the Parish of Grace-Church street London for which house a rent of five pound yearly hath been reserved time out of mind in the third year of the King that now is by Indenture doth make a Lease for five years unto one Withers of part of the House and of the Shop rendring the Rent of five pound by the year at the four usual Feasts that is to say at the Feast of the Annuciation c. by even and equal portions And in the same Indenture it is further covenanted and agreed that Withers the Leassee shall pay unto Burrel the Leassor a hundred fifty pound in name of a Fine and Income the which said hundred and fifty pound is to be paid in manner and form following that is to say thirty pound yearly and every year during the said term at the four usual Feasts by even and equal portions the term of five years expired the said Burrel in the tenth year of the said King by Indenture maketh a new Lease for the term of seven years of the said part of the house and the Ware-house unto one Goff rendring the rent of five pound by the year at the Feast of S. Michael the Archangel and the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary by even and equal portions And in the same Indenture it is further covenanted and agreed that Goff shall pay unto the said Burrell 175. l. in the name of a Fine and Income in manner and form following that is to say twenty five pound yearly during the said teâ—m at the said two usual Feasts by even and equal portions Dunn Parson of Grace-Church exhibiteth his Petition unto the then Lord Mayor of London against the said Burrel and Goff wherein he supposeth that Tythes are paid unto him only according to the rate of five pound by the year where in truth he ought to have an allowance according unto the rate of thirty pound by the year The Lord Mayor by the advice of his Councel doth call the said Burrell and Goff before him and upon full hearing of the said cause doth order the pâ—yment unto Dunn according unto the rates of five pound by the year and not according to the rate of thirty pound by the year whereupon the said Dunn doth exhibit his Bill of Appeal unto the Lord Chancellour of England in the Chancery wherein he doth make a recital of the Decree made and established by Act of Parliament in 37. H. cap. 12. and also of the case special as it standeth charging the said Goff and Burrell with a practice of fraud and covin in the reservation of this twenty five pound by year by way of Fine and Income and defrauding him of that which belonged unto him The said Goff and Burrell do make their answer and shew that the rent of five pound by the year is the ancient rent reserved and that they are ready and have often tendred the payment of their Tythes according to that proportion but it hath been denied to be accepted and they do take a traverse unto the fraud and covin wherewith they stand charged And upon this answer Dunn the Parson demurreth in Law And this case was first argued in the Chancery by Sir Francis Moor Serjeant and Thomas Crew on the behalf of Dunn and by Sir Anthony Benn late Recorder of London and Iohn Walter on the part of the Defendants The Lord Chancellour having called Sir Henry Mountague Cheif Justice of the Kings Bench Sir Henry Hobart Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Iohn Doddridg one of the Justices of the Kings Bench and Sir Richard Hutton one of the Justices of the Common Pleas to be his Assistants and after two Arguments heard on each side in the Chancery upon Suit made to the King by Sir Francis Bacon then Lord Chancellour of England a special Commission was granted unto Thomas Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Sir Francis Bacon Lord Chancellour of England Thomas Earl of Suffolk late Lord Preasurer of England Edward Earl of Warwick Keeper of the Privy Seal William Earl of Pembrook Lord Chamberlain of the Kings houshold Iohn Bishop of London Bishop of Eli Sir Henry Mountague Sir Iulius Caesar Master of the Rolls Sir Iohn Doddridg and Sir Richard Hutton wherein there was a special recital of the question and cause depending between Dunn on the one part and Burrell and Goff on the other part and power given unto them for the hearing and determining of this cause and likewise for the mediating between the Citizens of London and the Parsons of the several Parishes and Churches in London and making an arbitrary end betwixt them whereby a competent provision may be made for the Ministers of the Churches of London and too heavy a burthen may not beimposed upon the Citizens of London with a command further that they shall certifie the King what was done in the premises And this Commission was sat upon at York-house where the case was argued at several times by Sir Randal Crew and Sir Henry Finch Serjeants of the King on the part and behalf of the Ministers of London and by Sir Henry Yelverton Attorney of the King and Sir Thomas Coventry Solicitor of the King on the behalf of the Citizens of London and because the main Question remained as yet undetermined and no resolution is given either in point of Law nor Arbitrary end by way of mediation I shall only open the parts of the case and make a summary report of them without further debate of them The Case divideth it self into six parts that is to say First whether any thing can be demanded by the person for houses in London according to the course of the Common Law Secondly whether custome can establish a right of payment of any thing unto the Parson for houses and of what nature the payment established shall be Thirdly what was anciently payable by the Citizens of London for their houses unto the Ministers of London and how grew the payment Fourthly whether this twenty five pounds reserved upon a covenant by way of fine and income be a rent within the words of the Decree made 37. H. 8. cap. 12 Fifthly whether this reservation of twenty five pounds by the year by way of fine and income shall be adjudged to be a rent within the intent and meaning of the Statute an Decree or no Sixthly who shalâ— be Judge of the Tithes for houses in London and the remedy for the Parson in case that payment be not made unto him according to the Decree As to the first part which is whether by the Common Law any thing can be demanded for the houses in London It is to be agreed and clear that nothing can be demanded For that which the Parson ought to demand of houses is Tythes and it is improper and cannot be that Tythes can be paid of houses First in regard that houses do not increase and renew but rather decrease for want of reparations and
It was agreed and resolved That it may and doth well enough hold For howsoever that none was charge able at the Common Law by the name of an Administrator inasmuch as by the Statute of 31. Ed. 3. cap. No accusation lay against an Administrator by that name And that A custome may not commence since the making of that Statute yet inasmuch as he was chargable at the Common Law as an Executor for his Administration so that the name of the charge is only changed and yet in substance is all one For every Executor is an Administrator and the pleading is upon an action brought against an Executor that he never was Executor nor ever administred as an Executor And an Administrator hath the quality and office of an Executor Therefore the custom of Forreign Attachments will hold against an Administrator as well as against an Executor As to the third Question which is Whether the Forreign Attachment for the debt due unto the Intestate after the promise broken be such a dispensation with the promise that no Action now lieth for the Administrator upon the breach of the promise It was agreed and resolved that the promise was dispensed with and no action lay upon the breach of it for the debt due by Tenant unto the Intestate which was the ground and cause of the promise made unto Spink the Plaintiff is taken away by the judgement had in London upon the custome of Forreign Attachments Et sublato fundamento fallit opus And therefore if after the promise broken there had been a Recovery had of the principal debt by the Plaintiff as Administrator or otherwise there had been a Release made unto the Defendant Now the Action upon the Case upon the promise would have failed inasmuch as the debt which was the consideration and ground of the promise is gone and so the dampnification which he should have had by not performance of the promise faileth And agreeing to this resolution was the Case of one Bardeston and Humfry cited to be adjudged whereupon an accompt he that was found in Arrearges upon a consideration of forbearance by one moneth promiseth payment of them And those Arrerages thus due being attached in the hands of the Accomptant after the promise broken It was held that no Action might afterwards be maintained upon the breach of promise The Case concerning the Prisage of Wine KIng Edward the third in the first year of his Reign doth by his Letters Patents bearing date the same time grant unto the Mayor and Commonalty of London that no prisage shall be of any of the Wines of the Citizens of London But they shall be free and discharged from the payment of all manner of Prisage George Hanger being a Citizen and Freeman of London and Resient within the City fraughteth four several Ships with Merchandize to be transported beyond the Seas the which four Ships being disburdened of the said Merchandize are laden with Wines Two of the Ships came up the Thames at London and before any unbulking of them George Hanger maketh Frances Hanger being his wife his Executrix and dieth Afterwards the other two Ships came up to London Sir Thomas Waller being cheif Butler of the King by virtue of Letters Patents made unto him Demandeth the payment of Prisage of the said Frances Hanger for the Wines in the said four Ships that is to say To have of every of the Ships one Tun before the Mast and one other Tun behind the Mast She denieth the payment of it whereupon the said Sir Thomas Waller as chief Butler exhibiteth his Information into the Kings Bench against the said Frances Hanger Whereunto the said Frances pleadeth a special Plea in Barre shewing the whole matter as abovesaid opon which Sir Thomas Waller demurreth in Law The Questions of this case are two The first is whether for the Wines which came up the Thames in the two Ships before the death of George Hanger any Prisage ought to be paid unto the King or not The second is whether any Prisage ought to be paid for the Wines which were upon the Sea in the Ships before the death of the said George Hanger but came not up the Thames until after the death of George Hanger The case was argued at several times by Sir Henry Mountague Knight then Recorder of London now Lord chief Justice of the Kings Bench Thomas Coventry then Utter Barister now Solicitor General unto his Majesty and Francis Mingay an Utter Barister of the Inner Temple on the behalf of Frances Hanger and by Henry Yelverton then an Apprentice of the Law of Graies-Inn and now Attorney General unto his Majesty and Thomas Crew of the same Inn likewise an Apprentice of the Law on the part of Sir Thomas Waller Likewise it was argued at several times by the Judges of the Kings Bench that is to say first by Sir Thomas Fleming Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Sir Christopher Yelverton Sir David Williams and Sir Iohn Crook and afterwards by Sir Edward Cook Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Sir Iohn Crook Sir Iohn Dodridge and Sir Robert Houghton And Sir Edward Crook Sir Christopher Yelverton Sir David Williams and Sir Iohn Dodridge were of opinion that judgement ought to be given for Frances Hanger against Sir Thomas Waller for they conceived upon the reasons following that no Prisage ought to be paid neither for the Ships that came in after the death of George Hanger nor for the Ships that came in before the death of George Hanger but they all were to be discharged of the payment of Prisage by vertue of the said Charter made by Edward the third unto the Mayor and Commonalty of London First in regard thath these Wines thus in each of the four Ships aforesaid remained notwithstanding the death of George Hanger to be still the Wines of George Hanger for if Frances Hanger the Executrix were to bring an Action for the recovery of them she should bring an Action as for the Wines of George Hanger if Frances Hanger should be wained or attainted of Felony or Treason those Wines should not be forfeited insomuch as they are not the Wines of Frances Hanger but of George Hanger If a Judgement in Debt or other Action should be had against Frances Hanger as Executrix of George Hanger these Wines should be taken in execution as the Wines of George Hanger and so these Wines thus brought in before and after the death of George Hanger continuing as yet the Wines of George Hanger to be recovered as his Wines to be taken in execution as his Wines and to prevent a Forfeiture because these Wines shall be said to be the Wines of George Hanger whereby they may be protected and priviledged from the payment of Prisage within the words intent meaning of the before recited Charter made by King Edward the third which pointeth rather at the Wines then at the person of George Hanger
Commonalty for payment of the said sum at a certain day and thereupon is enlarged The four hundred Marks are not paid at the day whereupon the Mayor and Commonalty affirm a Plaint against him in London for the said Debt The Defendant obtaineth a Habeas Corpus to remove the body and the cause into the Kings Bench upon a supposition that he was to have the Priviledge by reason of a Priority of Suit in the Kings Bench and upon returne of the Habeas Corpus all this matter appeared unto the Court and it was moved by Sir Henry Mountague now Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench then one of the Serjeants of the King and Recorder of London that a Procedendo might be granted whereby the Major and Commonalty might proceed against him in the Court at London It being a customary Suit meerly grounded upon the custome of London But that was denied by Sir Edward Cook Chief Justice and the whole Court because by the Law Chamberlain having cause of Priviledge by reason of the Priority of Suit against him in the Kings Bench might not be re-manded but he was to answer in that Court Whereupon the Major and Commonalty did declare against him upon the said Obligation in the Kings Bench. Secondly it was moved that the action upon this obligation might be laid in some indifferent County and not in London forasmuch as the Trial there must be had by those that were Parties unto the Action it being brought by the Mayor and Commonalty But Sir Edward Cook and the Court would not upon this surmise take away the benefit which the Law giveth to every Plaintiff upon a transitory action wich is to lay it in whatsoever County he will And if there be any such cause as is surmised then after Plea pleaded he may make an allegation That the City of London is a County in it self and that all the Citizens there are Parties to the Action which is brought whereby there may not be an indifferent Trial. And upon this surmise the Court shall order the Trial to be in a Forreign County The which was done accordingly and so the matter proceeded The Case of the Merchant-Adventurers KIng Edward the third in the year of his reign by Letters Patents doth incorporate certain persons by the name of the Merchants-Adventurers of England and doth give power unto them to transport white Clothes into divers parts beyond the Seas restrayning them from carrying over Woolls The Merchants-Adventurers do trade beyond the Seas and continue the transposing of Clothes white until the 29. of August in the tenth year of his Majesties Reign that now is At which time the King by his Letters Pattents doth encorporate the Earl of Sussex late Lord Treasurer of England Sir Thomas Vavasour Sir Stephen Soam William Cockayn and others by the name of The Merchants Adventerers of the new trade of London with full power authority to transport dyed and dressed Cloths into divers parts beyond the Seas with a restraint prohibiting all the Old Merchants-Adventurers which did not joyn themselves unto this new Company to tranport any under the forfeiture of them and also inhibiting the New Merchants from transporting any Clothes but such as are died and dressed And after three years passed they having power during that time to transport 36000 white Clothes And there being a refusal of the Old Merchants Adventurers to surrender up their Patent The King bringeth a Quo Warranto against divers of the Merchants of the old Company by particular names to know by what Warrant they do without Licence of the King transport Clothes white undied and undressed beyond the Seas The Merchants upon the return of the Quo Warranto do make their appearance And an Information being exhibited gainst them by Sir Fr. Bacon Knight now Lord Chancellour of England and then Attorney General unto his Majesty cometh into the Kings Bench and moveth the Court that the old Merchants Adventurers might have a short day the next ensuing Term to answer unto the Information exhibited against them Insomuch that the new Company of Merchants Adventurers standing at a gaze as being uncertain of what validity the old Patent would be did slack to transplant the Diers and other Tradesmen out of the Low-Countries into England being necessary Instruments for the puting in Execution of this design because there were not here in England those that were able to Die and Dress in that manner that the Low-Country men did And so there was in the interim a stop of the current of Merchandizing with our Cloth the which being the principal Commodity that we had here in England the Fleece that causeth it may well and aptly have the term of The Golden Fleece and there being a stop made of the traffiquing and trading with these clothes it is as dangerous unto the Politique Body of the Commonwealth as the stop of a Vein could be to the natural Body for as by the stop of a Vein the Blood is debarred of his free passage and so of necessity there must be a Consumption by the continuance of it follow unto the body natural So traffique being the Blood which runneth in the Veins of the Commonwealth it cannot be but that the hinderance of it by any long continuance must breed a Consumption unto the State of the Commonwealth Wherefore to open this Vein which was as yet somewhat stopped and to give a more free passage unto the Blood he was a Suitor unto the Court on the behalf of the Company of the New Merchant-Adventurers that the Court would give expedition in this Case for they conceived that if this new design might take its full effect as it was intended it could not be but of necessity there must a great benefit redound to the Commonwealth For first Whereas our State groweth sick by reason of the many idle Persons which have not means to be set on work this Dying and Dressing of Cloths within our Kingdome would give sufficient imployment unto them all whereby there should be a cure to the lazy Leprosie which now overspreadeth our Commonwealth Secondly Whereas now we send out clothes White and the Low-Country-men receive them of us and Dye them and Dress them and afterwards transport them unto forreign parts making a wonderful benefit to themselves both in point of profit and likewise in respect of maintaining their Navy whereas if the Clothes were Died and Dressed by our selves we might reap that matter of gain and also be Masters of the Sea by strengthening our selves in our Shipping Thirdly Whereas there happeneth often a confiscation of all our Clothes and much disgrace and discredit lighteth upon our Nation and our Clothes by the abuse of the Low-Country-men in stretching them a greater length than they will well bear when they Dye and Dress them now it should be prevented when they should never have the fingering of them to put that abuse in practice Wherefore this Patent made by
persons for dividing Houses or Inmates to write the Names and addition to the present Landlord receiving the Rent and the Names of the Tenants in possession and of the Inmate in any house and also to write in the Margent on the side of every Presentment the Name or Names upon whose evidence you make such Presentment An Act of Parliament for the Preservation of the River of Thames Made in the 27. year of King Henry the 8. VVHere before this time the River of Thames among all Rivers within this Realm hath been accepted and taken and as it is indeed most commodious and profitable unto all the Kings Liege people and chiefly of all other frequented and used and as well by the Kings Highness his Estates and Nobles Merchants and other repairing to the City of London and other places Shires and Counties adjoyning to the same which River of Thames is and hath been most meet and convenient of all other for the safegard and ordering of the Kings Navy conveighance oâ— Merchandizes and other necessaries to and for the Kings most honourable Houshold and otherwise to the great relief and comfort of all persons within this Realm till now of late divers evil-disposed persons partly by misoâ—dering of the said River by casting in of Dung and other filth laid nigh to the Banks of the said River digging and undermining of the Banks and Walls next adjoyning to the same River carrying and converghing away of Way-shides Shore-piles Boards Timber-work Ballast for Ships and other things from the said Banks and Walls in sundry places by reason whereof great Shelfes and Risings have of late been made and grown in the farway of the said River and such Grounds as lye within the Level of the said Water-mark by occasion thereof have been surrounded and overflown by rage of the said Water and many great breaches have ensued and followed thereupon and dayly are like to do and the said River of Thames to be utterly destroyed for ever if convenient and speedy remedy be not sooner provided in that behalf For Reformation whereof be it enacted established and ordained by the King our Soveraign Lord and by the assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same That if any person or persons hereafter do or procure any thing to be done in the annoying of the Stream of the said River of Thames making of Shelves by any manner of means by Mining Digging casting of Dung or Rubbish or other thing in the same River or take pluck or conveigh away any Boards Stakes Piles Timberwork or other thing from the said Banks or Walls except it be to amend and the same to repair again or dig or undermine any Banks or Walls on the Water side of Thames aforesaid to the hurt impairing or damage of any the said walls Banks then the same person or persons and every of them shall forfeit and pay for every time so offending one hundred shillings the one Moyety thereof to be to the King our Soveraign Lord and the other Moyety thereof to the Mayor and Commonalty of London for the time being the same to be recovered obtained by the Mayor Commonalty of London by Bill or Plaint Writ of debt or information severally against every offender in any of the Kings Courts in which Actions and Suits or any of them the party Defendant shall not be essoyned or wage his Law or any protection to be allowed in the same And it is further enacted by the Authority aforesaid that if complaint shall happen to be made to the Lord Chancellour of England Lord Treasurer Lord President of the Kings Councel Lord Privy Seal or to any of them by any person or persons or body politick that Sir Thomas Spert Knight now having the Office and ordering of for ballasting of Ships or any other that hereafter shall have the Office and Order of ballasting of Ships do take any ballast for Ships near the said River of Thames and do not take for parcel of the said ballasting the Gravel and Sand of the Shelfes between Greenhith and Richmond within the said River of Thames or in any place or places that is or shall be unto the damage or annoyance of the said River of Thames or in any part thereof that then upon every such complaint the said Lord Chancellour Lord Treasurer Lord President of the Kings most honourable Councel Lord Privy Seal and every of them calling both the Cheif Justices of either Bench or one of them shall have power and authority from time to time to hear and finally determine every such complaint by their discretion and to put such order therein for the taking of ballast for Ships upon every such complaint as by their discretions shall seem most convenient for the preservation of the said River of Thames and the parties offending such order shall suffer imprisonment and make no less Fine then five pound to the Kings use for every time offending or breaking the same Provided alwayes and be it enacted that it shall be lawful to every person and persons to digge carry and take away Sand Gravel or other Rubbish Earth or thing lying or being in or upon any Shelfe or Shelfes within the said River of Thames with out let or interruption of any person or persons or paying any thing for the same any thing contained in this present Act to the contrary notwithstanding An Act of Common Councel concerning the conservation and cleansing of the River of Thames made the 28. of September in the 30. year of King Henry the 8. VVHere by the Statute made in the 27. year of the Raign of our Soveraign Lord King Henry the eight among other for Reformation of the misordering of the River of Thames by casting in Dung and other filth many great Shelves and other risings have been of late grown and made within the same River By reason whereof many great breaches have ensued by occasion thereof which of like shall be the occasion of the utter destruction of the said River unless that the same Law be put in due Execution according to the true intent and meaning thereof Wherefore for a further Reformation of the same and to the intent that the said good and wholesome Statute may be put in more Execution and better knowledge of the people It is enacted by the Authority of this Common Councel that Proclamation may be made within this said City and the same to be put in writing and Tables thereof made and and set up in divers places of this City that it shall be lawfully to every person or persons to dig carry away and take away Sand Gravel or any Rubbish Earth or any thing lying or being in any Shelve or Shelves within the said River of Thames without let or interruption of any person or persons and without any thing paying for the same and after that to sell the same
REPORTS OF SPECIAL CASES Touching several Customes AND Liberties OF The City of LONDON Collected by Sir H. Calthrop Knight Sometimes Recorder of London Whereunto is annexed divers ANCIENT CUSTOMES AND USAGES Of the said City of LONDON LONDON Printed for Abel Roper at the Sun St. Dunstans Church in Fleetstreet 1670. To the Right Worshipful Sir THOMAS LOE K. ALDERMAN OF The City of LONDON Worthy Sir BEing put in mind of that saying of Seneca Ingratum sidixeris Omnia dixeris And having a desire to avoid that Rock whereupon so many have suffered Shipwrack have had often conflicts within my self wherein I might express my thankfulness unto you of whom I a Stranger have received so many undeserved favours and at last bethought my self that you being one of the Noble Governours of this famous City of London and being likewise a President over several Companies of Merchants in it a Treatise concerning the Customs of the City of London or otherwise concerning the Priviledges and Immunities granted unto the Merchants of London would not altogether be an unfitting subject to be presented unto your view whereupon I have selected som few Cases collected by my self of the resolution of the Iudges concerning some Customes of your City and some Charters granted unto the Citizens of it and offered them unto your consideration the which I desire you to accept as a pledge and token of a thankful mind howsoever they in themselves are unworthy your pains to be taken in the reading of them and so with my truest wishes of the continuance of all happiness unto your self your thrice Noble Lady and the branches of your flourishing Family I take my leave ever resting From my Chamber in the middle Temple 2 Januarii Anno Dom. 1661. The affectionate and hearty well-wisher of all good unto you and yours Henry Calthrop The Contents of several Cases THe Case of the City of London concerning Neusances in stopping up the lights of their Neighbours houses by new Buildings page 1 Touching the custome of Citizens learning that Trade whereunto they have been Apprentices seven years and betaking themselves to other Trades 9 The custome of London touching forreign Attachment 27 The Case concerning the prisage of Citizens Wines  The Case concerning repairing of Wharfes and Docks  The cuctome of London to fine one chosen by the Commons to be Sheriff and refusing to hold 33 The Case of Merchant-Adventurers 36 Certifying Indictments upon Certioraries 42 Concerning Orphans Portions 46 The custome in not removing body and cause upon Habeas Corpus 50 The Case concerning payment of Tythes in London 54 Divers ancient cuctomes and usages of the of City London 79 Hust of Pleas of Land 80 Hustings of Common Pleas. page 85 Assizes of Mort d' ancest in London 94 Assizes of Novel Dissezen called freshforce in London 97 De curia Majoris London Custumis Civitatis ejusdem diversis Cesibus terminalibus in eadem curis 100 The Commission and Article of the Wardmote Inquest by the Mayor 129 An Act for the reformation of divers abuses used in the Ward-mote Inquests 146 The Articles of the charge of the Ward-mote Inquest 151 An Act Parliament for the preservation of the River of Thames 169 An Act of Common Councel concernidg the conservation and cleansing of the River of Thames 174 The Oath of the Constables within the City of London 180 The Oath of the Scavengers 182 The Oath of every Freeman of this City of London 183 An Act of Common Council concerning making Freemen of the City againct colouring of forreign Goods 185 The Statutes of the Streets of this City against Annoyances 187 Old Laws and Customes of this City 196 By Act of Parliament in 14. Car. 2. 198 REPORTS of special CASES Touching several CUSTOMES And LIBERTIES Of the City of LONDON c. The Case of the City of London concerning Neusans in stopping up the lights of their Neighbours Houses by New-buildings REginold Hughs an Attorney of the Kings Bench being seized in his demesne as of Fee of an ancient house in the Parish of Saint Olaves in the Ward of Queen Hithe London in the South-Part of which House have been three ancient Lights time our of mind Anthony Keeme having taken a Lease for 31. years from the Rector and Guardians of the Parish Church of Saint Michael at Queen Hithe by Indenture of a rumous house and yard next adjoyning unto the said House with a Covenant to bestow a 100 marks at the least upon the repairing or new building of the said House doth within two years pull down the said House and doth build a new House in the place where the old House stood and likewise upon the yard whereby the three ancient Lights on the South-side of â—â—â—â— House are stopt up whereupon Reynold Lewes doth bring his action upon the case against Anthony Keem for the stopping up the Lights unto which the said Anthony doth plead a special Plea in Bar shewing the ruinousness of the House and likewise the Lease made by the Rector and Guardians and the Covenant comprised within the Lease and doth also shew that there is a custom in London that if one have an ancient house wherein there are ancient Lights and one other hath a House adjoyning upon that House he that hath the adjoyning House may well enough enhance his House or build a new House upon his ground and to stop those ancient Lights of the House next adjoyning unless there be some writing to the contrary And he doth aver in facto that there was no writing to the contrary and that he according to the Custome did take down the old House and build a new one upon the same Foundation and upon the Yard opposite unto the said Lights whereby they were stopped up and upon this Plea in Bar the Plaintiff demurreth in Law The Questions of this case are First whether it be lawful for a man to build a House upon his own Ground whereby the Lights of an ancient House are stopped there being no Custome to enable him Secondly whether the Custome of London will enable a man to build a new house from the ground where no house formerly was whereby he may stop the ancient lights of his Neighbours house Thirdly Whether upon an ancient foundation a house may lawfully be enhansed so as it shall stop up the light of the Neighbours house adjoyning As to the first it is clear by the opinion of Sir Thomas Flemming Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Sir Cristopher Yelverton Sir David Williams and Sir Iohn Crook Justices of the Kings Bench that there being no custome it is not lawful to erect a new house upon a void piece of ground whereby the old lights of an ancient house may be stopped up for the rule of equity and law saith Utere tuo ut alienum non laedas and the light which cometh in by the Windowes being an essential part of the House by which he
hath three great commodities that is to say Air for his Health Light for his profit prospect for his pleasure may not be taken away no more then a part of his House may be pulled down whereby to erect the next House adjoyning And with this resolution agreeth the Case of Eldred reported by Sir Edw. Cook in his Ninth Report fol. 58. where he sheweth the ancient form of the Action upon the case to be quod messuagium horrida tenebritate obscuratum fuit but if there be hinderance only of the prospect by the new erected House and not of the Air not of the light then an Action of the case will not lye insomuch that the prospect is only a matter of delight and not of necessity As to the second it was resolved by the opinion of the aforesaid Judges that the custome of London will not enable a man to erect a new House upon a void space of ground whereby the ancients lights of an old house are stopt up for first the owner of the old house having possession of a lawful easment and profit which hath been belonging unto the house by prescription time out of mind of man may not be prescribed out of it by another thwarting custome which hath been used time out of mind of man but the latter custome shall rather be adjudged to be void and Prescription against a Prescription will never be allowed by the Law 2. It may well be that before time of memory the owner of the said void piece of ground granted unto the owner of the House to have his Windows that way without any stopping of them the which being done and continued accordingly hath begotten a prescription the which may not be defeated by the Allegation of a general custome and with this resolution doth agree a case adjudged Trin. 29. Eliz. Rot. 253. in the Kings Bench whereupon an action upon the case brought by Thomas Bloond against Thomas Mosley for erecting of a House in the County of the City of York whereby the ancient lights of his House were stopped up The Desendant did plead a Custome for the City of York as there is here for the City of London and adjudged that the Custome was naught whereupon the Plaintiff had his Judgement But if the Houses had been new erected Houses or otherwise Windowes had been newly made Windows in that ancient House the erection of that new House upon that void space of Ground would have been lawful notwithstanding that the Windows and Lights be stopped up for it shall not lie in the power of the owner of the ancient House by setting out his new Windows to prevent him that hath the void peice of Ground from making the best benefit of it As to the third point it was conceived that if the new house be only erected upon the ancient foundation without any inlargement either in Longitude or Latitude howsoever it be made so high that it â—oppeth up the lights of the old house yet he is not subject unto any action because the law authorizeth a man to build as high as he may upon an ancient Foundation and it is no reason to foreclose a man from making his house convenient unto his estate and degree by building up higher when there is no other impediment but only some windowes which are built out over his house and agreeing to this seemeth the old book of 4. E. 3. 150. to be where an Assize of Nusans was brought for erecting his house so high that the light of the Plaintiff in the next adjoyning house was disturbed by it and the Plaintiff upon the opinion of Herl Chief Justice did not proceed in the Assize but let it fall to the ground but if the new builded house exceeded the ancient foundation whereby that excess is the cause of stopping up of lights then is he subject unto the action of him whose light is stopped up as it may appear by 22. H. 6. 25. And in the case at the Bar Judgement was given for the Plaintiff because he had brought his action for building of a new House upon a void piece of ground by which his Windows were stopt up And Keeme the Defendant only justifieth by the Custome the erection of the House upon an old Foundation and upon the void piece of ground the which is not any answer at all unto that which the Plaintiff layeth unto the charge of the Defendant Touching the Custome of Citizens leaving that Trade whereunto they have been Apprentices seven years and betaking themselves to other Trades IOhn Tolley having been an Apprentice in London by the space of seven years unto a Wool-Packer after the seven years expired is made a Freeman of London afterwards he leaveth the Trade of a Wool-Packer and betaketh himself to the Trade of an Vpholster and doth exercise that Trade by many years whereupon one Thomas Allen an Informer doth exhibit an Information in the Court of the Mayor of London as well for the King as for himself upon the branch of the Statute made in the fifth year of the late Queen Elizabeth cap. 4. whereby it is enacted That after the first day of May next ensuing it shall not be lawful unto any person or persons other than such as now do lawfully use or exercise any art Mystery or manual occupation to set up c. any such occupation now used or occupied within the Realm of England or Wales except he shall have been brought up seven years at the least as an Apprentice in manner and form aforesaid nor to set any person on work in such Mystery Art or Occupation being not a Workman at this day except he shall have been an Apprentice as aforesaid or else having served as an Apprentice as is aforesaid shall or will become a Iourney-man or hired by the year upon pain that every person willingly offending or doing the contrary shall forfeit and lose for every default fourty shillings for every moneth And he sheweth that Iohn Tolly the now Defendant hath exercised the trade of an Upholster by the space of fourty moneths whereas he was never an Apprentice to that trade by the space of seven years contrary unto the aforesaid Statute whereby the said Thomas Allen doth demand the forfeiture of eighty pound unto the King and himself whereof he the said Allen doth require the one moyety according to the form of the said Statute And this Information being removed out of the Court of the Mayor of London by Certiorari into the Kings Bench the said Iohn Tolley doth plead a special Plea in Bar shewing that there is a custome of London which hath been used time out of mind of man That every Citizen and Freeman of London which hath been an Appretice in London unto any trade by the space of seven years may lawfully and well relinquish that trade and exercise any other trade at his will and pleasure And sheweth further That all the Customes
King Edw. the 3. bereaving the King and Commonwealth of these great benefits and commodities is against the Law and so ought to be repealed And day was given accordingly to put in their Plea At which time many of the old Merchants-Adventurers being willing that trial should be made whether the benefit intended unto the Commonwealth might be compassed did shew to their obedience unto the King and desire of the good of their Country Surrender up their Patent into the hands of his Majesty since which time it being found by experience that the project had not that success which they expected and likewise Cloth and Wooll lay dead because there was no vent for them abroad The King according to his power reserved unto him in his Patent by which he erected and created the new Company of Merchants Adventurers of London did make repeal and revocation of the said New Patent and new Company and did redeliver unto the old Merchants their Patent confirming it and likewise by another Charter did enlarge the Liberties and Priviledges of the old Merchants by reason of which Grace of the King the old Company of Merchants-Adventurers of England are reestablished in that estate wherein they formerly were and they do now trade again as formerly they did to the great content of the Subject and benefit of the King and Country Certifying Indictments upon Certioraries IOhn Forner Iohn Evans and divers others being Indicted before Sir Thomas Hayes Lord Mayor of London Sir Henry Mountague Serjeant unto the King and Recorder of London Sir Thomas Lowe and divers others by vertue of a Commission granted unto them a Certiorari was directed unto them as Justices of Peace out of the Kings Bench for the certifying the said Indictment upon which Certiorari no return was made whereupon a second Certiorari was awarded unto the said Commissioners commanding them to certifie the said Indictment upon a pain upon which Certiorari a return was made in this manner That is to say that King H. 6. in the 23. year of his Reign by his Letters Patents bearing the same date did grant unto the Mayor Aldermen and Sheriffs of London that they should not be compelled upon any Writ directed unto them to certifie the Indictments themselves taken before them but only the Tenors of them the which they have done accordingly and Exception being taken unto this Return for the insufficiency of it it was resolved by Sir Edward Cook Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Sir Iohn Crook Sir Iohn Doddridg and Sir Robert Haughton that the return upon the reasons hereafter following was insufficient For first the Letters Patents being granted unto them by the name of the Mayor Aldermen and Sheriffs of the City of London warranteth only the not certifying of Indictments taken before them as Mayor Aldermen and Sheriffs of London and where the Writ is directed unto them by that name and they do not excuse them in Case where the Writ is directed unto them as Justices of Peace and where the Indictments are taken before them as Justices of Peace by virtue of the Kings Commission And howsoever the Mayor and Aldermen are Justices of Peace by Charter yet insomuch that they are distinct powers return made by them by the name of Mayor and Aldermen where the Writ is directed unto them as Justices of Peace will not be good Secondly there being a Resumption made by Act of Parliament in 28. H. 6. whereby all Lands Tenements Grants Rent and Fees granted since the first day of his Reign were resumed the Letters Patents made in 23. H. 6. unto the Mayor and Commonalty are annihilated and made void and so no hold may be taken of them and the Statute made in 1. Edw. 4. cap. 1. only confirmes those priviledges not heretofore revoked and repealed by Act of Parliament or otherwise and howsoever there be a Charter made by H. 7. in the first year of his Reign whereby restitution was granted of this priviledge yet no advantage may be taken of it because it was not spoken of upon the return and the Court may not intend it Thirdly the Letters Patents of the King being the sole ground and foundation to make the return good are not sufficiently returned unto the Court insomuch that it was said upon the return only that the King by his Letters Patents did grant unto the Mayor Commonalty and Sheriffs of London that they should not be compelled to certifie the Indictments themselves but it doth not appear that they were sealed with the Grand Seal and if they were not sealed with that Seal the Letters Patents may not be of any validity in Law howsoever they were sealed with the Exchequer Seal or Dutchy Seal in respect of which they may well be called the Letters Pattents of the King Fourthly the use hath alwayes been to remove Indictments and the Record of them upon a Certiorari awarded out of the Kings Bench and there was never any denial made of it before this time and in 5. Ed. 6. where a Certiorari was directed unto them for the removing of an Indictment of a Woman which was Indicted for being a common Whore the Indictment was certified in obedience unto the Writ although in the end of the return they shewed their Charter and prayed that it might be remanded because it was an Indictment only warrantable by the custome of the City and not by the Common Law And the Court was of opinion in the return at the Bar to have imposed a Fine and to have awarded a third Certiorari but it was stayed and the second return was amended Concerning Orphans Portions THe custome of London is that if any Freeman deviseth and or other Legacies of goods unto an Orphan that then the Mayor and Aldermen have used to take the profits of the Land and to have the disposition of the Legacies until such time as the Legatees shall attain unto the age of twenty one years or otherwise being a woman should be married and if the disposition of the profits of the Lands or of the personal Legacies were declared by the Testator in his Will that then the Mayor and Aldermen have used time out of mind of man to convent the person trusted by the Will of the Testator before them and to compel him to find Sureties for the true performance of the Legacies according to the Law of the Realm and the Will of the Testator and if they refuse to find Sureties then it is lawful to imprison them until they find Sureties The Widow of a Freeman of London dwelling in Middlesex bequeathed a Legacy of a thousand pound unto her Daughter after all Debts and Legacies paid and upon condition that she should not marry without the assent of her Executor and maketh a Freeman her Executor and dieth The Executor is convented before the Court of Mayor and Aldermen and required to put in Sureties unto the Chamberlain of London according to the
come otherwise Process shall be 〈…〉 the Jury to come at the next Hust oâ— Pleas of â—ard by precept directed from the Major to the Sheriffs and the Sheriffs shall be ministers by commandement of the Major to serve the Writs and do the execution of the same albeit the original be directed to the Major and Sheriffs in common and you shall understand that as well the Tenants as Demandants may appoint their Attorneys in such Pleas. And if the Demandants plead against the Tenants in the nature of a Writ of Right and he parties come to a Jury upon the meer Right then shall the Jury be taken of twenty four in the nature of a grand Assize as alwayes the custome requireth that six of the Ward be of the Jury of twenty four And the Tenants in all such Writs may vouch to warrant within the said City and also in Forreign County if the Vouchers be not Tenants within the same City And if the Tenants in such Writs vouch to warrant in Forreign County In this Case Process cannot be made against the Voucher by the Law of the City Then shall the Record be brought before the Justices of the Common Pleas at the suit of the Demandant and then Process shall be made against the Vouchee And when the Voucher shall be ended in the same Court then all the Parol shall be sent back again into the Hust to proceed further in the Plea according to the custome of the City and certain Statutes And also if the Tenants in such Writ plead in Bar by release bearing date in Forreign County or Forreign matter be pleaded that it cannot be tryed within the City then the Defendant shall cause the Process to come into the Kings Court to try the matter there where it is alleadged as the matter is there found the proceeding shall be sent back again into the Hustings to proceed further therein as the Case requireth And all that time the Suit shall cease in the Hust as hath been heretofore And also it hath been heretofore accustomed that a man may say in Hastings of Pleas of Land to have execution of Judgement given in Hust in nature of Scirefacias without Writ And you must note that any such Summons made to the Tenants in a Writ of right Patent is made two or three days before such Hust or the Sunday next before the same Hust If Erroneous Judgement be given in the Hustings of London before the Major and Sheriffs it shall be reserved by Commission out of the Chancery directed to certain persons to examine the Record and Process If Erroneous Judgement be given before the Sheriffs in London the Defendant may sue a Writ of Error before the Mayor and Sheriffs in the Hustings Hustings of Common Pleas IN Hust of Common Pleas are pleadable Writs called Ex gravi querala to have execution of the Tenants out of Testaments which are enrolled of Record in the Hust Writs of Dower unde nihil habet Writs of Gavelets of Customes and Services instead of Cessavit Writs of Error of judgment given before the Sheriffs Writs of Waste Writs of Participatione faciend among partners Writs of Quid juris clamat per quae servitia and other the Writs which are closed directed to the Mayor and Sheriffs and also Replegiaries of for goods and distresses wrongfully taken These are pleadable before the Mayor and Sheriffs in these Hust of Common Pleas by plaint without Writ And not as before that the Sheriffs are Ministers to do the office of ferving these Writs and Replegiaries by the Majors Preceps directed to the same Sheriffs And the Process is thus FIrst in the Writ of Ex gravi querela warning before hand shall be given to the Tenants two or three dayes before the Hust or the Sunday be oâ—e as in Plea of Land And so shall be done of all other Summons touching the same Hust And if warning be given and testified by the Sheriffs or his Ministers the Tenants may not be essoyned and if the Tenants make default at the same warning testified then the Grand Cape shall be awarded And if they appear they may be essoyned at the view And hereupon all other Process are made plainly as is said in a Writ of Droit Patent in the Hust in a Plea of Land In a Writ of Dower unde nihil habet the Tenants shall have at the beginning three Summons and one Essoyn after the three Summons and after these shall have the view one Essoyn and the Tenant in such Writ of Dower shall have the view although they enter by the husband himself demanding the same albeit he died seized and also the Tenants may vouch to warranty and after be essoynâ—d after every appearance and all other Process shall be made as in a Writ of right in the Hust of Pleas of Land aforesaid And it the Demandant recover Dower against the Tenant by default â—o by judgement in Law in such Writ or Dower And the same wife of the Demandâ—nt alledgeth in Court of Record that her husband died seized Then the Major shall command â—he Sheriffs by Precept that they cause a Jury of the viâ—inity where the Tenants lâ—e against the next Hust of Common Pleas to enquire if the husband died seized and of the value of the â—enements and of the damages and 〈◊〉 recover by verdict the damages shall be enquiâ—ed by the same Jâ—y In a Writ of Gaviâ—et the Tenâ—nts shall have three 〈◊〉 and three Essoynes and they also shall have thaâ— view they may vouch to 〈…〉 and Forreign And they shall be essoyned and shall have other exceptions and all other Process shall be made as in a Writ of Right c. But if the Tenant make default after default then the Defendant shall have Judgement to recover and hold for a year and a day upon this condition that the Tenant may come within the same year and a day then next following and make agreement for the Arrearages and find Surety as the Court shall award to pay the rent or the services faithfully from thenceforth and shall have again his Tenements and within the same year and day the Tenant may come in Court by Scire fac and shall have again his Tenements doing as aforesaid and if the Tenant come not within the year and the day as is aforesaid then after the year and the day the Defendant shall have a Scire fac against the Tenant to come and answer whether he can say any thing why the Defendant ought not to recover the Tenements quite and clearly to him and his Heirs for ever and if the Tenant come not to shew what he can say then Judgement shall be given that the Defendant shall quite recover the Land for ever according to the Judgement called Shartford by custome of the same City In a Writ of waste process shall be made against the Tenants by Summons Attachment and distress according to the Statute in that behalf made