aforesaid Thomas and Richard
any Mortuary but in such manner as is mentioned in the Act upon pain of forfeiture of so much in value as they take more then is limited by the Act and forty shillings over to the party grieved Yet it appeareth by Doctor and Student lib. 2. cap. 55. fol. 105. That if the Parson c. sueth for Mortuaries otherwise then the Act appointeth that a Prohibition lyeth yet there is a Penalty added which is an authority expresly in the Point And the Case at Bar is a more strong Case and that for three reasons 1. It was made in affirmance of the Canon Law 2. It was made for the ease of the People and Subjects and for the maintenance of the Iurisdiction of the Ordinary so as the Subjects have benefit by the Act and therefore although that the King may dispence with the penalty yet the Subject greived shall have a Prohibition And the Rule of the Court was Fiat Prohibitio Curiae Cantuar. de Arcub Inter partes praedict per Curiam And Sherly and Harris Iunior Serjeants at Law were of Councell in the Case III. Mich. 6 Jacobi Regis Edwards Case THe high Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiasticall objected divers High Commission Articles in English against Thomas Edwards dwelling in the City of Executer 1. That Mr. John Walton hath been many yeares trained up in Learning in the Vniversity of Oxford and there worthily admitted to severall degrees of Schools and deservedly took upon him the degree of Doctor of Physick 2. That he was a Reverend and well practised man in the Art of Physick 3. That you the said Thomas Edwards are no Graduate 4. That you knowing the Premisses notwithstanding you the said Edwards c. of purpose to disgrace the said Dr. Walton and to blemish his Reputation Learning and Skill with infamy and reproach did against the Rules of Charity write and send to the said Mr. Doctor Walton a lewd and ungoodly and uncharitable Letter and therein tared him of want of Civility and Honesty and want of Skill and Iudgment in his Art and Profession c. And you so far exceeded in your immoderate and uncivill Letter that you told him therein in plaine termes He may be crowned for an Asse as if he had no manner of skil in his Profession and were altogether unworthily admitted to the said Degrees and therein you purposely and advisedly taxed the whole Vniversity of rashnesse and indiscretion for admitting him to that Degree without sufficiency and desert 5. And further to disgrace the said Mr. Doctor Walton in the said Vniversity did publish a Copy of the said Letter to Sir William Courtney and others and in your Letter was contained Sipsilam lichenen mentegram Take that for your Inheritance and thank God you had a good Father And did not you thereby covertly mean and imply That the Father of the said Dr. Walton being late Bishop of Exeter and a Reverend Prelate of this Land was subject to the Diseases of the French Pox and Leprosie to the dislike of the Dignity and Calling of Bishops 6. That in another Letter you sent to Mr. Doctor Maders Doctor of Physick you named Mr. Doctor Walton and made a Horn in your Letter And we require you upon your Oath to set down whether you meant not that they were both Cuckoulds and what other meaning you had 7. You knowing that Dr. Walton was one of the high Commission in the Dioces of Exeter and having obtained a Sentence against him in the Star-Chamber for contriving and publishing of a Libell did triumphingly say That you had gotten on the hipp a Commissioner for Causes Ecclesiasticall in the Dioces of Exeter which you did to vilifie and disgrace him and in him the whole Commission Ecclesiasticall in those parts Lastly That after the Letter missive sent unto you you said arrogantly That you cared not for any thing that this Court can do unto you nor for their censure for that you can remove this matter at your pleasure And this Term it was moved to have a Prohibition in this Case And the matter was well argued And at last it was resolved by Coke chief Iustice Warberton Daniel and Foster Iustices That the first six Articles were meer Temporall concerning Doctor Walton in his Profession of Physick and so touched the Temporall person and a temporall matter and in truth It is in the nature of an Action upon See Book of Entries 444. 447. Non est Juri consentanium quod quis super iis quo rum cognitio ad nos pertinet in Curia Christianitatis trahatur in placita vi Stat. Circumspecte agatis An. 13. E. 1. Episcopus teneat plicita in Curia Christianitatis de his quae sunt mere Spiritualia Et vi Linwood f. 70. Lit. m. dicuntur mere Spiritualia quia non habent mixturam Temporalem vi 22 E. 4. l. Consultat vi 22 E. 4 the Abbot of Sion case the Case for Scandall in his Profession of Physick And yet the Commissioners themselves do proceed in the same Ex Officio And it was resolved that as for them a Prohibition doth lye for divers causes 1. Because that the matter and persons are Temporall 2. Secondly Because it is for Defamation which if any such shall be for the same it ought to begin before the Ordinary because it is not such an Enormous Offence which is to be determined by the high Commissioners And for the same reason Suit doth not lye before them for calling the Doctor Cuckould as it was objected in the seventh Article And it was said that the high Commissioners ought to incur the danger of Premunire 2. It was resolved That the Ecclesiasticall Iudge cannot examine any man upon his Oath upon the intention and thought of his Heart for Cogitationis penam nemo emoret And in cases where a man is to be examined upon his Oath he ought to be examined upon Acts or words and not of the intention and thought of his heart and if every man should be examined upon his Oath what opinion he holdeth concerning any point of Religion he is not bound to answer the same for in time of danger Quis modo tutus erit if every one should be examined of his thoughts And so long as a man doth not offend neither in act nor in word any Law established there is no reason that he should be examined upon his thought or Cogitation For as it hath been said in the Proverb Thought is free And therefore for the sixth and seventh Articles they were resolved as well for the matter as for the form in offering to examine the Defendant upon his Oath of his intention and meaning were such to which the Defendant was not to be compelled to answer Ergo It was resolved that as to the Article he might justifie the same because as it appeareth upon his own shewing that the Doctor was sentenced in the Star-Chamber Also the Libell is matter meer Temporall and if it
tenementorum per eundem B. dicto medio tempore percept sine dilatione haberi sacias Et qualiter hoc praeceptum nostrum fuerit execut constare facias c. in Octab. c. By which it appeareth That the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error shall have restitution against him who recovereth of all the mean Profits without any regard by them taken for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error cannot have any remedy against any stranger but only against him who is party to the Writ of Error and therefore the words of the said Writ command the Sheriff to enquire of the Issues and Profits generally between the Reversal and the Iudgment with all which he who recovers shall be charged and as the Law chargeth him with all the mean profits so the Law gives to him remedy notwithstanding the Reversal against all Trespassors in the interim for otherwise the Law should make a construction by relation to discharge them who are wrong doers and to charge him who recovers with the whole who peradventure hath good right and who entereth by the Iudgment of the Law which peradventure is reversed for want of form or negligence or ignorance of a Clark And therefore as to that purpose the Iudgment shall not be reversed ab initio by a Fiction of Law but as the truth was the same stands in force until it was reversed and therefore the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error after the Reversal shall have any Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean because he shall recover all the mean profits against him who recovered nor he recovereth after shall be barred of his Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean by reason that his recovery is reversed because he shall answer for all the mean profits to the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error and therewith agreeth Brian Chief Iustice 4 H. 7. 12. a. Note Reader If you would understand the true sence and Iudgment of the Law it is needful for you to know the true Entries of Iudgments and the Entries of all proceedings in Law and the manner and the matter of Writs of Execution of such Iudgments See Butler and Bakers Case in the third part of my Reports good matter concerning Relations So as it was resolved in the Case at Bar Although that to some intent the Reversal hath relation yet to bar the Wife of her Dower by Fiction of Law by the Fine with proclamations and five years past after the death of her Husband when in truth she had not cause of Action nor any right or title so long as the Attainder stood in force should be to do wrong by a Fiction of Law and to bar the Wife who was a meer stranger and who had not any means to have any Relief until the Attainder was reversed And as unto the other point or Objection that the Demandant on the Petition ought to have an Office found for her it was resolved that it needed not in this case because that the title of Dower stood with the Queens title and affirmed it otherwise if the title of the Demandant in the Petition had disaffirmed the Queens title also in this Case the Queen was not entituled by any Office that the Wife should be driven to traverse it c. for then she ought to have had an Office to finde her title But in Case of Dower although that Office had been found for the Queen which doth not disaffirm the title of Dower in such case the Wife shall have her Petition without Office because that Dower is favored in Law she claiming but onely for term of life and affirming the title of the Queen See the Sadlers Case in the fourth part of my Reports And the case which was put on the other side was utterly denyed by the Court for it was resolved That if a man seised of Lands in Fee taketh a Wife of eight years of age and alieneth his Lands and afterwards the Wife attaineth to the age of nine years and afterwards the Husband dyeth that the Wife shall be endowed For although at the time of the alienation the Wife was not dowable yet for as much as the marriage and seisin in Fee was before the alienation and the title of Dower is not consummate until the death of her Husband so as now there was marriage seisin of Fee age of nine years during the Coverture and the death of the Husband for that cause she shall be endowed For it is not requisite that the marriage seisin and age concur together all at one time but it is sufficient if they happen during the Coverture So if a man seised of Lands in Fee take a Wife and afterwards she elopes from her Husband now she is barrable of her Dower if during the Elopement the Husband alieneth and after the Wife is reconciled the Wife shall be endowed So if a man hath issue by his Wife and the issue dyeth and afterwards Land descendeth to the Wife or the Wife purchaseth Lands in Fee and dyeth without any other issue the Husband for the issue which he had before the Discent or purchase shall be Tenant by the curtesie for it is sufficient if he have issue and that the Wife be seised during the Coverture although that it be at several times But if a man taketh an Alien to Wife and afterwards he alieneth his Lands and afterwards she is made a Denizen she shall not be endowed for she was absolutely disabled by the Law and by her birth not capable of Dower but her capacity and ability began onely by her Denization but in the other case there was not any incapacity or disability in the person but onely a temporary Bar until such age or reconcilement which being accomplished the temporary Bar ceaseth As if a man seised of Lands in Fee taketh a Wife and afterwards the Wife is attainted of Felony and afterwards the Husband alieneth and afterwards the Wife is pardoned and afterwards the Husband dyeth the Wife shall be endowed for by her birth she was not uncapable but was lawfully by her marriage and seisin in Fee entituled to have Dower and therefore when the impediment is removed she shall be endowed VIII Trinit 44 Eliz. In the Kings-Bench Sprat and Heals Case JOhn Sprat Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Walter Heal for Tythes Covin substraction of Tythes the Defendant in the Spiritual Court pleaded that he had divided the Tythes from the nine parts and then the Plaintiff made addition to the Libel in the nature of a Replication scil That the Defendant divided the Tythes from the nine parts quod praedict the Plaintiff non fatetur sed prorsus diffitetur yet presently after this pretended division in fraudem legis he took and carryed away the same Tythes and converted them to his own use and the Plaintiff thereupon obtained sentence in the Spiritual Court and to recover the treble value according to the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. And thereupon Heal made a
in the Information was denied in the Kings Bench was utterly denied for the same was moved when two Iudges were in Court who gave not any opinion therein but required Serjeant Hutton who moved it to move the same again when the Court was full c. XII Pasch 7 Jacobi Regis NOte that this Term a Question was moved at Serjeants-Inne Who by the Common Law ought to repair the Bridges common Rivers and Sewers and the High-waies and by what means they shall be compelled to it and first of the Bridges And as to them it is to be known That of common Right all the Country shall be charged to the Reparation of a Bridge and therewith agreeth 10 E. 3. 28. b. That a Bridge shall be levied by the whole Country because it is a common Easement for the whole Country and as to that Point the Statute of 22 H. 8. cap. 5. was but an affirmance of the Common Law And this is true when no other is bound by the Law to repair it but he who hath the Toll of the men or Cattell which passe over a Bridge or Cawsey ought to repaire the same for he hath the Toll to that purpose Et qui sentit commodum sentire debet onus and therewith agrees 14 E. 3. Bar 276. Also a man may be bounden to repaire a Bridge ratione Tenurae of certain Land But a particular person cannot be bound by prescription scil That he and all his Ancestors have repaired the Bridge if it be not in respect of the Tenure of his Land taking of Toll or other profit for the Act of the Ancestor cannot charge the Heir without profit But an Abbot or other Corporation who hath a lawfull being may be charged scil That he and his Predecessors time out of mind c. have repaired the Bridge For the Abbot and Covent may bind their Successors vide 21 E. 4. 28. 27 E. 3. 8. 22 Ass 8. 5 H. 7. 3. And if an Abbot and his Predecessors time out of mind have repaired a Bridge of Almes they shall be compelled to repaire it and therewith agreeth 10 E. 3. 28. So it is of a High-way of common Right all the Country ought for to repaire it because that the Country have their ease and passage by it which stands with the reason of the Case of the Bridge but yet some may be particularly bounden to repaire it as is aforesaid He who hath the Land adjoyning ought of common Right without prescription to scoure and cleanse the Ditches next to the way to his Land and therewith agreeth the Book of 8 H. 7. 5. But he who hath Land adjoyning without prescription is not bound to repair the way So of a common River of common Right all who have ease and passage by it ought to cleanse and scoure it For a common River is as a common Street as it is said in 22 Ass and 37 Ass 10. But he who hath Land adjoyning to the River is not bounden to cleanse the River unlesse he hath the benefit of it scil a Toll or a Fishing or other profit See 37 Ass p. 10. XIII Pasch 7 Jacobi Sir William Reades and Boothes Case IN the great Case in the Star-Chamber of a Forgery Between Sir William Read Plaintiff and Roger Booth and Cutbert Booth and others Defendants the Case was this The said Roger Booth 38 Eliz. was convicted in that Court of the publication of a Writing under Seal forged in the name of Sir Thomas Gresham of a Rent-charge of a hundred pounds cut of all his Lands and Tenements to one Markham for ninety nine years bearing date the one and twentieth year of Queen Elizabeth the said Roger knowing it to be forged And afterwards the said Sir William Read exhibited the said Bill against the said Boothes and others for forging of another writing under Seal bearing date the twentieth of Eliz. in the name of the said Sir Thomas Gresham purporting a Deed of Feoffment of all his Lands except certain to Sir Rowland Heyward and Edward Hoogon and their Heirs to certain uses which was in effect to the use of Markham the younger and his Heirs And for the publication of the said Writing knowing the same to be forged was the Bill exhibited And now upon the hearing of the Cause in the Star-Chamber this Term These doubts were moved upon the Statute of 5 Eliz 1. If one who is convicted of publication of a Deed of Feoffment of Rent-charge knowing the same to be forged Again at another day forge another Deed of Feoffment or Rent-charge if he be within the case of Felony within the said Act which doubt ariseth upon these words eftsoons committed again any of the said Offences And therefore it was objected that he ought to commit again the same natute of Offence scil If he were convicted of Forgery he ought to forge again and not only publish knowing c. And if first he were convicted of publishing knowing c. he ought to offend again in publication knowing c. and not in Forgery for eftsoons which is iterum implyeth that it ought to be of the same nature of Offence The second doubt was If a man committeth two Forgeries the one in 37 of Eliz. and the other in 38. and he is first convicted of the last if he may be now impeached for the first The third doubt was when Roger Booth was convicted in 38 Eliz. and afterwards is charged with a new Forgery in 37 Eliz. If the Witnesses proving in truth that it was forged after the first conviction if the Star Chamber hath Iurisdiction of it The last doubt was when Cutbert Booth who never was convicted of Forgery before if in truth the Forgery was done and so proved in 38 Eliz If he might be convicted upon this Bill because that the Forgery is alledged before that it was done As to the first and second doubts it was resolved by the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron that if any one be convicted of Forgery or publication of any Writing concerning Freehold c. within the first Branch or concerning Interest or Term for years c. within the second Branch and be convicted if afterwards he offend either against the first Branch or second that the same is Felony As if he forgeth a Writing concerning interest for years within the second branch and be convicted and afterwards he forgeth a Charter of Feoffment within the first branch or è converso that that is Felony and that by expresse words of the Act That if any person or persons being hereafter convicted or condemned of any of the said Offences which words any of the said Offences extend to all the Offences mentioned before either in the first branch or in the second branch by any the waies or means above limited shall after any such conviction or condemnation eftsoons commit or perpetrate any of the said Offences in form aforesaid which words Any of the said Offences c.
are to be determined in our Law he shall have a Consultation because that the principal belongeth to them 38 E. 3. 5. Right of Tythes between two spiritual persons shall be determined in the Ecclesiastical Court And 38 E. 3. 6. where the Right of Tythes comes in debate between two spiritual persons the one claiming the Tythes as of common Right within his Parish and the other claiming to be discharged by real composition the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Iurisdiction of it And the said Iudges made humble suit to the King That for as much as they perceived that the King in his Princely Wisdom did detest Innovations and Novelties that he would vouchsafe to suffer them with his gracious favor to inform him of one Innovation and Novelty which they conceived would tend to the hinderance of the good administration and execution of Iustice within his Realm Your Majesty for the great zeal which you have to Iustice and for the due administration thereof hath constituted and made fourteen Iudges to whom you have committed not onely the administration of Ordinary Iustice of the Realm but crimina laesae Majestatis touching your Royal person for the legal proceeding also in Parliament we are called by Writ to give to your Majesty and to the Lords of the Parliament our advice and counsel when we are required We two chief Iustices sit in the Star-Chamber and are oftentimes called into the Chancery Court of Wards and other High Courts of Iustice we in our Circuits do visit twice in the year your Realm and execute Iustice according to your Laws and if we who are your publique Iudges receive any diminution of such reverence and respect in our places which our predecessors had we shall not be able to do you such acceptable service as they did without having such reverence and respect as Iudges ought to have The state of this Question is not in statu deliberativo but in statu judiciali it is not disputed de bono but de vero non de Lege fienda sed de Lege lata not to frame or devise new Laws but to inform your Majesty what your Law of England is and therefore it was never seen before that when the Question is of the Law that your Iudges of the Law have been made Disputants with him who is inferior to them who day by day plead before them at their several Courts at Westminster and although we are not afraid to dispute with Mr. Bennet and Mr. Bacon yet this example being primae impressionis and your Majesty detesting Novelties and innovations we leave it to your Grace and Princely consideration whether your Majesty will permit our answering in hoc statu judiciali upon your publique Iudges of the Realm But in Obedience to your Majesties command We with your Majesties gracious favor in most humble manner will inform your Majesty touching the said Question which we and our predecessors before us have oftentimes adjudged upon judicial proceedings in your Courts of Iustice at Westminster which Iudgments cannot be reversed or examined for any Error in Law if not by a Writ of Error in a more high and supream Court of Iustice upon legal and judicial proceedings and that is the ancient Law of England as appeareth by the Statute of 4 H. 4. cap. 22. And we being commanded to proceed all that which was said by us the Iudges was to this effect That the Tryal De Modo Decimandi ought to be by the Common Law by a Iury of twelve men it appeareth in three manners First by the Common Law Secondly by Acts of Parliament And lastly by infinite judgments and judicial proceedings long times past without any impeachment or interruption But first it is to see What is a Modus Decimandi Modus Decimandi is when Lands Tenements or Hereditaments have been given to the Parson and his successors or an annual certain sum or other profit always time out of minde to the Parson and his successors in full satisfaction and discharge of all the Tythes in kinde in such a place and such manner of Tything is now confessed by the other party to be a good bar of Tythes in kinde I. That Modus Decimandi shall be tryed by the Common Law that is that all satisfactions given in discharge of Tythes shall be tryed by the Common Law and therefore put that which is the most common case That the Lord of the Mannor of Dale prescribes to give to the Parson 40 s. yearly in full satisfaction and discharge of all Tythes growing and renewing within the Mannor of Dale at the Feast of Easter The Parson sueth the Lord of the Mannor of Dale for his Tythes of his Mannor in kinde and he in Bar prescribes in manner ut supra The Question is if the Lord of the Mannor of Dale may upon that have a Prohibition for if the Prohibition lyeth then the Spiritual Court ought not to try it for the end of the Prohibition is That they do not try that which belongs to the Tryal of the Common Law the words of the Prohibition being that they would draw the same ad aliud examen First the Law of England is divided into Common-Law Statute-Law and Customs of England and therefore the Customs of England are to be tryed by the Tryal which the Law of England doth appoint Secondly Prescriptions by the Law of the Holy Church and by the Common Law differ in the times of limitation and therefore Prescriptions and Customs of England shall be tryed by the Common Law See 20 H. 6. fo 17. 19 E. 3. Jurisdiction 28. The Bishop of Winchester brought a Writ of Annuity against the Archdeacon of Surry and declared how that he and his successors were seised by the hands of the Defendant by title of Prescription and the Defendant demanded Iudgment if the Court would hold Iurisdiction being between spiritual persons c. Stone Iustice Be assured that upon title of prescription we will here hold Iurisdiction and upon that Wilby chief Iustice gave the Rule Answer Vpon which it follows that if a Modus Decimandi which is an annual sum for Tythes by prescription comes in debate between spiritual persons that the same shall be tryed here For the Rule of the Book is general scil upon title of prescription we will hold Iurisdiction and that is fortified with an Asseveration Know assuredly as if he should say that it is so certain that it is without question 32 E. 3. Jurisd 26. There was a Vicar who had onely Tythes and Oblations and an Abbot claimed an Annuity or Pension of him by prescription and it was adjudged that the same prescription although it was betwixt spiritual persons should be tryed by the Common Law Vide 22 H. 6. 46. and 47. A prescription that an Abby time out of minde had found a Chaplain in his Chappel to say Divine Service and to minister Sacraments tryed at the Common Law 3. See the Record of 25 H. 3. cited
delivered to the party without difficulty if the Ecclesiastical Iudg when the cause which depends before him is meer Ecclesiastical denyeth the Libel a Prohibition lieth because that he doth against the Statute and yet no Prohibition by any express words is given by the Statute And upon the same Statute the Case was in 4 E. 4. 37. Pierce Peckam took Letters of Administration of the Goods of Rose Brown of the Bishop of London and afterwards T. T. sued to Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury That because the said Rose Brown had Goods within his Diocess he prayed Letters of Administration to be committed to him upon which the Bishop granted him Letters of Administration and afterwards T. T. libelled in the Spiritual Court of the Archbishop in the Arches against Pierce Peckam to whom the Bishop of London had committed Letters of Administration to repeal the same and Pierce Peckam according to the said Statute prayed a Copy of the Libel exhibited against him and could not have it and thereupon he sued a Prohibition and upon that an Attachment And there Catesby Serjeant moved the Court that a Prohibition did not lie for two causes 1. That the Statute gives that the Libel shall be delivered but doth not say that the Plea in the Spiritual Court shall surcease by Prohibition 2. The Statute is not intended of matter meer spiritual as that case is to try the Prerogative and the Liberty of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London in committing of Administrations And there Danby Chief Iustice If you will not deliver the Libel according to the Statute you do wrong which wrong is a temporal matter and punishable at the Common Law and therefore in this case the party shall have a special Prohibition out of this Court reciting the matter and the Statute aforesaid commanding them to surcease until he had the Copy of the Libel delivered unto him which case is a stronger case then the case at the Bar for that Statute is in the Affirmative and the said Act of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. is in the Negative scil That no Suit shall be for any Tythes of any Land in kinde where there is Modus Decimandi for that is the effect of the said Act as to that point And always after the said Act in every Term in the whole Reigns of King E. 6. Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth until this day Prohibitions have been granted in Causa Modi Decimandi and Iudgments given upon many of them and all the same without question made to the contrary And accordingly all the Iudges resolved in 7 E. 6. Dyer 79. Et contemporanea expositio est optima fortissima in lege a communi observantia non est recedendum minime mutanda sunt quae certam habuerunt interpretationem And as to the first Objection That the Plea of Modus Decimandi is but accessary unto the Right of Tythes it was resolved that the same was of no force for three causes 1. In this case admitting that there is Modus Decimandi then by the Custom and by the Act of 2 E. 6. and the other Acts the Tythes in kinde are extinct and discharged for one and the same Land cannot be subject to two manner of Tythes but the Modus Decimandi is all the Tythe with which the Land is chargeable As if a Horse or other thing valuable be given in satisfaction of the Duty the Duty is extinct and gone and it shall be intended that the Modus Decimandi began at the first by real composition by which the Lands were discharged of the Tythes and a yearly sum in satisfaction of them assigned to the Parson c. So as in this case there is neither Principal nor Accessary but an Identity of the same thing 2. The Statute of 2 E. 6. being a Prohibition in it self and that in the Negative If the Ecclesiastical Iudg doth against it a Prohibition lieth as it appeareth clearly before 3. Although that the Rule be general yet it appeareth by the Register it self that a Modus Decimandi is out of it for there is a Prohibition in Causa Modi Decimandi when Lands are given in satisfaction of the Tythes As to the second Objection it was answered and resolved That that was from or out of the Question for status Quaestionis non est deliberativus sed judicialis what was fit and convenient but what the Law is and yet it was said It shall be more inconvenient to have an Ecclesiastical Iudg who is not sworn to do Iustice to give sentence in a case between a man of the Clergy and a Lay-man then for twelve men sworn to give their Verdict upon hearing of Witnesses viva voce before an indifferent Iudg who is sworn to do Right and Iustice to both parties But convenient or inconvenient is not the Question Also they have in the Spiritual Court such infinite exceptions to Witnesses that it is at the Will of the Iudg with which party he shall give his sentence As to the third Objection it was answered and resolved First That satisfactio pecuniaria of it self is Temporal But for as much as the Parson hath not remedy pro Modo Decimandi at the Common Law the Parson by force of the Acts cited before might sue pro Modo Decimandi in the Ecclesiastical Court but that doth not prove That if he sueth for Tythes in kinde which are utterly extinct and the Land discharged of them that upon the Plea de Modo Decimandi that a Prohibition should not lie for that without all question appeareth by all that which before hath been said that a Prohibition doth lie See also 12 H. 7. 24. b. Where the original cause is Spiritual and they proceed upon a Temporal a Prohibition lieth See 39 E. 3. 22 E. 4. Consultation That Right of Tythes which is meerly Ecclesiastical yet if the question ariseth of the limits of a Parish a Prohibition lieth and this case of the limits of a Parish was granted by the Lord Chancellor and not denyed by the other side As to the Objection That an Averment is taken of the refusal of the Plea de Modo Decimandi it was answered and resolved That the same is of no force for divers causes 1. It is onely to inforce the contempt 2. If the Spiritual Court ought to have the Tryal de Modo Decimandi then the refusal of acceptance of such a Plea should give cause of Appeal and not of Prohibition as if an Excommunication Divorce Heresie Simony c. be pleaded there and the Plea refused the same gives no cause of Prohibition as if they deny any Plea meer spiritual Appeal and no Prohibition lieth 3. From the begining of the Law no Issue was ever taken upon the refusal of the plea in Causa Modi Decimandi nor any Consultation ever granted to them because they did not refuse but allowed the plea. 4. The refusal is no part of the matter issuable or material in
of Iustice And this was the end of these three days consultations And note That Dr. Bennet in his discourse inveighed much against the opinion in 8 E. 4. 14. and in my Reports in Wrights Case That the Ecclesiastical Iudg would not allow a Modus Decimandi and said That that was the mystery of iniquity and that they would allow it And the King asked for what cause it was so said in the said Books To which I answered that it appeareth in Linwood who was Dean of the Arches and of profound knowledg in the Canon and Civil Law and who wrote in the Reign of King Henry the sixth a little before the said Case in 8 E. 4. in his title de Decimis cap. Quoniam propter c. fo 139. b. Quod Decimae solvantur c. absque ulla diminutione and in the gloss it is said Quod Consuetudo de non Decimando aut de non bene Decimando non valet And that being written by a great Canonist of England was the cause of the said saying in 8 E. 4. that they would not allow the said plea de Modo Decimandi for always the Modus Decimandi is lesse in value then the Tithes in specie and then the same is against their Canon Quod decimae solvantur absque diminutione quod consuetudo de non plene Decimando non valet And it seemed to the King that that Book was a good Cause for them in the time of King Edward the fourth to say as they had said but I said That I did not relie upon that but upon the grounds aforesaid scil The common Law Statute-Laws and the continuall and infinite judgements and judiciall proceedings and that if any Canon or Constitution be against the same such Canon and Constitution c. is void by the Statute of 25. H. 8. Cap. 19. which see and note For all Canons Constitutions c. against the Prerogative of the King the common Laws Statutes or Customs of the Realm are void Lastly the King said That the high Commission ought not to meddle with any thing but that which is enormious and exorbitant and cannot permit the ordinary Proces of the Ecclesiasticall Law and which the same Law cannot punish And that was the cause of the institution of the same Commission and therefore although every offence ex vi termini is enormious yet in the Statute it is to be intended of such an offence is extra omnem normam as Heresie Schisme Incest and the like great offences For the King said That it was not reason that the high Commission should have conusance of common offences but to leave them to Ordinaries scil because that the party cannot have any appeal in case the high Commisson shall determine of it And the King thought that two high Commissions for either Province one should be sufficient for all England and no more XV. Mich. 39 and 40 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. Bedell and Shermans Case MIch 39 and 40 Eliz. which is entred Mich. 40 Eliz. in the com-Pleas Rot. 699 Cantabr the Case was this Robert Bedel Gent. and Sarah his wife Farmors of the Rectory of Litlington in the County of Cambridge brought an Action of Debt against John Sherman in the custody of the Marshall of the Marshalsey and demanded 550 l. And declared that the Master and Fellows of Clare-Hall in Cambridge were seised of the said Rectory in fee in right of the said Colledge and in June 10. 29 Eliz. by Indenture demised to Christopher Phesant the said Rectorie for 21 years rendering 17 l. 15 s. 5 d. and reserving Rent-corn according to the Statute c. which Rent was the ancient Rent who entred into the said Rectory and was possessed and assigned all his interest thereof to one Matthew Batâ— who made his last Will and Testament and made Sarah his wife his Executrix and died Sarah proved the Will and entred and was thereof possessed as Executrix and took to husband the said Robert Bedel by force whereof they in the Right of the said Sarah entred and were possessed thereof and that the Defendant was then Tenant and seised for his life of 300 acres of arable Lands in Litlington aforesaid which ought to pay Tithes to the Rector of Litlington and in anno 38 Eliz. the Defendant grano seminavit 200 acres parcel c. And that the Tithes of the same did amount to 150 l. and that the Defendant did not divide nor set forth the same from the 9 parts but took and carried them away against the form and effect of the Statute of 2 E. 6 c. And the Defendant pleaded Nihil debet and the Iury found that the Defendant did owe 55 l. and to the residue they found Nihil debet c. and in arrest of Iudgement divers matters were moved 1. That grano seminata is too generall and incertain but it ought to be expressed with what kinde of corn the same was sowed 2. It was moved If the Parson ought to have the treble value the forfeiture being by expresse words limited to none by the Act or that the same did belong to the Queen 3. If the same did belong to the Parson if he ought to sue for the same in the Ecclesiasticall Court or in the Kings Temporall Court 4. If the husband and wife should joyn in the Action or the husband alone should have the Action and upon solemn argunent at the Barre and at the Bench the Iudgement was affirmed XVI Trinity Term 7 Jocob in the Court of Wards John Bailies Case IT was found by Writ of Diem clausit extremum That the said John Bailie was seised of a Messuage or Tenement and of and in the fourth part of one acre of land late parcel of the Demesne lands of the Mannor of Newton in the County of Hereford in his Demesne as of fee and found the other points of the Writ and it was holden by the two chief Iustices and the chief Barons 1. That Messuagium vel Tenementum is uncertain for Tenementum is nomen collectivum and may contain land or any thing which is holden 2. It was holden that is was void for the whole because that no Town is mentioned in the Office where the Messuage or Tenement or the fourth part of the acre lieth and from the Visne of the Mannor upon a Traverse none can come because it is not affirmed by by the Office that they are parcel of the Mannor but Nuper parcel of the Mannor which implieth that now they are not and it was holden by them that no Melius inquirendum shall issue forth because that the whole Office is incertain and void XVII Trinity 7 Jacobi Regis in the Court of Wards THe Attorney of the Court of Wards moved the two chief Iustices and chief Baron in this Case That a man seised of lands in fee-simple covenants for the advancement of his son and of his name and blood and posterity that he will stand seised
of them to the use of himself for the term of his life and after to the use of his eldest sonne and to such a woman which he shall marry and to the heirs males of the body of the son and afterwards the father dieth and after the son taketh a wife and dieth if the wife shall take an Estate for life and the doubt was because the wife of the son was not within the Considerations and the use was limited to one who was capable scil the son and to another who was not capable and therefore the son should take an estate in tail executed But it was resolved by the said two chief Iustices and chief Baron That the Wife should take well enough and as to the first Reason they resolved That the Wife was within the consideration for the consideration was for the advancement of his posterity and without a Wife the Son cannot have posterity also when the Wife of the Son is sure of a Ioynture the same is for the advancement of the Son for thereby he shall have the better marriage And as to the second it was resolved That the Estate of the Son shall support the use to the Defendant and when the contingent happeneth the Estate of the Son shall be changed according to the limitation scil to the Son and the woman and the Heirs of the body of the Son And so it was resolved in the Kings-Bench by Popham chief Iustice and the whole Court of the Kings-Bench in the Reign of Queen Eliz. in Sheffields Case for both points XVIII Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis In the Court of Wards Sparies Case JOhn Spary seised in fee in the right of his Wife of Lands holden of the Crown by Knights service had issue by her and 22 Decemb. anno 9 Eliz. aliened to Edward Lord Stafford the Wife dyed the issue of full age the Lands continue in the hands of the Alienee or his Assigns and ten years after the death of the Father and twelve years after the death of the Mother Office is found 7 Jacobi finding all the special matter after the death of the Mother the Question was Whether the mean profits are to be answered to the King and it was resolved by the said two chief Iustices and the chief Baron That the King should not have the mean profits because that the Alienee was in by title and until Entry the Heir hath no remedy for the mean profits but that the King might seise and make Livery because that the Entry of the Heir is lawful by the Statute of 32 H. 8. XIX Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis In the Court of Wards IT was found by force of a Mandamus at Kendal in the County of VVestmerland the 21 of December 6 Jacobi Regis That George Earl of Cumberland long before his death was seised in tayl to him and to the Heirs males of his body of the Castles and Mannors of Browham Appleby c. the Remainder to Sir Ingram Clifford with divers Remainders over in tayl the Remainder to the right Heirs of Henry Earl of Cumberland Father of the said George and that the said George Earl so seised by Fine and Recovery conveyed them to the use of himself and Margaret his Wife for their lives for the Ioynture of the said Margaret and afterwards to the Heirs males of the body of George Earl of Cumberland and for want of such issue to the use of Francis now Earl of Cumberland and to the Heirs males of his body begotten and for want of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the said George and afterwards by another Indenture conveyed the Fee-simple to Francis Earl By force of which and of the Statute of uses they were seised accordingly and afterwards 30 Octob. anno 3 Jacobi the said George Earl of Cumberland dyed without Heir male of his body lawfully begotten and further found that Margaret Countess of Cumberland that now is was alive and took the profits of the premisses from the death of the said George Earl of Cumberland until the taking of that inquisition and further found the other points of the Writ And first it was objected that here was no dying seised found by Office and therefore the Office shall be insufficient But as to that it was answerod and resolved That by this Office the King was not entitled by the common Law for then a dying seised or at first a dying the day of his death was necessary But this Office is to be maintained upon the Statute of 32 and 34 H. 8. by force of which no dying seised is requisite but rather the contrary scil If the Land be as this case is conveyed to the Wife c. And so it was resolved in Vincents case anno 23 Eliz. where all the Land holden in Capite was conveyed to the younger Son and yet the eldest Son was in Ward notwithstanding that nothing descended The second Objection was It doth not appear that the Estate of the Wife continued in her until the death of the Earl for the Husband and Wife had aliened the same to another and then no primer seisin shall be as it is agreed in Binghams case As to that it was answered and resolved That the Office was sufficient prima facie for the King because it is a thing collateral and no point of the Writ and if any such alienation be which shall not be intended then the same shall come in of the other part of the Alienee by a Monstrans de droit and the case at Bar is a stronger case because it is found that the said Countess took the profits of the premisses from the death of George the Earl until the finding of the Office XX. Trinity Term 7 Jacobi In the Court of Wards Wills Case HEnry Wills being seised of the fourth part of the Mannor of Wryland in the County of Devon holden of Queen Elizabeth in Socage-tenure in capite of the said fourth part enfeoffed Zachary Irish and others and their Heirs to the use of the said Henry for the term of his life and afterwards to the use of Thomas Wills his second son in tayl and afterwards to the use of Richard Wills his youngest son in tayl and for default of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the said Henry and afterwards the said Henry so seised as abovesaid dyed thereof seised William Wills being his Son and Heir of full age Thomas the second son entered as into his Remainder All this matter is found by Office and the question was If the King ought to have primer seisin in this case and that Livery or Ouster le main shall be sued in this case by the Statutes of 32 and 34 H. 8. And it was resolved by the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron that not if in this case by the common Law no Livery or Ouster le main shall be sued and that was agreed by them all by the experience and course of the
Trees and Clay c. which he had not but as things annexed to the Land and therefore he could not have them when he had departed with his whole interest nor he could not take them either for Reparations or otherwise But when Tenant for life Leaseth for years except the Timber Trees the same remaineth yet annexed to his Freehold and he may command the Lessee to take them for necessary Reparations of the Houses And in the said case of Saunders a Iudgment is cited between Foster and Miles Plaintiffs and Spencer and Bourd Defendants That where Lessee for years assigns over his term except the Trees that Waste in such case shal be brought against the Assignee but in this case without question Waste lieth against the Tenant for life and so there is a difference c. XXVIII Mich. Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Court of Wards Hulmes Case THe King in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster Lord Richard Hulm seised of the Mannor of Male in the County of Lancaster holden of the King as of his Dutchy by Knights service Mesne and Robert Male seised of Lands in Male holden of the Mesn as of his said Mannor by Knights service Tenant Richard Hulm dyed after whose death 31 Hen. the eight it was found that he dyed seised of the said Menalty and that the same descended to Edward his Son and Heir within age and found the Tenure aforesaid c. And during the time that he was within age Robert Male the Tenant dyed after which in anno 35 H. 8. it was found by Office That Robert Male dyed seised of the said Tenancy peravail and that the same descended to Richard his Son and Heir within age and that the said Tenancy was holden of the King as of his said Dutchy by Knights service whereas in truth the same was holden of Edward Hulm then in Ward of the King as of his Menalty for which the King seised the Ward of the Heir of the Tenant And afterwards anno quarto Jacobi Regis that now is after the death of Richard Male who was lineal Heir of the said Robert Male by another Office it was found That the said Richard dyed seised of the said Tenancy and held the same of the King as of his Dutchy by Knights service his Heir within age whereupon Richard Hulm Cosin and Heir of the said Richard Hulm had preferred a Bill to be admitted to his Traverse of the said Office found in quarto Jacobi Regis And the Question was Whether the Office found in 35 H. 8. be any estoppel to the said Hulm to Traverse the said last Office or if that the said Hulm should be driven first to Traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. And it was objected That he ought first to Traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. as in the Case of 26 E. 3. 65. That if two Fines be levyed of Lands in ancient Demesn the Lord of whom the Land is holden ought to have a Writ of Deceit to reverse the first Fine and in that the second Fine shall not be a Bar And that the first Office shall stand as long as the same remains in force To which it was answered and resolved by the two Chief Iustices and the Chief Baron and the Court of Wards That the finding of an Office is not any estoppel for that is but an enquest of Office and the party grieved shall have a Traverse to it as it hath been confessed and therefore without question the same is no estoppel But when an Office is found falsly that Land is holden of the King by Knights service in capite or of the King himself in Socage if the Heir sueth a general Livery now it is holden in 46 E. 3. 12. by Mowbray and Persey that he shall not after add that the Land is not holden of the King but that is not any estoppel to the Heir himself who sueth the Livery and shall not conclude his Heir for so saith Mowbray himself expresly in 44 Assis pl. 35. That an Estoppel by suing of Livery shall estop onely himself the Heir during his life And in 1 H. 4. 6. b. there the case is put of express confession and suing of Livery by the issue in tayl upon a false Office and there it is holden that the Iurors upon a new Diem clausit extremum after the death of such special Heir are at large according to their conscience to finde that the Land is not holden c. for they are sworn ad veritatem dicendum and their finding is called veredictum quasi dictum veritatis which reason also shall serve when the Heir in Fee-simple sueth Livery upon a false Office and the Iurors after his death ought to finde according to the truth So it is said 33 H. 6. 7. by Laicon that if two sisters be found Heirs whereof the one is a Bastard if they joyn in a Suit of Livery she which joyneth with the Bastard in the Livery shall not alledg Bastardy in the other but there is no Book that saith that the Estoppel shall endure longer then during his life and when Livery is sued by a special Heir the force and effect of the Livery is executed and determined by his death and by that the Estoppel is expired with the death of the Heir but that is to be intended of a general Livery but a special Livery shall not conclude one But as it is expressed the words of a general Livery are When the Heir is found of full age Rex Escheatori c. Scias quod cepimus homigium I. filii haeredis B. defuncti de omnibus terris tenementis quae idem B. Pater suus tenuit de nobis in capite die quo obiit ei terras tenement illa reddidimus ideo tibi praecipimus c. And when the Heir was in Ward at his full age the Writ of Livery shall say Rex c. Quia I. filius haeres B. defuncti qui de nobis tenuit in capite aetatem suam coram te sufficienter probavit c. Ceperimus homagium ipsius I. de omnibus terris tenementis quae idem B. Pater suus tenuit de nobis in capite die quo obiit ei terras tenement illa reddidimus ideo tibi praecipimus ut supra c. Which Writ is the Suit of the Heir and therefore although that all the words of the Writ are the words of the King as all the Writs of the King are and although that the Livery be general de omnibus terris tenementis de quibus B. pater I. tenuit de nobis in capite die quo obiit without direct affirmation that any Mannor in particular is holden in capite and notwithstanding that the same is not at the prosecution of the Kings Writ and no Iudgment upon it yet because the general Livery is founded upon the Office and by the Office it was found That divers Lands or
Tenements were holden of the King in capite for this cause the suing of the Writ shall conclude the Heir onely which sueth the Livery and after his death the Iurors in a new Writ of Diem clausit extremum are at large as before is said And if that Iury finde falsly in a Tenure of the King also the Lord of whom the Land is holden may traverse that Office Or if Land be holden of the King c. in Socage the Heir may traverse the last Office for by that he is grieved onely and he shall not be driven to traverse the first Office and when the Father sueth Livery and dyeth the conclusion is executed and past as before is said And note that there is a special Livery but that proceeds of the Grace of the King and is not the Suit of the Heir and the King may grant it either at full age before aetate probanda c. or to the Heir within age as it appeareth in 21 E. 3. 40. And that is general and shall not comprehend any Tenure as the general Livery doth and therefore it is not any estoppel without question And at the Common Law a special Livery might have been granted before any Office found but now by the Statute of 33 H 8. cap. 22. it is provided That no person or persons having Lands or Tenements above the yearly value of 20 l. shall have or sue any Livery before inquisition or Office found before the Escheator or other Commission But by an express clause in the same Act Livery may be made of the Lands and Tenements comprized or not comprized in such Office so that if Office be found of any parcel it is sufficient And if the Land in the Office doth exceed 20 l. then the Heir may sue a general Livery after Office thereof found as is aforesaid but if the Land doth not exceed 5 l. by the year then a general Livery may be sued without Office by Warrant of the Master of the Wards c. See 23 Eliz. Dyer 177. That the Queen ex debito Justitiae is not bound at this day after the said Act of 33 H 8 to grant a special Livery but it is at her election to grant a special Livery or to drive the Heir to a general Livery It was also resolved in this Case That the Office of 35 H. 8. was not traversable for his own Traverse shall prove that the King had cause to have Wardship by reason of Ward And when the King cometh to the possession by a false Office or other means upon a pretence of right where in truth he hath no right if it appeareth that the King hath any other right or interest to have the Land there none shall traverse the Office or Title of the King because that the Iudgment in the Traverse is Ideo consideratum est quod manus Domini Regis a possessione amoveantur c. which ought not to be when it appeareth to the Court that the King hath right or interest to have the Land and to hold the same accordingly See 4 H. 4. fo 33. in the Earl of Kents Case c. XXIX Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis NOte The Priviledg Order or Custom of Parliament either Parliament of the Vpper House or of the House of Commons belongs to the determination or decision onely of the Court of Parliament and this appeareth by two notable Presidents The one at the Parliament holden in the 27 year of King Henry the sixth There was a Controversie moved in the Vpper House between the Earls of Arundel and of Devonshire for their seats places and preheminences of the same to be had in the Kings presence as well in the High Court of Parliament as in his Councels and elsewhere The King by the advice of the Lords spiritual and temporal committed the same to certain Lords of Parliament who for that they had not leisure to examine the same it pleased the King by the advice of the Lords at his Parliament in anno 27 of his Reign That the Iudges of the Land should hear see and examine the Title c. and to report what they conceive herein The Iudges made report as followeth That this matter viz. of Honor and precedency between the two Earls Lords of Parliament was a matter of Parliament and belonged to the Kings Highness and the Lords spiritual and temporal in Parliament by them to be decided and determined yet being there so commanded they shewed what they found upon examination and their Opinions thereupon Another Parliament in 31 H. 6. which Parliament begun the sixth of March and after it had continued sometime it was prorogued until the fourteenth of February and afterwards in Michaelmas Term anno 31 H. 6. Thomas Thorp the Speaker of the Commons House at the Suit of the Duke of Buckingham was condemned in the Exchequer in 1000 l. damages for a Trespass done to him The 14 of February the Commons moved in the Vpper House That their Speaker might be set at liberty to exercise his place The Lords refer this Case to the Iudges and Fortescue and Prisoit the two chief Iustices in the name of all the Iudges after sad consideration and mature deliberation had amongst them answered and said That they ought not to answer to this question for it hath not been used aforetime That the Iustices should in any wise determine the Priviledg of this High Court of Parliament for it is so high and mighty in its nature that it may make Laws and that that is Law it may make no Law and the determination and knowledg of that Priviledg belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Iustices But as for proceedings in the lower Courts in such cases they delivered their Opinions And in 12 E. 4. 2. in Sir John Pastons case it is holden that every Court shall determine and decide the Priviledges and Customs of the same Court c. XXX Hillary Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Star-Chamber Heyward and Sir Iohn Whitbrokes Case IN the Case between Heyward and Sir John Whitbroke in the Star-Chamber the Defendant was convicted of divers Misdemeanors and Fine and Imprisonment imposed upon him and damages to the Plaintiff and it was moved that a special Proces might be made out of that Court to levy the said damages upon the Goods and Lands of the Defendant and it was referred to the two chief Iustices whether any such Proces might be made who this Term moved the Case to the chief Baron and to the other Iudges and Barons and it was unanimously resolved by them That no such Proces could or ought to be made neither for the damages nor for the costs given to the Plaintiff for the Court hath not any power or Iurisdiction to do it but onely to keep the Defendant in prison until he pay them For for the Fine due to the King the Court of Star-Chamber cannot make forth any Proces for the levying of the
Lease be made to one for the lives of J. S. and J. N. there the Freehold doth not determine by the death of one of them for the reasons and causes given in the Case of Brudnel in the fifth part of my Reports fol. 9 Which Case was affirmed to be good Law by the whole Court XXXIII Easter Term anno 8 Jacobi In the Common-Pleas Heydon and Smiths Case RIchard Heydon brought an Action of Trespass against Michael Smith and others of breaking of his Close called the Moor in Ugley in the County of Essex the 25 day of June in the fifth year of the King quendam arborem suum ad valentiam 40 s. ibidem nuper crescen succiderunt The Defendants said that the Close is and at the time of the Trespass was the Freehold of Sir John Leventhrop Knight c. and that the said Oak was a Timber Tree of the growth of thirty years and more and justifies the cutting down of the Tree by his commandment The Plaintiff replyeth and saith That the said Close and a House and 28 Acres of Land in Ugley are Copyhold and parcel of the said Mannor of Ugley c. of which Mannor Edward Leventhrop Esquire Father of the said Sir John Leventhrop was seised in Fee and granted the said House Lands and Close to the said Richard Heydon and his Heirs by the Rod at the Will of the Lord according to the custom of the said Mannor and that within the said Mannor there is such a custom Quod quilibet tenens Customar ejusdem Manerii sibi haeredibus suis ad voluntatem Domini c. a toto tempore supradicto usus fuit consuevit ad ejus libitum amputare ramos omnimodum arborum called Pollingers or Husbords super terris tenem suis Customar crescen pro ligno combustibili ad like libitum suum applicand in praedicto Messuagio comburend and also to cut down and take at their pleasure all manner of Trees called Pollengers or Husbords and all other Timber trees super ejusdem Custumariis suis crescen for the reparation of their Houses built upon the said Lands and customary Tenements and also for Ploughbote and Cartbote and that all Trees called Pollengers or Husbords and all other trees at the time of the Trespass aforesaid or hitherto growing upon the aforesaid Lands and Tenements customary of the said Richard Heydon were not sufficient nor did serve for the necessary uses aforesaid And that the said Richard Heydon from the time of the said Grant made unto him had maintained and preserved all trees c. growing upon the said Lands and Tenements to him granted And that after the death of the said Edward Leventhrop the said Mannor descended to the said Sir John Leventhorp and that at the time of the Trespass the aforesaid Messuage of the said Richard Heydon was in decay egebat necessariis reparationibus in Maremio ejusdem Vpon which the Defendant did demur in Law And this Case was oftentimes argued at the Bar and now this Term it was argued at the Bench by the Iustices And in this case these points were resolved 1. That the first part of the Custom was absurd and repugnant scil Quod quilibet tenens Customarii ejusdem Manerii habens tenens aliqua terras seu tenementa Custom c. usus fuit amputare ramos omnimodum arborum vocat Pollingers c. pro ligno combustabili c. in praedicto Messuagio comburend which ought to be in the Messuage of the Plaintiff for no other Messuage is mentioned before which is absurd and repugnant That every customary Tenant should burn his Fuel in the Plaintiffs house But that Branch of the Custom doth not extend unto this case for the last part of the custom which concerneth the cuting down of the Trees concerns the point in question and so the first part of the custom is not material It was objected That the pleading that the Messuage of the Plaintiff was in decay egebat necessariis reparationibus in maremio ejusdem was too general for the Plaintiff ought to have shewed in particular in what the Messuage was in decay as the Book is in 10 E. 4. 3. He who justifieth for Housebote c. ought to shew that the House hath cause to be repaired c. To which it was answered by Coke chief Iustice That the said Book proved the pleading in the case at Bar was certain enough scil Quod Messuagium praed egebat necessariis reparationibus in maremio without shewing the precise certainty and therewith agrees 7 H. 6. 38. and 34 H. 6. 17. 2. It was also answered and resolved That in this case without question it needs not to alledg more certainty for here the Copyholder according to the custom doth not take it but the Lord of the Mannor doth cut down the Tree and carryeth it away where the rest was not sufficient and so preventeth the Copyholder of his benefit and therefore he needeth not to shew any decay at all but onely for increasing of the damages for the Lord doth the wrong when he cutteth down the Tree which should serve for reparations when need should be 3. It was resolved That of common Right as a thing incident to the Grant the Copyholder may take Housebote Hedgbote and Plowbote upon his Copyhold Quia concesso uno conceduntur omnia sine quibus id consistere non potest Et quando aliquis aliquid concedit concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest and therewith agreeth 9 H. 4. Waste 59. But the same may be restrained by custom scil That the Copyholder shall not take it unless by assignment of the Lord or his Bayliff c. 4. It was resolved That the Lord cannot take all the Timber Trees but he ought to leave sufficient for the Reparation of the Customary houses and for Ploughbote c. for otherwise great Depopulation will follow scil Ruine of the Houses and decay of Tillage and Husbandry And it is to be understood That Bote being an ancient Saxon word hath two significations the one compensatio criminis as Frithbote which is as much as to say to be discharged from giving amends for the breach of the peace Manbote to be discharged of amends for the death of man And secondly in the latter signification scil for Reparation as was Bridgbote Burghbote Castlebote Parkbote c. scil Reparation of a Bridg of a Borough of a Castle of a Park c. And it is to be known that Bote and Estovers are all one Estovers are derived of this French word Estouer i. e. fovere i. e. to keep warm to cherish to sustain to defend And there are four kinds of Estovers scil ardendi arandi construendi claudendi scil Firebote Housebote Ploughbote and Hedgbote 5. It was resolved That the Copyholder shall have a general Action of Trespass against the Lord Quare clausum fregit arborem
the said Act in such case the Appeal was to Rome immediately XXXV Mich. Term 5 Jacob. Rot. 30. In the Kings-Bench Prichard and Hawkins Case JOhn Prichard brought an Action upon the Case against Robert Hawkins for slanderous words publishèd the last day of August in the third year of the King viz. That Prichard which serveth Mistris Shelley did murder John Adams Childe Quandam Isabellam Adams modo defunct filiam cujusdem Johannis Adams of Williamstre in the County of Glocester innuendo upon which a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Iudgment given for Prichard in the Kings-Bench and the Iudgment was reversed in Easter Term 7 Jacobi because that it doth not appear that Isabel was dead at the time of the speaking the words for tunc defunct ought to have been in the place of modo defunct XXXVI Easter Term. 8 Jacobi In the Kings-Bench Dison and Bestneys Case HUmphrey Dison said of Nicolas Bestney utter Barester and Councellor of Grays-Inn Thou a Barester Thou art no Barester thou art a Barretor Thou wert put from the Bar and thou darest not shew thy self there Thou study Law Thou hast as much wit as a Daw. Vpon Not-guilty pleaded the Iury found for the Plaintiff and assessed damages to 23 l. upon which Iudgment was given and in a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber the Iudgment was affirmed XXXVII Easter Term 8 Jacobi Regis In the Kings-Bench Smith and Hills Case NOah Smith brought an Action of Assault and Battery against Walter Hill in the Kings-Bench which began Pasc 7 Jacobi Rot. 175. upon Not-guilty pleaded a Verdict and Iudgment was for the Plaintiff and 107 l. assessed for damages and costs In a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber the Error was assigned in the Venire facias which was certified by Writ of Certiorari and upon the Writ no Return was made upon the back of the Writ which is called Returnum album and for that cause this Easter Term the Iudgment was reversed XXXVIII Trinity Term 7 Jacobi In the Court of Wards Westcots Case IT was found by a Writ of Diem clausit extremum after the death of Roger Westcot That the said Roger the day that he dyed was seised of and in the moyety of the Mannor of Trewalliard in his Demesn as of Fee and of such his Estate dyed thereof seised and that the moyety of the said Mannor anno 19 E. 3. was holden of the then Prince as of his Castle of Trematon parcel of his Dutchy of Cornwall by Knights-service as it appeareth by a certain exemplification of Trematon for the same Prince made 9 Marcii 19 E. 3. And the words of the Extent were Willielmus de Torr tenet duo feoda dimid militis apud Pick Striklestomb Trewalliard per servitum militare reddit inde per annum 8 d. And it was resolved by the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron That the Office concerning the Tenure was insufficient and voyd because that the Verdict of a Iury ought to be full and direct and not with a prout patet for by that the whole force of their Verdict relyeth onely upon the Extent which if it be false he who is grieved shall have no remedy by any Traverse for they have not found the Tenure indefinite which might be traversed but with a prout patet which makes the Office in that point insufficient and upon that a Melius inquirendum shall issue forth and therewith agreeth F. N. B. 255. that a Melius inquirendum shall be awarded in Inch a Case The NAMES of the CASES CAse of the admiralty 7. Jac. 51. Case of S. Alphage parish in Canterbury 8. Jac. 70. Baron and Boyes case 6. Jac. 18. Case of repairing Bridges c. 7. Jac. 33. Bedell and Shermans case 40. Eliz. 47. Baylyes case 7. Jac. 48. Case in Chancery Hill 27. Eliz. 19. Case in the common Pleas. 6. Jac. 26. Collings and Hardings 39. Eli. 57. Case of Modus decinandi 6. Jac. 12. Case de Modo Decimandi and of prohibitions before the King 7. Jac. 37. Disow and Bestneyes case 8. Jac. 71. Edwards case 6. Jac. 9. Case in ejectione firmae 7. Jac. 58. Hulmes case 7. Jac. 61. Haywards and Sr. Iohn Whitebrookes case 64. Hughes and Crowthers case 7. Iac. 66. Haidon and Smiths case 8. Iac. 67. Muttons case 7. Iac. 59. More and Webs case 7. Iac. 65. Neale and Rowses case 6. Iac. 24. Porters and Rochesters case 6. Iac. 4. Ca. of prohibition 6. Iac. 30. Sir Allen Percies case 7. Iac. 60. Parliaments case 7. Ia. 63. Prichard and Haukins case 5. Iac. 71. Sir William Reades Boothes case 7. Iac. 34. Syrat and Heales case 44. Eliz. 23. Case of sewers 7 Iac. 35. Sparye case 7. Iac. 49. Samms case 7. Iac. 54. Smith and Hils case 8. Iac. 71. Taylor and Moyls case 6. Iac. 11. Willowes case 6. Iac. 1. Case in the court of wards 7. Iac. 48. Case in the Court of wards 7. Iac. 49. Wills case 7. Iac. 50. Westcots case 7. Iac. 72. THE TABLE A Acts of Parliament are parcell of the Law so to be judged by the judges of the Law fol. 4. Acts none may take upon him any act c. but who hath knowledge in the same 12. Apples not contained within the words of Stat. 5. E. 6. 14. against ingrossors 18. 19. Actions of claime to be brought within 5. yeares 21. Aid to the King who to pay it 26. 27. 28. For what 29. 30. Made certaine and when to be paid 25. Admirall his power how far it extends 51. 52. Court of Admiralty no Court of record 53. Avoury where it shall be good and maintaineable 58. B Brewer is within the act of the 5. El. 4. for that none may keepe a common brewhouse unlesse formerly apprentice 11. 12. Burgage tenure what it is 27. Bridges rivers sewers c. who ought to repair them and how compellable to it 33. Boote a saxon word the signification whereof various 68. Boote and estovers signifie all one thing 68. C Copyhold where a Copyholder may deny to pay his fine 2. Canterbury Arch bishop thereof cannot cite one out of his owne Diocese and the reason thereof 5. 6. 7. 8. Commission High commissioners their power and to whom extendible 11. 47. Customes what Customes shall be good and when and what not 12. 13. Customes where the Kings Court shall be ousted of jurisdiction in Modo decimandi and where not 18. Customes and prescriptions to be tryed by the common Law 40. Canon Eccles against the Kings perrogative the common law c. ipso facto voide 47. Common of Pasture who shall have it and who shall be debared and why 66. Common divided shall be rateable so that the land in which c. shal not be surcharged 66. Coppyholders may of common right take House-boote hedge boote Plough-boote upon his coppy hold 68. Shall have an action against his Lord for cutting