if Rent he reserved at the time of the Distresse and it be refused and a Distresse taken that is Tortious 30 Ass 36. 20 H 6. 31. 48 E 3. 9. 2 H 6. 4. And in this case it was said that Reddenda singula singulis that the demand shall be used when the Penalty of the Rent comes in question and not for the Rent And though it be reserved payable at another place thal changeth not the Rent but it is issuable out of the Land and distrainable upon the Lands And lastly it hath been divers times adjudged that the Rent is payable upon the Land 1 Jac Rot 1818. Nich and Langford Skinner and Amery Borman and Bower In Replevin between Nich and Langford Trin 16 Jac. Rot. 954. Between Skinner and Amery vide before between Crawley and Kingswell Trin 3 Car Rot 2865. Rent reserved payable out of the Land And although that the Iudgment is by confession after demurrer yet it was for the reason afore recited Iudgment for the Defendant The Lord Audley's Case Wilts JUratores pro Domino rege super sacramentum suum present Quod Martinus Dominus Audley nuper de Fountell Gifford in Comitatu Wilts Aegideus Broadway de Fountell Gifford praedict in Comitatu praedicto generosus timorem Dei prae oculis suis non habentes Indictment for Rape sed Instigatione Diabolica moti seducti vicessimo die Junii Anno regni Domini nostri Caroli dei Gratia Angliae Scotiae Franciae Hiberniae fidei defensoris sexto Apud Fountell Gifford praedict Comitatu praedicto vi armis c. in super Annam Dominam Audley Uxorem praefati Domini Martini Audley in pace Dei dicti Domini Regis ibidem Existent insult fecerunt Et praedictus Aegidius Br. praedictam Annam Dominam Audley vi armis contra voluntatem ipsius Annae ad tunc ibidem violenter felonicae rapuit ac ipsam Annam ad tunc ibidem contra voluntatem suam violenter felonice carnaliter cognovit contra pacem Domini Regis nunc coron dignitat suas contra formam statuti in hujusmodi casu edit provis Et ultim Juratores praedicti dicunt super sacramentum suum praedict Quod praedictus Martinus Dominus Audley praedicto vicesimo die Junii An. sexto supradicto Apud Fountell Glifford praedictam in Comitatu praedicto felonice fuit presens auxilians Confortans abettans procurans â—adjuvans manutenens praedictum Egidium Br. ad feloniam praedictum in forma praedicta felonice faciend perpetrand contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc Coronam dignitatem suas ac contra formam statuti praedicti Wilts IUratores pro Domino Rege super sacramentum suum present Quod Martinus Dominus Audley nuper de Fountell Gifford in Comitatu Wilts Deum prae oculis non habens nec naturae ordinem respiciens Indictment for Buggery sed instigatione Diabolica motus seductus primo die Junii An. Regni Domini nostri Caroli c. sexto Apud Fountell Gifford praedictam in dicto Comitatu Wilts in domo Mansionali ejusdem Martini Domini Audley ibidem vi armis in quendam Florence Fitz-Patrick Yeoman insult fecit cum eodem Florente F. ad tunc ibidem nequit Diabolice felonice contra naturam rem veneream habuit ipsumque F. ad tunc ibidem carnaliter cognovit peccatumque illud Sodomiticum detestabile abominandum Anglice vocat Buggery inter Christianos non nominandum ad tunc ibidem cum eodem Florence F. nequit Diabolice felonice contra naturam Commisit perpetravit in magnam Dei Omnipotentis displicentiam ac totius humani generis dedecus ac contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc Coronam dignitatem suâ—s contra formam statuti in hujusmodi casu edit provis The like Indictment for the same Offence with the same person 10 June the same year at new Sarum in the Mansion house of the said Martin c. Memorand That these Indictments were sound 6 April An. 7 Car. at new Sarum by vertue of a Commission before Edward Lord Georges Nich. Hide Knight chief Iustice ad placita c. Thomas Richardson chief Iustice de Banco John Denham Knight one of the Barons c. Edward Hungerford Knight Walter Vaughan Knight Laurence Hide Knight Thomas Fanshaw Knight by Letters Patents Ipsius Domini Regis pro eis quibuscunque tribus vel pluribus eorum inde Confect ad Inquirendum c. Memorand That the 25. day of April An. 7 Car. A Commission was made for the Arraignment of the said Lord Audley upon the said severall Indictments by his Peers in which the Lord Coventry Lord Keeper of the Great Seal was made high Steward And the Peers were in number twenty seven And he pleaded Not guilty And one question was propounded to the Iudges which did attend viz. The Lord chief Iustice of the Kings Bench the Lord chief Iustice of the Common Pleas the Lord chief Baron Baron Denham Iustice Jones Iustice Whitlock Iustice Harvey and Iustice Crook If the Wife might be produced as a Witnesse against her Husband Where a Wife may give Evidence against her Huâ—band And it was resolved that in case of a common person between party and party she could not according to the opinion in Cokes first Institutes fol 6. but between the King and the party upon an Indictment she may although it concerns the Feme her self as she may have the Peace against her Husband Buggary sans Penetration Also it was reported to the Lords by the Lord chief Iustice when they were demanded whether this matter of Fact being as it was proved that Pollution and using of a man upon his Belly Sodomitically without penetration was Buggery by the Statute of 25 H 8. the Lord Richardson was of a contrary opinion upon the Conference yet his opinion was involved in the generall But as he said to me their opinions we delivered only upon this case and upon these examinations if the Lords gave credit to the matter in fact that it was Buggery but they gave not a generall opinion that may be a rule in other cases but upon the foulnesse and abominablenesse of this Fact And afterwards the Lords were not unanimously resolved that it was Buggery but this Point was resolved that they ought to believe and give credit to the Law as the Iudges had declared it And it seems that they could not give a speciall Verdict upon this tryall for it never was seen Also the Commission determines after Iudgment given And the Staff of the high Steward shall be broken And after long debate they seriatim laying their hands upon their hearts as the Mannor is said that he was guilty of Rape beside the Lord North. And for the Buggaries twelve of the Lords acquitted him and fifteen found him guilty and so he had Iudgment And at
THE REPORTS OF THAT REVEREND AND LEARNED JUDGE SIR RICHARD HUTTON KNIGHT Sometimes one of the JUDGES of the COMMON PLEAS Containing many Choice Cases Judgments and Resolutions in points of LAW In the severall Raignes of King JAMES and King CHARLES being written in French by his owne hand AND Now faithfully Translated into English according to ORDER Major haereditas venit unicuique nostrûm a Jure Legibus quam ab â—is a quibus illa bona relicta sunt Cic. pro Caerin LONDON Printed by T. R. for Henry Twyford and Thomas Dring and are to be sold at their Shops in Vine-Court Middle Temple and at the George in Fleetstreet neer Cliffords-Inne 1656. COVRTEOVS READER THese REPORTS of that Famous and Learned Judge Sir RICHARD HUTTON were intended long ere this to have been exposed to publick View as they were Originally penn'd in FRENCH by his own hand but now in obedience to a late Act of Parliament they are faithfully rendred into ENGLISH And may be of great use and benefit to the Studients and Practisers of the LAWES of these Nations This just Judge as the greatest man once of this Nation was pleased to call him was sometimes Contemporary with the Lord HOBART By reason whereof though they may seem to meet sometimes in Cases yet they part many times in the Points thereof and the Arguments thereupon CICERO and ROSTIUS together make one incomparable Man And here our Learned Author appeares not to justle the Chiefe Justice out of his place but to continue as he was upon the Bench a friendly Associate and a Learned Assistant THE NAMES OF THE PRINCIPALL CASES contained in this BOOKE A. A Andrews and Hacker 3 Agars Case 10 Allaboyter and Clifford 29 Andrews Case 30 Adams and Flemming 34 Allen and Swift 46 Aris and Higgins 65 Aleston and Andrew 128 B. BLands Case 18 Bishops Case 22 Boonton and the Bishop of Rochester 24 Bigg and Malin 27 Brook and Groves 28 Bagshaw and Walker 34 Blackburnes Case 36 Bridgland and Post 44 Bullen and Jevis 52 Bawtry and Scarlet 63 Blemhasset and Humblestone 65 Bickner and Wright 71 Beverley and Povver 79 Baker and Johnson 106 Bill and Lake 106 Babbington and Wood 111 Baker and Hucking 126 C. COmbes and Invvood 1 Cole and Allen 10 Cravvley and Kingsvvell 13 Conesbies Case 22 Cardinalls Case 29 Coppledick and Tansey 31 Coney and Coney 32 Castilion and Smith 35 Clerk and Wood 39 Cartright and Underhil 42 Clanrickards Case 43 Curle and Cook 51 Chittle and Sammon 55 Crane and Crampton 80 Clotvvorthy and Clotvvorthy 82 Crocker and Kelsey 84 Chidleys case 89 Chapman and Chapman 90 Chichley and the Bishop of Ely 96 Conghams case 98 Cook and Cook 110 Cole and Wilkes 121 Champernons case 135 D. DOrrell and Andrevvs 6 Drevvry and Fitch 16 Darcy and Askvvith 19 Davies case 42 Dovve and Palmer 124 Deanes case 125 Davies case 127 Digbies case 131 E. EDmonds case 20 Eire and Banister 24 Easington and Boucher 26 Egerton and Egerton 28 Empson and Bathurst 52 Edwards and Laurence 123 F. FLetcher and Harcot 55 Flight and Gresham 76 Farrington and Arrundel 82 Franklyn and Bradell 84 Farrington and Cagmer 98 Freeman and Stacy 109 G. GIbbs and Davy 8 Green and Harrington 34 Griggs case 59 Goldenham and Some 71 Glasier and Heliar 122 H. HArding and Bodman 11 Heard and Baskerfeld 15 Hall and Woollen 39 Hord and Cordery 49 Hawkins and Cutts 49 Howell and Auger 60 Hickson and Hicson 69 Hitcham and Brook 75 Hearne and Allen 85 Howard Sir Charles 86 Hartap and Cocks 88 Humbeton and Buck 89 Hilton and Paule 93 Holt and Sambach 96 Harbert and Angell 113 Hicks and Mounford 120 Huttons case Just 131 Hugles and Drinkwater 133 I. IUrden and Stone 18 Jennings and Pitman 63 Jones and Powell 135 K. KInd and Amery 23 King and Bowen 44 Knight and Copping 125 L. Leygh and Paine 9 Lamb and Thompson 40 Lightfoot and Brightman 54 Lindleys case 70 Laycon and Barnard 81 Lincoln the Earle 87 Lamb and West 114 Lashbrookes case 127 M. MAson and Thomson 38 Mayes and Sidley 46 Meredith and Bovill 58 Metholl and Peck 73 Mackerney and Ewrin 101 Medcalf and Hodgson 120 N. NOrris and Staples 5 Napper and Sanders 118 P. PIes case 35 Powell and Ward 41 Pitt and Chick 45 Parkers case 56 Poole and Reynold 57 Pleydell and Gosmore 67 Potter and Brown 72 Peto and Pemmerton 94 Paston and Utber 102 Purnell and Bridge 112 R. SIr Walter Rawleys case 21 Reyner and Waterhouse 27 Rugles case 37 Rud and the Bishop of Linc. 66 Ram and Lamley 113 Risam and Gooding 117 S. STeward and Bishop 2 Shaw and Tayler 4 Swain and Holman 7 Speak and Richards 11 Stone and Roberts 13 Smith and Stafford 17 Staffords case 20 Smith and Lindsey 32 Smith and Boucher 33 Sherley and Underhill 41 Suggs and Sparrow 47 Sherwills case 51 Stevens and Oldworth 91 Sandford and Cooper 95 Starkey and Tayler 104 Shervin and Cartwright 109 Strilleys case 122 Smith and Cornelius 123 Souler and Burton 132 T. TIppin and King 44 Treherne and Cleybrook 68 Trevors and Michelborn 77 Townley and Steele 78 Turner and Hodges 101 Treford and Holmes 108 U. UVedall and Tindall 77 W. WOolfe and Heydon 30 Wentworth Sir Tho 42 Wilson and Stubbs 45 Walrond and Hill 48 Whitguift and Eldersham 50 Wades case 81 Winsmore and Hobart 87 Woolfe and Hole 92 Watand Maywell 104 Wilson and Briggs 111 Whittington and Earl of Derby 37 Y. YOung and Young 92 THE NAMES OF CERTAINE CASES Cited Obiter in the PRINCIPALL CASES A. ALbanies case 35 Ashburneham and Skinner 72 Alephs case Sir William 107 Arrows case 113 Arrowsmiths case 83 B. BAker and Hall 3 Bedford and the Bishop of Exeter 4 Brownes case 9 Belcher and Hudson 17 Burnell and Brook 48 Beddinfeilds case 78 Baker and VVilloughby 105 Borman and Bower 115 Bland and Moseley 136 Brooks case 14 Bosdens case 23 Bedforne and Dandy 25 C. CAndish and Savill 7 Coppleston and Langford 23 Craddock and Wenlock 26 Coniers case Crachfords case 97 Capels case Sir Arthur Charter and Hunter 14 Couper and Andrews 58 D. LOrd Derbies case 119 Dunking and Leycroft 125 Dorchester and Webb 128 E. EWer and Moyle 44 F. FLeet and Harrison 26 Farrington's case G. GEorge and Whitlock 14 Greenwood and Beckett 76 Gillinghams case 95 Gerards case Sir John 122 Gonard and Dennet 83 Godhow and Bennet 83 Gittings and Redserne 13 H. HOdges and Balwin 81 I. IOhnson and Barker 35 Johnson Atewood 76 Jone's case 111 K. KEldriche's case 35 M. MIldmore Warlowe 52 Mills and Whitewood 105 N. NEwby and Sag 9 Nowels case Nich and Langford 115 Nichols and Grandie 29 P. PEriam's case 26 Pell and Brown 60 Powell and Vardoffe 76 Potmans case Parker and Parker 84 R. REdforne and Dandy 24 S. SMith and Mopham 136 Skinner and Amery 115 Sabud and R.W.L. 26 Stepney and Woolfe 42 Stanley and Buddens case 52 Somerford
Plaintiff had before brought a Quare impedit against the Defendants for the same Church which Writ was returned and that they did appear to defend it First we must know that this Assise shall be taken only in the Common Bench vide Mag Char cap 13. Assize of Darrein presentment abate by a Quare â—â—pedit then the Arch-bishop making default and the Assise being awarded against him by default if the other Defendants plead to the Assise yet the Assise shall not be presented because an Assise shall not be taken by parcels and therfore a Resummons shall be awarded against the Arch-bishop and the same for the Iury. But the other Defendants pleading their Plea to the Writ the Court was of opinion that it was a good Plea in abatement of the Writ for the Quare impedit is a Writ of a higher nature vide Regist fol 30. That if he against whom an Assise of Darrein presentment is brought brings a Quare impedit the Darrein presentment shall abate And the Statute of West 2. cap 5. saies it may be in the Election of one whether he will have an Assise of Darrein presentment or Quare impedit ergo he cannot have them both And if an Assise of Darrein presentment be brought and after that a Quare impedit for one avoidance the Assise shall abate for the Quare impedit is higher in his nature that is for the right and for the possession And Iustice Warburton vouched 10 Ed 3 Statham in Darrein presentment 3. If a man shall have a Quare impedit and also an Assise of Darrein presentment of one and the same Advowson pending at one and the same time the Darrein presentment shall abate and the Quare impedit shall stand because that it is of an higher nature By Hank and Hill it was urged that the Quare impedit was not depending untill he had appeared and it is not pleaded that he did appear but vide 2 Ed 4. fol that it is depending when it is returned And in a Quare impedit by the Earl of Bedford against the Bishop of Exeter Bedford versus the Bishop of Exeter it was adjudged Pasch 15 Jac. that he could not have two Quare impedits of one Church and for one avoidance And in this Case the whole Court agreed that the plea was good in abatement of the Writ and awarded that the Assise should abate Mich. 14 Jac. Rot. 3297. Shaw versus Taylor Wigorn. Replevin Where the Lord shal lose his Heriot when the Tenant have not any Beasts BRidget Shaw brought a Replevin against George Taylor for the taking of an Horse at Northfield in a place called Little falling the Defendant makes Cognizance as Bayliff to Sir Thomas Gervas because that one Richard Shaw was seised of an House and divers Lands of which the place where c. was parcell in his Demesn as of Fee and them held of the said Sir Thomas Gervas as of his Mannor of Northfield by Fealty and Rent of twenty pounds and rendring and paying after of every Tenant dying therof seised one Heriot and alledged Seisin and that he died seised And that for one Heriot so due and not delivered he distrained in the place in which c. as within the Fee The Plaintiff plead in Bar to the Avowry and takes the whole Tenure by protestation and for Plea saies that the said Richard Shaw at the time of his death had no Beasts wherof a Heriot might or could be rendred upon which the Defendant demurrs And upon the matter it seemed to the Court that if he had not any Beasts than the Lord must lose it for it is a casuall thing if he have it unlesse the Custom or Tenure be to have the best Beast or such a summ And if he had conveyed it away and so prevented him by any fraud then the Statute of 13 Eliz. had provided remedy but where there is nothing of any such thing which may be rendred at the time of the death there the King must lose his right And it was resolved by the Court that the Cognizance was not good for it ought to be certain i. e. for the best or two best Beasts and not generally for one Heroit and not shewing what thing in certain vide 3 Eliz Dyer 199. A Heriot is Quaedam prestatio c. and see there the Plea that there was no Beast at the time of his death And the opinion of the Court was also that the Bar to the Avowry was not good because the Issue is tendred to a thing not alledged for in the Avowry he made not mention of any beast but generally of one Heriot which is not certain And therfore it was awarded that the Plaintiff should recover and should have a return c. and Damages Pasch 14 Jac. Rot. 907. Norris versus Stapes Goldsborough Berk. RObert Norris and Thomas Trussells Wardenâ— and the Society of Weavers in the Burrough of Newbury Deâ— 1. By lawes in the County of Berkshire brought an Action of Debt for five pounds against John Stapes and Count that Queen Eliz. by her Letters Patents 14. of Octob An 44. at the request of the Inhabitants there using the Art of Weaving and to the intent that Corruption therin might be taken away and avoided c. did grant to all Weavers within the said Town to be a Body Politick by the name of the Wardens and Society c as before and to have perpetuall succession power to purchase to plead and to be impleaded And also power to make Laws and Ordinances agreeable to reason and not in any wise contrary and repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm for the well Government of the Society Apprentices and Servants and all using the Trade of weaving or selling of any thing therto belonging within the same Burrough and power to inflict punishment by Imprisonment Fine or Amercement upon the Offenders And granted further that the said Wardens and Society shall have the survey of those Lawes and the benefit of the Forfeitures And that no other person born within or without the said Burrough shal exercise the Art of weaving within the said Burrough if he shall not be admitted therto by the Wardens and Society And they recite the Act of 19 H 7. cap 7. of not putting of any Law or Ordinance in execution before it shall be allowed by the Lord Chancellor Treasurer and two chief Iustices or three of them or before both the Iustices of Assise in their Circuits upon pain of forfeiting forty pounds And shew that one Cuthbert Goodwin and John Hame Wardens of the said Society with the greater part of the said Society 1. Maij 45 Eliz. at the Guildhall within the said Burrough made divers Lawes and Ordinances for the Government of Weavers and that the 18 Novemb. 1 Jac. the said Orders were confirmed by the Lord Chancellor Lord Treasurer and Lord Anderson one of the chief Iustices among which one
that the Plea is not good Harris argued for the Defendant for three reasons 1. Because by the Lease this was included vide 21 H 6. 61. grant of Conuzance c. gives power to make a Steward tempore E. 1. Fitz. 41. 2 E. 2. Bar 237. grant to fish in a Pond yet he cannot make a Trench 2. The Coles are the Inheritance and the bettering of them is the bettering of the Inheritance 3. For the profit of the Common-wealth 14 H 8. 18. 20 Eliz Dyer 361. Altams case Trench to make a Meadow the better is no wast vide 22 H 6. 6. digging of certain Loads of Gravell for the amending of the Land vide 12 H 4 5. And for telling this ought not to be answered any other way then by justifying of the Imployment and the Plaintiff may reply upon the sale if he will and the case is long debated 5 E 4. 10. vide Dyer 37. Malenders case And the last day of this Term the Lord Hobart declared that we were all of opinion that the Plea is not good for there though the Lease be of Mines and by vertue therof the Lessee might open new Mines as in Sanders case Coke lib 5. fol. 12. there it shall be intended of new Mines which in themselves is wast if it had not been by speciall words And the digging of a Mine is an impairing of the Inheritance and a great benefit to the Lesses and therfore if Lessee for years build a new house if he cut Trees off the same Lands for the making therof it is wast 17 E 2. Fit wast 118. And no more then one may make a Brick Kilne and burn Brick or a Lyme Kilne and burn Lyme with wood growing upon the ground and sell the Brick or Lyme no more may the Defendants in this case cut down wood for the making and supporting of these Mines for Coles which they sell vide 41 E 3. 17. And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Edmonds Case MEmorand That at the Assises holden at Winchester in Lent 15 Jac. one William Edmonds was indicted of Burglary because that he Burglariter and feloniously did break the house of one Richard Heydon in the night at Ramsey Burglary and the Iury gave a speciall Verdict We find that Richard Heydon and Christian his Wife were both in Bed and at rest in an upper Chamber in the Mansion house of the said Richard Heydon and that the said William Edmonds then was and yet is the Servant and Apprentice of the said Richard and that he then lay in another Chamber of the said house remote from the Bed-chamber of his said Master and Dame and that there was a Door with a Latch at the Stairs foot of the said Bed-chamber of the said Heydon but none at the Stair-head being the entrance into the said Bed-chamber of the said Heyedon We find that the said William at the said time in the Indictment drew the Latch of the Stair-foot door and opened the said door being then latched and went up the Stairs and entred into the Bed-chamber of his said Master with an intent to murther the said Heydon and that he did then and there with an Hatchet with an intent to murther his said Master strike and grievously wound him and gave him fifteen wounds on the head and other parts of his body And if upon the whole matter c. And this speciall Verdict was shewn by the Lord chief Baron Tanfield unto all the Iudges of Serjeants Inne in Chancery Lane viz. Iustice Warburton Crook Baron Bromely Iustice Dodderidge Houghton Winch and Hutton And they all besides Winch which doubted agreed that it was Burglary and afterwards in the same Term at a meeting in Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet it was shewn to Mountague Hobart and Denham which concurred Mich 16 Jac. Staffords Case FAlse Imprisonment was brought by Sir John Stafford the Defendant justifie Matter of Record tryed by the Country that Bristoll is an ancient City and that time wherof memory c. there hath been a Court holden there before the Sheriffs c. and justifie that there was a Plaint levied and Iudgment and that the now Plaintiff was taken in execution The Plaintiff replyed Quod non fuit aliqua querela levata according to the custom and requires this Quod inquiratur c. And it was tryed at Bristoll and found for the Plaintiff and damages twenty six pounds And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that this being matter of Record viz. the entry of the Plaint in a Court of Record it shall be tryed by the Record and not by the Country And it was adjudged that the tryall was good because that it is not meerly Record but whether it was according to the Custom And Non prosecutus est ullum breve is tryable by the Country Quaere if the King grant by Patent to hold plea under forty shillings if it be a Court of Record Sir Walter Rawleys Case MEmorand that on Friday the 23. of October upon conference between all the Iustices of England whether a privy Seal was sufficient it being directed to the Iustices of the Kings Bench to command them to award execution against Sir Walter Rawley which was attainted of Treason at Winchester Mich. 1 Jacobi How Prisoners which are attainted of Treason set at large shall be brought to execution before Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer or how they should proceed before execution be awarded It was resolved by all that he ought to be brought to Bar by Habeas Corpus to the Lieutenant of the Tower and then demanded if he could say any thing why execution should not be awarded for the proceedings against him being before Commissioners they are delivered only into the Court of Kings bench or they might have remained in a Bag or a Chest and no Roll made therof and so long time passing it is not a Legall course that he should be commanded by a privy Seal or great Seal to be executed without being demanded what he hath to say for he might have a pardon or he might say that he is not the same person As if one be Outlawed of Felony and taken he shall not be presently hanged but he shall be brought to Bar and so demanded c. And upon this resolution a privy Seal came to the Iustices of the Kings Bench commanding them to proceed against him according to Law And therupon a Habeas Corpus was awarded and Octob 28. he came to the Bar being brought by the Lievtenant and there he was demanded of whether he had any thing to say why c. and there he shewed that the King had imployed him as Generall of a Voyage and hath given him power De vita membris upon others And whether this did amount to a pardon or no he knew not The Attorney-generall said that the King pardoned no Treasons by any Implication but it ought to be by speciall words Then he said
are not Affirmative or Positive but a supposition only as if he had said Nowels case I will indite him for such a matter it was vouched to be adjudged 51 Eliz. in Nowels case that to say of an Attornaâ—â— That he was Cooped for forging Writs maintain an action And 14 Eliz. He is infected of the Robbery and he smelleth of the Robbary adjudged actionable In balls case There is never a Purse cut in Northamptonshire but Ball hath a part of it will not bear action But the Court would not declare their opinion Quia sub spe Concordiae Griggs Case GRigg which is the Examiner at Chester preferred there this Bill in the Chancery vocat the Exchequer Prohibition â—i Chester against one which inhabite within the same County and another which inhabite in London being executors to one to whom the said Grigg was indebted by Obligation which Obligation was put in suit in the Court of Common Pleas and there proceed to processe before the Bill exhibited and the Bill concern equity of an Agreement that the Testator had promised that one Robert Grigg should assign a lease of Tithes to the Plaintiff in consideration of his entry into the said Obligation and if he could not procure it that then the Obligation should not be prejudiciall to him and he which was distributing in Chester answered therto And an Order was made by Sir Thomas Ireland Vice-Chamberlain that Processe should be awarded to him which dwelleth in London And an Inquisition was granted to stay the proceedings at Common Law And afterwards upon the motion of Serjeant Hitcharâ— Sir Thomas Ireland was in Court and shew all that he could to maintain the Iurisdiction viz. That the Contract was made in the County Palatine and that the priviledge pursued the Plaintiff and ipse qui est reus non potest eligere c. Yet it was resembled to ancient Demesn and Guildable And by Lord Hobart he which inhabit at Doveâ— by this way may be inforced to come and answer to a Bill in Chester which would be infinite trouble and the matter is transitory And it was resolved that the Court of Chester had not power in this case but it belonged to the Chancery of England And a Prohibition was granted Hil. 20 Jac. ONe case was in the Kings Bench viz. Trespasse Baron and Feme brought in action of Trespasse Quare clausum fregit Trespasse by Baron and Feme for breaking the Close of the Baron for the Battery of the Wife and for Battery of the Feme the Defendant pleaded a License to enter into the Close made by the Baron and not guilty as to the Battery And the Court was moved in Arrest of Iudgment because the Husband and Writ could not ioyn for the weaking of the Close of the Baron the Writ shall abate for all But the Lord chief Iustice and Iustice Dodderidge were of opinion that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment And it seems that the Law is clear accordingly vide 9 E 4. 51. Trespasse by the Husband and Wife for the Battery of them both the Iury found so much for the Battery of the Husband and so much for the Battery of the Wife and so Damages assessed severally because the Wife could not soon with the Husband in an action for the Battery of the Husband for that part the Writ shall abate and for the Battery of the Wife they shall recover for for that they ought or joyn in an action vide 46 E 3. 3. Baron and Feme brought Trespasse for the Battery and Imprisonment of the Wife and the Writ was ad damnum ipsorum and yet good vide 9 H 7. in the case of Rescous and 22 E 4. 4. there is a good diversity when the Writ is falsified by the shewing of the party himself and when it is found by Verdict And Iustice Haughton and Iustice Chamberlain were of opinion that the Writ should abate for it is apparent that as to the Trespasse Quare clausum fregit the Wife had no cause of action But this case being debated at Serjeants Inn in Chancery Lane at the Table the Lord chief Baron was of opinion that Plaintiff should have Iudgment for that part and he held the Writ good in part and Reddenda singula singulie Meâ—enest issint as it seems no more then in the case of 9 E 4. for there the Writ shall avate for part And if an action of forgery of Deeds be brought against two for forging and publishing and found that one forged and the other published the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment Howell versus Auger Trespasse IN an action of Trespasse brought by Noy Howell against Auger for breaking of a house and five acres of Land in Fresham upon Non Culp pleaded the Iury gave a speciall Verdict Devise of a Fee after a Fee Robert Howell seised of the Land in Question and of other Land by his Will in writing devised this Land to Dorothy his Wife for life and devised this Land to Thomas Howell his younger Son to him and his Heirs in Fee under the Condition which shall be afterwards declared And the other Land was also devised to Dorothy for life and to the Plaintiff and his Heirs in Fee under the Condition hereafter limited If Dorothy died before the Legacies paid then he will that they shall be paid by Noy and Thomas his Sons portion-like out of the Houses and Lands given them And if either of my Sons dye before they enter or before the Legacies paid or before either of them enter Then I will that the longer liver shall enjoy both parts to him and his Heirs And if both dye before they enter then his Executors or one of them to pay the Legacies and to take the profits till they be paid and a year after and made Dorothy his Wife and Christopher Roys his Executors and died Dorothy entred the Plaintiff Noy by his Deed In 33 Eliz. in the life of Dorothy released to Thomas all his right c. with Warranty Release of Lands devised before they be vested Thomas by his Will devised the Land for which the action is brought to Agnes his Wife and died in the life of Dorothy and before Legacies paid Dorothy died and Agnes entred and took to Husband Henry Ayleyard who leased to the Defendant upon whom Noy entred and the Defendant re-entred And Si super totam Materiam c. And this Case was well argued at Bar in two Terms and the first question was If this Devise of a Fes after a Limitation be good or not much was said for it and they relyed upon a case which was adjudged in the Kings Bench between Pell and Brown of such a limitable Fee Pell and Brown And many Cases put that this operate as a future Devise Executory as well as one may by his Will Devise that if his Son and Heir dye before he marry or before that he come to the age of
font and twenty years that then I. S. shall have the Land and it shall be good vide Dyer 33. Coke lib 10.46 Lampets case But Tuesday the eleventh of February the Lord Hobart by our direction because that we were streightned of time and Howell was so importunate for Iustice that we could not argue delivered the opinion of the Court that Iudgment should be given for the Defendant And he declared that as to the point of a Fee-simple which he called the mounting of one Fee-simple upon another we now declared no opinion But we all without difficulty resolved that this release of Noy be it a Condition or not had discharged it And as to him it is an Interest used by the Devise but not executed untill it happen And therfore in Lampers case there the Release discharged it for there he had no Title executed but vested and commenced and so may have Noy Howell the Plaintiff in this case and it is not like to an Heir in the life of the Father for be is a stranger and he hath no Title at all and yet his Release with Warranty bars him and here this Release is accompanied with Warranty of which nothing was spoken Also as to Noy it is a Condition according to the words of the Will and therfore sans question that Noy had barred himself The Vacation after Hil. 20 Jac. MEmorand That on Munday the seventeenth of February at Serjeants Inn upon the assembly of all the Iustices to take consideration upon the Statute of 35 Eliz. cap. 1. for the Abjuration of Sectaries the Atturney-generall and Serjeant Crew being there Resolutions upon the Statute of Eliz. cap. 1. concerning Sectaries after the perusall of the Statute and the Continuances therof it was first upon debate considered whether this Statute was in force or discontinued and upon the perusall of the Proviso in the Statute of Subsidy and upon reasoning the matter these Points were resolved 1. If a Parliament be assembled and divers Orders made What shall be said a Session of Parliament and a Writ of Error brought and the Record delivered to the higher house and divers Bills agreed but no Bills signed That this is but a Convention and no Parliament or Session as it was An. 12 Jac. in which as it was affirmed by them which had seen the Roll it is entred that it is not any Session or Parliament because that no Bill was signed vide 33 H 6 Brook Parliament 86. every Session in which the King signes Bills is a Parliament 2. It was agreed that if divers Statutes be continued untill the next Parliament or next Session and there is a Parliament or a Session and nothing done therin as to continuance all the said Statutes are discontinued Beriatim Jones Chamberlain Hutton Denham Haughton Dodderidge Winch and Bromley declared their opinions that this Statute is discontinued And that the Statute of Subsidy is a Parliament and that every Parliament is a Session but not e converso for one Parliament may have divers Sessions as the Parliament 1 Jac had four and ended An 7 Jac. vide 33 H 6. Br. Parliament 86. And that this Proviso is not to any other purpose but to continue their proceedings in the same Estate as if this Act had not been made and if this Proviso had not been then this Statute had been discontinued by this act of Subsidy but when this ends and is determined then is the Session ended then it is a Session scilicet a Parliament which ought to be pleaded at the Parliament holden c. and all the Commissions of Subsidy are accordingly and the Proviso call it a Session Then this being done the Lord chief Baron did not deliver any opinion for he said that he had not considered the Statute and afterward it was desired that the Lords would deliver their opinions and therupon the Lord Hobart declared his opinion accordingly That it seemed to him that it was a Session and that it was not safe to meddle with such Law and that he would never refuse to declare his opinion with his Brethren After the Lord chiefe Iustice Ley made a long discourse concerning the purpose and intent of Parliament scilicet That it was not their purpose to destroy so good Lawes and therfore it was not any such Session as was within the intent of the preceding Parliament which was that these should determine when it is a Parliament or Session in which good Lawes are made And Doderidge said that it was fit to see the Commission and that that which hath been said was not to bind any one but every one spoke what then he was advised of and peradventure might change upon better consideration And afterwards upon Tuesday on an Assembly of the two chief Iustices the chief Baron Iustice Haughton Baron Denham Hutton Chamberlain and Jones the Attorney-generall brought the Commission de 12 El. June 1. and that had these words Pro eo quod nullus Regalis Assensus nec responsio per nos praestat fuit nullum Parliamentum nec aliqua Sessio Parliamenti lata aut tent fuit They have power to adjourn this Parliament thus begun And the Commission to dissolve this Parliament 38. Feb. An. 19 Jac. had the same words saving that he recite that he had given his Royall assent to an act of Subsidy by which was intended that it should not be a Session And upon view of the Commission the Lord chief Iustice moved that the King was mistaken in this that he had given power to dissolve this Parliament which had not any Session and if it be a Session then he had no power to dissolve it and then it is as it were a recesse and a Parliament cannot be discontinued or dissolved but by matter of Record and that by the King alone and if the Parliament yet continue then this Statute also continue during the Parliament by the Proviso but that would not serve for first it is against the intent of the King and against his Proclamation And also the case is truly put in the Commission as to the matter in fact and he is not mis-informed but mistaken in the Law and then the Commission for the dissolving is good semblable to the Lord Shandoi's Case and other Cases vide in Cholmleys case But because that all the Iudges were not at this Conference therfore it was deferred untill the next Term and in the interim the Grand Secretary and the Attorney-generall were to inform the King that the Statute is obscure and had not been put in ure and that we could not agree Mich. 20 Jac. Rot. 2805. Bawtry versus Skarlet Sussex JOhn Bawtry Clerk Case brought an action upon the case against Benjamen Skarlet one of the Attorneys of this Court by Bill and count In consideration that the Plaintiff will confesse Judgment the Attorney promise to defer the entry of the Judgment c. that wheras one William Carter Trin. 20 Jac.
and diversity of opinion which was between the Lord chief Justice and the Lord Hobart the now Lord Keeper and the Lords by an Order respited this matter as to the Fine of the Plaintiff and gave damages to the Defendant and referred it to the opinion of all the Justices And they all una voce except Iustice Harvey who insisted upon the damages given to the party that they should not be pardoned agreed that the Contempt and Offence for the scandalous Bill exhibited was pardoned and not within the Exception for it cannot be intended that the Plaintiff exhibited a Bill upon which he should not be fined but this exception was of that which was laid to the charge of the Defendant and the Defendant may have his remedy at Common Law and the Contempt which is accidentall to the Offence is pardoned and by consequence the Fine Pasch 2 Car. Crane versus Crampton Case CRane brought an action upon the case sur assumpsit against Crampton and count that in consideration of moneys paid the Defendant did assume to give to the Plaintiff a Ruff-band at the day of his marriage And he alledged in facto that such a day and at such a place he was married Notice and that the Defendant notwithstanding that he was requested such a day and a year after the said marriage had not given to the Plaintiff the said Ruff And upon Non assumpsit it was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff had not alledged any notice given to the Defendant of his marriage And by the opinion of me and my two Brothers Harvey and Yelverton Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff For the Defendant ought to take notice therof at his perill unlesse he had provided to deliver the Ruff after marriage and after notice therof for if he ought to have notice no place being agreed upon where it shall be given then he should be compelled to enquire and to find him and give notice and paradventure he could never give him notice Also it is agreed if one be obliged to pay to another twenty pounds within three months after he come from Rome there shall no notice be given of his return but the Obligor ought to take notice at his perill And if it were with a Condition that I. S. that is not party to the Obligation shall do such a thing there shall not be notice And this case of an Obligation is more strong for there is a penalty and if it were to pay ten pounds when a Fair shall be at Dale there he ought to take notice And they agreed the case of 8 E 4. fol. _____ an Obligation to perform an Arbitrement there no notice is necessary for it is the act of a third person And if any notice be requisite the Request imply it as it was adjudged in the Kings Bench between Hodges and Baldwin Hodges and Baldwins case But my Brother Crook seemed to be of a contrary opinion for when the duty arise upon the notice there notice ought to be Iudgment pro Querente Laicon versus Barnard Lincoln LAicon Plaintiff against Barnard one of the Attorneys of this Court Case for Trover and Conversion of a hundred Sheep the Defendant said that he brought Debt in the County Court of Lincoln Recovery in trespass for taking of goods is no baâ— to an action upon the case sur trover against one Hacliff for two hundred and eighty pounds upon an Obligation by Iustices and recovered and that these Sheep were delivered to him in Execution as the Sheep of the said Hacliff And that afterwards and before this action the Plaintiff brought an action of Trespasse against the now Defendant for taking of these Sheep Quare caepit abduxit And it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages to two pence And averred that they were the same Sheep and the Plaintiff replyed that the Damages found by the Iury were only for the taking and chasing and not for the value And that this Action was for another Trespasse wherupon the Defendant demurred and it was adjudged for the Plaintiff for for any thing that appears which the Defendant hath confessed upon his Demurrer it is not for the same Trespasse Also the Damages of two pence cannot be given for the value of the Sheep Also the Plaintiff when a Trespasse is done to him may retake his Goods and yet he shall have an action of Trespasse for the taking of them And every taking viz. abduxit import a chasing and no man will say that by the recovery in Trespasse when the Plaintiff had his Goods that therby the Defendant shall have the property But it is true that if the Plaintiff recover the value therby he waves the property and by this way the Defendant shall have the property vide 2 R. 3. 14. 4 H 7. 5. 6 H 7. 8. and Iudgment for the Plaintiff Yelverton at first baesitavit but afterwards agreed Pasch 2 Car. Wades Case AN action upon the case was brought by a Feme Case as Administratrir against the Lady Wade Executrix of Sir William Wade Non assumpsit was pleaded the Venire facias was well but the Hab Corp. Nisi pr. was entred the Plaintiff Where the Nisi prius shall be amended c. and the Defendant Executrix of Sir H Wade c. And it was amended by the Court and there was the difference taken that when the Nisi prius is so mistaken that if it should be amended the Iury should be prejudiced viz. that it may falsifie their Verdict then it shall not be amended but in this case it is but the Writ by which the Iury is warned to appear And the authority of the Iustice of Nisi prius is not by that but by the Juras which was well and as it ought to be Also they have their Authority by the Statute of Westm 2. vide Dyet 106. In Wootons Case there the Jurat was well and omitted in the Nisi prius Anthony Coke Also the Issue was between Wooton and Cooke and Temple where Temple had confessed the action vide there that many omissions of the Record of Nisi prius are to be amended Brown was of the contrary opinion to Walsh Weston and Dyer Trin. 2 Car. Farrington versus Arrundell Entred Hil. 22 Jac. Rot. 4462. Debt AN action of Debt was brought by Lionell Farrington Qui tam pro se quam pro Domino Rege Debt upon a penall Statute is not gone by the death of the King c. against Thomas Arrundell upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. for not coming to Church and the Defendant demurred upon the Count And then King James died And if this action be abated or not by the death of the King was the Question Vide the Statute of the 1 E. 6. cap. 7. vide Coke lib 7. fol 30. And concerning this was diversity of opinion in the Common Bench for my Brother
And the proof therof see Coke lib 6. fol 19. Gregories case and Dyer 236. a. Then the principall and sole point will be if this Offence will be by the act of 33 H 8. cap 10. made presentable and punishable by the Iustices of Peace at their six weeks Sessions and it was unanimously agreed that it is not First because the preamble of the act recite that the Offences recited therin escape punishment and for their more speedy and effectuall punishment and repeat the particulars but therin name not Brewers by expresse words and it cannot be intended that the intent of the Statute was to give them at their six weeks Sessions to intermeddle with things not determinable at their generall Sessions And it was objected by Aâ—tho that Lambert and Crompton had put it as an Article of their charge To which it was answered that it was in some respect inquirable at Common Law viz. Misdemeanors in Bear-brewers Conspiracies and agreements to sell at such prises and the making of wholsome Beer Also it might be that they â—ake the Law to be upon the Statute of 23 H 8. that the Sessions being a Court of Record was within this act that saies in any Court of Record And then if it be not suable by Information before the Iusticeâ— of Peace the consequence is plain that the Statute of 21 Jac. cap 4. extends not therto and the Statute of 37 of H 8. makes not any thing in this case but tolls the six weeks Sessions and makes it inquirable at the generall Sessions Ideo Iudgment for the Informer June 19. An. 22. Jac. MEmorand That upon a Conference at Serjeants Inn in Fleet-street it was resolved and agreed by the Lord chief Iustice Sir James â—ea the Lord Hobart Baron Bromley Baron Denham Iustice Hutton and Iustice Jones That any one may erect an Inn for lodging of Travellers without any allowance or License Resolutions concerning Innes and who may keep an Inne and how they may be suppressed as well as any one before the Statute of 2 E 6. might have kept a Common Alehouse or as at this day one may set up to keep hackney Horses or Coaches to be hired by such as will use them And all men may convert Barley into Mault untill they be restrained by the act of Parliament made for that purpose And as all men may set up Trades not restrained by the Act of 5 Eliz. which directeth no man that hath not been bound or served as an Apprentice by the space of seven years or by restraint of setting up Trades in Corporations by such as be not free by the like reason all men may use the Trade of Inne-keeping unlesse it could be brought to be within the Statute of 2 E 6. which hath never been taken to be subject to that Statute in point of license And vide that an Hostler is chargable to the party which is his Guest for the restoring of that which is lost in his House and that by the Common Law of the Realm vide 11 H 4. fol 45. see also 11 H 4. fol 47. That in an action upon the case brought by the School-master of Glocester for erecting another School to his prejudice adjudged that no action lies and also it is there said that if I have a Mill and another erect another Mill by which I lose my Custom no action lies unlesse he disturb the water And it was said by the chief Iustice that it was so resolved before by the Iudges and that Iustice Doderidge Iustice Haughton and Iustice Chamberlain were of the same opinion and so now was my Brother Crew the Kings Serjeant who went the Circuit of Surrey Kent and Essex but the chief Baron Tanfield was of a contrary opinion And it seemed to him that Innes were licensed at first and Originally by the Iustices in Eire but nothing could be shewne to that purpose But all the Iustices were of a contrary opinion and said that that was the ground that begot the Patent and Commission to Mounperson viz. That the King might licence them if the Iudges might And it was said by the Lord chief Iustice that there was not any such thing in the Eires but because that strangers which were aliens were abused and evilly intreated in the Inns it was upon complaint therof provided that they should be well lodged and Inns were assigned to them by the Iustices in Eire The second question was if an Inn be erected in a remote and inconvenient place so that it is dangerous to Travellers and there harbour men of bad same which are apt to commit Robbery whether that might be suppressed And as to that all agreed that it is a common Nusance and may be suppressed and that to be by Indictment and presentment to which the party may have his Traverse The third question was whether when one which had erected an Inn be a man of bad behaviour and such a person as is not fit to keep an Inn how it should be aided and helped And it was agreed by all that upon Indictment or presentment therof he may have his Traverse and if he be convicted then to be suppressed viz. that he which had so misdemeaned himself should not keep it as an Inn nor use it But that it being an Inn it may be used afterwards by another Fourthly how and by what way or means the multitude of Inns might be prevented by being suppressed or redressed upon complaint or how the number might be stinted This Point seemed to be difficult and to contradict the resolution upon the first question And therfore it was agreed that they should advise concerning it and the best way is that they be strictly inforced to keep the Assise and not to suffer any to tipple in their Inns and by this way they would desist from their Trade Mich. 4 Car. Mackerney versus Ewrin RIchard Mackerney brought an action upon the case against Jeffrey Ewrin and count Case That whereaâ— one I. S. was indebted to the Plaintiff in seven pounds four shillings for pasture feeding and Oates for an Horse kept in the Stable of the Plaintiff Consideration in an Assumpsit The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff at his request would deliver the Horse to him to the use of the said John S. promised to pay the said seven pounds four shillings And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff Serjeant Callis moved in Arrest of Iudgment that it is no good consideration for the Plaintiff had not any property in the Horse and he is not is do any other thing then the Law injoyn him to do As if I lose my goods and another find them and in consideration that he will deliver them to me I promise to pay him two hundred pounds that is not sufficient matter to ground an Assumpsit therupon But if a Taylor had made a Sute of Apparell for I. S. and I. D. request him to deliver it
and Iudgment against the Plaintiff 8 E 4. 3. 21 E 4 2. Lit. 264. b. 20 E 4. 17. If the Debtee makes the Debtor and others his Executors the Debt is discharged Mich 9 Car. Banco Regis Rot 373. Anne Dorchester Executrix of Anne Row Dorchester and Webb Plaintiff against William Webb in Debt upon an Obligation of five hundred pounds the Defendant demanded Oyer wherby it appears that the Defendant and one John Dorchester were obliged joyntly and severally in the said Obligation The Defendant plead in Bar that the said John Dorchester made the Plaintiff his Executrix who proved the Will and had Goods sufficient in her hands to pay the said Debt The Plaintiff reply that before the death of the said Anne Row the Obligee she had fully Administred all the Goods of the said John Dorchester Demurrer and Iudgment for the Plaintiff And in this case it is not shewn that the said Francis and Peter or any of them proved the Will of the said Obligee or that they administred his goods or that they had any goods of the Obligor to administer at the time of the death of the Obligee as it ought to have been shewn And the said Francis Executor of the Obligee and also of the Obligor refused to be Executor to the Obligee and never Administred and never meddled with the Goods of the Obligee and so the Debt is not released in Law as by the said Case and former Iudgment appears This case had been often argued by Serjeant Hedley and of the other part by Serjeant Hitcham and affirmed that once Iudgment was given for the Defendant but it yet depends Trin. 12 Car. MEmorand Vpon Petition exhibited to the King by the Prisoners of quality which were in execution in the Fleet Liberty may not be given to Prisoners by force of a Habeas Corpus Kings Bench and Marshalsey to have liberty in the time of Infection and for preservation of their lives to have liberty by Writs of Habeas Corpus to go into the Country upon security to be given to the Warden and Marshall for their return The King out of his great care of their safety referred their Petition to the Lord Keeper Coventry and that he with the advice of the Iudges should consider by what way it might be done And the eighteenth day of June we attended the Lord Keeper at Durham-house And therupon conference and consideration of a former Resolution which was at Reading in Mich. Term last before the said Lord Keeper where were present all the Iudges besides my self That these abusive Habeas Corpus were not lawfull and that the Warden and Marshall were then called and warned that they should not suffer their Prisoners to go into the Country as they had used to do by colour of such Writs This which followes was subscribed WEE are of Opinion that the Writ of Habeas Corpus is both Ancient and Legall But as the Writ doth not so no Rule can Authorize the Keeper of the Prison to give liberty to his Prisoner by colour of such Writ but the same is an abuse against Law and an Escape in the Keeper if he let the Prisoner go by such Writ We find that neither in the twenty fourth year of Eliz. when the Term was Adjourned to Hertford Nor in the 34. of Eliz. in which year it was Adjourned to Hertford Nor in the 35. of Eliz. in which year it was Adjourned to St. Albans Nor in 1 Jac. in which year the Term was Adjourned to Winchester Nor in the first of King Charles in which year it was Adjourned to Reading In all which years there were great and dangerous Infections of the Plague there was no such course to set Prisoners out of Prison by Habeas Corpus but we find it a Novelty begun of late years But We think that if the danger of Infection shall grow so great as it shall be found necessary to provide for the safety of the Prisoners who may at all times provide for themselves by paying their Debts and yeilding obedience to Justice then a course may be taken that some certaine house may be assigned for the Warden of the Fleet in some good Town remote from the Infection and the like for the Marshall of the Kings Bench in some other Town where they may remove such Prisoners as have been Petitioners to his Majesty and there keep them as Prisoners Sub arcta salva Custodia as they should be kept in their proper Prisons and not to be as House-keepers in their own houses and by this means they will have the like to avoid the Infection as other Subjects have and not make the Infection a cause to abuse their Creditors or delude the course of Justice John Bramsion 1. Richard Hutton 2. George Crooke 3. George Vernon 4. Francis Crawley 5. Humph. Davenport 6. William Jones 7. Thomas Trevor 8. Robert Barkley 9. Richard Weston 10. To Sir John Bramston Knight Lord chief Justice of England My very good Lord I Have acquainted his Majesty with your resolution and your Brethren about Writs of HABEAS CORPUS his Majesty doth exceedingly approve the same And hath commanded me to let you know that his Majesty would not recede from that which you have certified And praies you and the rest of my Lords the Judges to observe it constantly attending to that resolution under your hands Hampton Court 19 June 1636. Your Lordships assured Tho. Coventrey C. S. Mich. 14 Car. MEmorand That 28. Aprilis 14 Car. Iustice Hutton argued in the Exchequer Chamber in the Case Adjourned thither upon a Scâ—re facias by the King against Hampden for Ship-money in which he was of opinion that as well for the matter as for the form upon divers exceptions to the pleading Iudgment should be given against the King Afterwards viz. 4. Maij. Thomas Hanson Batchelor of Divinity and Parson of Creake in Northamp came to the Court of Common Bench Iustice Hutton and Iustice Crawley then being there giving Rules and Orders and said Words against Justice Hutton I accuse Mr. Justice Hutton of high Treason for which he was committed to the custody of the Warden of the Fleet by Iustice Crawley and after by the direction of the King he was indicted in the Kings Bench and convicted and fined to five thousand pounds to the King And Iustice Hutton preferred his Bill against him there and recovered ten thousand pound Dameges Lord Digbies Case MEmorand That in the Parliament holden primo Car. It was resolved by the Iudges upon conference concerning the Lord Digby That when any Peer shall be proceeded against for Treason that ought to be by Indictment and that being done Where tryall of Treason by the Statute of 3 Jac. cap. 4. shall be and how then the King is to appoint a Peer to be Steward for the time and then to proceed to Arraign him or otherwise to transmit this Indictment by Certiorari to the Parliament and there
Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon a new Statute and after divers terms Hall died and after the Plaintiff was non-suited without mention made of his death Tadcaster brought two Scire facias against Hobs and upon two Nihils had Iudgment Hobs brought an Audita Querela alledging the death of Hallowell before Scire facias and before Capias and it was adjudged that the Audita Querela well say and Hil 4 Jac Rot 975. between Timberley and Calverly Scire facias brought against the Bail and he pleaded that the Principall died before Capias returned against him And Iudgment upon argument given against the Plaintiff The like Iudgment between Iustice Williams and the Sureties of one Vaughan Hil. 19 Jac. Rot. 312. or 3125. Walrond versus Hill London Debt WAlrond brought an action of debt upon an Obligation of three hundred pounds against William Hill with Condition that if Thomas Harris and Elizabeth his Wife One bound to levy a Fine before such a day who shall do the first act before the end of Easter Term next shall levy a Fine before the Iustices of the Common Pleas by due course of Law to the use of the Plaintiff that then c. the Defendant pleaded that before the end of the said Easter Term the Plaintiff did not purchase any Writ of Covenant pro fine leuand wherupon a Fine might be levied according to the course of Law The Plaintiff replyed that the fifteenth of April the said Thomas for money enfeoffed another of parcel of the Land that was to be conveyed by the Fine And that the said Thomas and Elizabeth his Wife have not any Estate or Interest in the said parcell so conveyed wherof they may levy a Fine And upon this Replication the Defendant demurred And upon argument at Bar by Serjeant Harvey for the Plaintiff and Serjeant Henden for the Defendant the first question was If the Bar be good Intant que le Defendent est oblige That Thomas Harris and Elizabeth his Wife shall levy a Fine he ought to procure that to be done at his perill semble al 4 H. 7. 3 H. 6. Condition that John S. a stranger shall take Alice D. to his Wife before Mich. If I. S. refuse the Obligation is forfeited And therfore it was urged that he ought to procure a Writ of Covenant at his perill But the Lord Hobart held that the Plaintiff ought to procure the Writ of Covenant to have made himself capable of the Fine And he put this case if I. S. be obliged that I. D. shall enfeoff I.N. the Obligee such a day I. N. ought to be upon the Land or ought to make a Letter of Attorney to receive the Livery or otherwise the Obligation is not forfeited And when a Covenant is to levy a Fine he which is to do the first act c. vide Palmers case Coke lib 5. fol 127. 4 E. 3. 39. 18 E. 3. 27. 11 H. 4 18. 21 E 4. 2. The second question was whether this Obligation be ferfeited being that the said Thomas Harris had made a Bargain and Sale of part of the Land to another before so that he was disabled at the time to levy a Fine And we all agreed that the Condition was impossible and is all one as if he had disabled himself afterwards as in Maynes case Coke lib 5. 21. where the Covenant was to make a new Lease upon surrender of the former Lease there if he which ought to make the new Lease disables himself to make a new Lease and to accept of the Surrender by granting the Reversion for years he ought not to do the first act viz. Surrender but the Covenant is broken And in this case it is all one as if one who had granted the Reversion for years or for life Covenant that he upon Surrender will make a new Lease he had broken this Covenant being disabled at the time And it was said and agreed by the Court that the Fine to be levied ought to be an effectuall Fine which might operate to convey the Land according to the Covenant Burnell and Brook One case was vouched in this case to be between Burnell and Brook where the Condition was that he should acknowledge a Iudgment and a good Bar that the Plaintiff had not purchased an Originall Writ for he ought to make himself capable of Iudgment acknowledged to him vide 34 E. 1. Fitz Debt 164. A Condition that if he present the Obligee to a Benefice that then c. Though the Obliges taken Wife by which he is disabled to take it put he ought to present and offer him to the Ordinary to refuse him Vide 28 E 4. 6. where parcell of the Land was recovered yet Debt lies for entry Damages recovered in a Court of ancient Demeasn which case was then vouched but it is not much to the purpose And afterwards we all agreed that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment Hord versus Cordery A President was shewn which was thus IN the County of Wiltes Richard Hord Clerk Vicar of Chute Case brought an action upon the Case against William Cordery and Bridget his Wife and Dorothy Cox Conspiracy for one malicious confederacy of charging the Plaintiff with the felonious Raye of the said Dorothy Cox and procured him to be examined before Sir Anthony Hungerford a Iustice of Peace and therupon was bound in a Recognizance to appear at the next generall Sessions of the Peace at Devises and from thence was bound over to the Assises And there the Defendants An 15 Jac before Sir Thomas Flemming and Tanfield Iustices of Assise preferred one Bill of Indictment of their malice aforesaid and by the procurement of the said William and B. the said Dorothy shewed to the grand Inquest whether it were true or false And the Iury perceiving the malice and the falsiâ—y did not find it to be true and gave their Verdict by Ignorance Vpon Not guilty pleaded by William and Bridget and non informatus by Dorothy the Iury found for the Plaintiff and after a Writ of Error An 15 Jac and 20 marks costs for the delay Ego vidi recordum est bien pleivement aver que il ne ravish le feme est ent Hil. 10 Jac. Rot. 92. 1. 1. Trin. 20 Jac. Hawkins versus Cutts HAwkins brought an action upon the case against Cutts Case and declared that he was of good Fame c. and for the space of eight years last past had used the Art and Mystery of a Baker Pandopatoritae and had gained his living by buying and selling the Defendant said of him He is a Bankrupt Knave And not guilty Words it was found for the Plaintiff And in Arrest of Iudgment it was moved that it is not shewn that he was a common Baker neither had used the Trade but used the Art and Mystery of a Baker And there is as Serjeant Hobart said as much skill
in a Garden then minutae decimae And it was agreed by the Court that it might have been so found that it should be Majores decimae and prâ—â—diall as if all the Profits of the Parsonage consist of such Tithes And so of other things which in their own nature are minutae may become majores if all the profit of the Parish consist therin As in some Countries a great part of the Land within the Parish is Hemp or Lime or Hops there they are great Tithes and so it may be of Wholl and Lambs Beddingfields Case Pasch 3 Jac. in the Kings Bench Beddingfeilds case Farmer to the Dean and Chapter of Norwich who had the Parsonage Impropriate and had used to have Tithes of Grain and Hay and the Vicar had the small Tithes And a Feild was planted with Saffron which contain forty acres And it was adjudged that the Tithes therof belong to the Vicar Potmans case There was a Case in this Court as it was vouched by Henden 3 Jac. between Potman a Knight and another And the question was for Hops in Kent and adjudged that they were great Tithes but as for Hops in Orchards or Gardens these were resolved to belong to the Vicar as Minutae decimae There was a Case in this Court for tithe of Weild which is used for Dying and that was in Kent and it was sown with the Corn and after the Corn is reaped the next year without any other manurance the said Land brings forth and produce Weild And that was a speciall Verdict whether the Vicar shall have the tithe of it or the Parson but one of the parties died before any Iudgment And if Tobacco he planted here yet the tithes therof are Minutae decimae And all these new things viz. Saffron Hops Wood c. if it doth not appear by materiall circumstances to the contrary shall be taken as Minutae decimae And so this case was adjudged for the Defendant Hil. 1 Car. Townley versus Steele FRancis Townley and three others the Executors of William Peacock brought a Writ of Ravishment of Ward against Richard Steele and Anne his Wife for the Ravishment of the body of Ralph Smith Cosin and Heir of Ralph Smith In Ravishment of Ward brought by Executors are Non-suited whether they shall pay costs and count of the Tenure by Knights-service in Ralph Smith of William Peacock and that Ralph Smith died the said Ralph his Cosin and Heir being within age and that William Peacock the Testator seised of the body and died possessed therof and made them his Executors and they being possessed of the said Ward the Marriage of whom belong to them the Defendants Rapuere illum abduxere And upon Not guilty pleaded the Iury was at Bar and the Plaintiffs after Evidence were Non-suited And whether the Defendants shall have costs in this case was the question upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 15. or by the Statute of 4 Jac. cap. 3. And it being argued by Davenport and Attho the Court this Term the chief Iustice being absent gave their opinions And Iustice Crook argued that they should not have costs and put many cases when Executors bring actions they shall not pay costs and so is Common Experience after the Statutes which is the best Interpreter of the Law And if it should be otherwise Executors would be discouraged to bring actions for the debts of their Testator And Iustice Harvy was of the same opinion but Iustice Yelverton and Hutton to the contrary And they agreed that in all actions brought by Executors upon Contracts Obligations or other things made to the Testator there shall be no costs for that is not within the Statute viz. Contracts or Specialties made to the Plaintiff or if an action be De bonis asportatis in the life of the Testator or upon any Tort supposed to be done not immediatly to the Plaintiff there shall be no costs because that the Statute gives not costs in these cases 20 Mariae Debt upon a Demise for years if the Plaintiff shall be Non-suited there shall be costs for it is upon Contract though in some sort reall But in this case though the Plaintiffs are named Executors and their Title is derived from their Testator yet the action is brought upon an immediate Tort done to themselves and it is within the very words of the Statute and this Statute which is to prevent Vexatious Suits shall be taken favourably If Executors have a Lease for years and they demise it rendring rent and for Rent arrear they bring an action it shall be in the Debet and Detinet and they shall pay cost if they be Non-suited and yet their Title is as Executors but it is founded upon their own Contract so if they bring an action of Trespasse for the taking of Goods which came to their possession which Goods were in truth tortiously taken by the Testator and he died possessed therof and they being Non-suited they shall pay costs And Executors in actions brought against them shall pay costs and if they have no Goods of the Testator it shall be De bonis propriis And vide that upon Contracts made by them or Rent arrear in their time the action shall be in the Debet and Detinet vide Coke lib 5 Hergraves case But when Debt in brought by Executors and recovery had and after a recovery an escape and Debt upon this escape this shall be in the Deticet only according to the first cause of action And this Ravishment of Ward is an action within the Statute of 23 H 8. and the Statute of Westminster â— gives no Damages and therfore costs by the Statute of Glocester cap 1. and the Statute of 4 Jac. inlarge the actions and not the persons Hil. 1 Car. Beverley versus Power VPon an Assembly this Term of all the Iustices at Serjeants Inne by vertue of an Order of the Star-chamber made the last Term at reading the Case was Iames Beverley was Plaintiff against Robert Power Pardon and Mary Beverley and others which Bill was exhibited Hil 16 Iac. and the Bill was for scandalous matter not examinable in this Court and for other matter which was examinable and Witnesses examined and published And then the 19. of Febr. 21 Iac. the generall Pardon is made by Parliament by which all Offences Contempts and Misdemeanors del 20. Decemb. before except such Offences contempts c whereof or for which any Suite or Bill within eight years before was exhibited into the Star-chamber and there remaining to be prosecuted this last day of this present Parliament And afterwards viz. Mich. 1 Caroli the Cause came to hearing at the Suit of the Defendant and upon the hearing Power was fined two hundred pounds and for the abuse and contempt to the Court for exhibiting the scandalous matter the Plaintiff was fined five hundred pounds and for damage to the Defendant five hundred marks And yet because of the difficulty
pleaded Not guilty absque hoc that the said suit and tryall was for the said Common And Issue being joyned it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages to twenty pounds And in Arrest of Iudgment it was moved that now it appears that it was not for the maintenance of the Title of Common that it could not be for the tryall therof because he did not plead the Title of Common which had been the proper apt way for the tryall therof And when the Iury find that which is contrary and repugnant to Law that is repugnant and not good And this case was strongly argued by Serjeant Davenport in Arrest of Iudgment and by Attho for the having of Iudgment And first he said That although there was a Parlance and Communication concerning the Common yet the promise is to defend this action brought by Palmer and is pro defentione of the Common not generally but against Palmer and the promise is to pay the Moyety of the Charges if he prosecute the said Suit untill the determination therof so that if it had been found against the now Plaintiff the now Defendant ought to have paid the Moyety of the said charges And it is not agreed that he shall plead title by Prescription for the Common but that he should prosecute it untill the determination of the Suit for the maintenance of the Common And the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff for it might be for the maintenance of their Common against Palmer for if he had not the Soil therof but had inclosed it as part of his Wasts the Plaintiff could not plead the Title to Common without admitting the Soil and Free-hold to be in Palmer And if one had been of councell and to advise a Plea if he had not discovered that Palmer had no Title he would have advised him to have pleaded Not guilty for if the said Palmer had no Title to the Soil which the now Plaintiff could not know it should be found against him and so this Plea might have been in maintenance of Common And the Lord Richardson who at first doubted now concurred and sayd that he was fully satisfied Trin 3. Car. Chapman versus Chapman Debt REbecca Chapman brought an action of Debt against Henry Chapman upon an Obligation with Condition to perform the Covenants contained in certain Indentures The Defendant pleaded a generall performance the Plaintiff replyed and shewed that she made a Lease to the Defendant of certain Cole-pits rendring eighty pounds Rent and that the Defendant did not pay the Rent at the day Obligation conditioned for the payment of Rent demand is not necessary to be alledged after generall performance pleaded wherupon the Defendant demurred And it was adjudged upon Argument for the Plaintiff but the matter upon which the Defendant justified came not in question viz. If the Plaintiff ought to have demanded the Rent And that the Obligation had not altered the nature of the Rent it being generall to perform all Covenants and the reason is apparent for when the Defendant plead performance of all the payments that is intended an actuall payment for he cannot now rejoyn that he made tender for that shall be a departure from his Plea And that was the reason of the Iudgment which was Pasch 43 Eliz. between John Specot Plaintiff Specot and Shere and Emanuel Shere Defendant upon the like case in debt upon an Obligation wheras the Defendant had granted an Annuity or Rent of six and twenty shillings eight pence to the Plaintiff for one and twenty years the Condition was that if the said Shere perform all the Covenants c. conteined in the said Writing so that the Plaintiff may enjoy the Rent according to the intent therof then c. the Defendant recited the Deed and pleaded performance the Plaintiff replyed that the Defendant had not paid the said eight and twenty shillings eight pence upon such a Feast wherupon the Defendant demurred and adjudged for the Plaintiff And the Lord Coke in his private Book as the Lord chief Baron said had shewn this reason If the Defendant had pleaded specially That he was upon the Land and ready to pay and to make tender but the Plaintiff did not come to demand it then the Plaintiff ought to shew that he did demand it which seems to be agreed 14 E 4. 4. 2 H. 6. 57. 11 E 4. 10. 21 E 4 42. but Brook 6 E 6. Tender makes this diversity when the Condition is expressed to pay the Rent that alters the nature of the Rent But otherwise when it is to perform Covenants And the Iudgment given in the Kings Bench was affirmed Trin. 3 Car. Stephens versus Oldsworth IN a Quare Impedit brought by Stephens and Cross against Oldsworth and Holmes for the Church of Lechamseed the Incumbent pleaded Quare Impedit Tenure that he was Parson Imparsonee to the Church of the presentation of the King and confessed the Seisin of Sir Anthony Greenwood under whom by the grant of the next avoidance the Plaintiffs claim but said that the said Sir Anthony held the said Mannor of the King per redditum ac wardam Castri Dower to be paid yearly 8 s. 1 d. ob q. And among other matters which I omit it was resolved that it was Socage Tenure for a Rent for Castleguard is Socage vide Littleton 26. Coke lib 4. fol 6. 5 E 4. fol. 128. F.N.B. 256. a Mich. 3 Car. Young versus Young Formedon in Descender Act of Court shall be amended IN a Formedon in the Descender brought by Young against Young the Demandant was within age and was admitted to prosecute by his Guardians and that appears by a generall admittance before Iustice Jones And this admittance was first entred in the remembrance of Gulstons Office and afterwards in the Plea Roll And the Demandant which is admitted by the Court viz. per Guardianos ad hoc per Curiam admissus and there the Concessit per Curiam quod prosequatur per Gardianos is entred and so is the Roll upon the View And in the Philizers Roll the recitall is That the Demandant per Gardianos admissus obtulit se And in this Roll the Concessit per curiam of admitting the Demandant to prosecute by his Guardian is not entred And after Verdict and Iudgment for the Demandant a Writ of Error was brought and that assigned for Error And it was moved that it might be entred upon the Philizers Roll. And it was resolved by all the Court that it should be supplyed and entred upon the Philizers Roll and the principall reason was because that this admittance by his Guardians is the act of the Court and not like to the entry of the Warrant of Attorney nor to the Essoin Roll vide Dyer 330. otherwise it is of Admission by Prochein ami Where an Infant ought to appeare by Gardian and where by Prochein amy vide Rawlins case Coke lib. 4. fol 53. The
use of the Kings Bench is never to enter the Admission but only to recite it in the Count vide 11 H 7. Rot 412. In a Writ of Right by Baron and Feme and another Feme Infants there per custodes good vide 8 E 4 5. for the Mainprise entred in another Term lib Intractionum fol 366. It was vouched by Croke and affirmed by Yelverton in one Simpsons case in Durham Simpsons case where the Tenant was by Prochein amy where it should be by Guardian was Error The Presidents are that an Infant when he sue may be by Guardian or Prochein amy the one or the other but when he is sued it shall be by Guardian Mich. 3 Car. Wolfe versus Hole WOlfe an Attorney Plaintiff against Hole by a Writ of Priviledge Amendment and he Count upon an Assumpsit And after Verdict given and Iudgment a Writ of Error was brought and moved that there was a default in the Imparlance Roll viz. fault de trover pledges which was as it ought to be in the Plea Roll And it was moved that it might be amended and after debate at Bar by Henden and Davenport it was resolved that the not finding of Pledges is not matter of form but matter of substance and it concerns the King for if the cause to amerce the Plaintiff the Iudgment is Ideo le Plaintiff ses pledge sont Amerce and that it is not aided by the Statute of 18 Eliz. quod quaere and vide 12 Eliz Dyer 288. there is a Case written by me that An 17 Jac was amended after the Verdict and in one Hillaries case and vide thâ—re in Dyer that the Plaintiff when he is sued by Priviledges ought to find pledges and that as well as when a Bill is filed against an Attorney But now because that it was assigned for Error and that if it be amendable the Iustices of the Kings Bench would amend it this Court would not but if it had been in the Imparlance Roll and omitted in the Plea Roll it should be amended vide 18 E 4. 9. that Pledges may be entred at any time Hil. 2. Car. Rot. 565. Hilton versus Paule RIchard Hilton brought an action of Trespasse against Robert Paule Trespasse Which shall be said a Parish Church within the act of 43 Eliz. for the maintenance of thâ— poor for the taking of a Saddle at Stoke-Goldenham And upon Not guilty pleaded the Iury gave a speciall Verdict Viz. That the Parish of Hinkley was de temps dont memory c. and yet is an ancient Rectory and a Church Parochiall And that the Town of Stoke-Goldenham is an ancient Town and parcell of the Rectory of Hinkley And that from the time of H. 6. and afterwards untill this time there hath been and is in the Town of Goldenham a Church which by all the said time hath been used and reputed as a Parish And that the Inhabitants of Stoke-G by all the said time had had all Parochiall Rights and Church-wardens And that the Towâ—â— of Stoke-Goldenham is distant two miles from Hinkley And the Verdict concluded it it should seem to them that Stoke Goldenham is a Parish for the relief of Poor within the Statute of 43 Eliz. cap. 2. then they find for the Plaintiff if not for the Defendant And this Case was argued by Serjeant Barkley and he vouched Linwood fol 89. and said that there is Ecclesia major minor and a dependant Church upon the principall and another Church and which is found to be used and reputed ergo it is not a Parish And that the Exception of the Chappell of Foulnes which by the Statute is made a Parish proves that Chappell and Parish are not within the Statute he vouched 4 E 4. 39. and 5 E 4. to prove that divers Town may be one Parish And the Lord Richardson said that it is a clear case that this is a Parish within the intent of the Statute of 43 Eliz. for the relief of Poor And that the Church-wardens and Overseers of Stoke-Goldenham might assesse for the relief of the Poor And though it be found that after the time of H. 6. and untill now it had been used as a Parish Church that doth not exclude that it was not used so before And a Reputative Chantery is within the Statute of Chantries 1 E 6. And this Statute being made for the relief of the Poor and that they might not wander therfore the intent of the Statute is to confine the relief to Parishes then in esse and so used And every one of the Court delivered their opinion and concurred And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hil. 3 Car. Peto versus Pemmerton Mich. 3 Car. Rot. 414. Replevin SIr Edward Peto Knight brought Replevin against Robert Pemmerton and Giles Thompson The Defendants made Conusance as Bayliffs to Humphrey Peto Where Grantee of a Rent-charge takes a Lease of part of the Land and surrenders it the Rent shall be revived and that Humphrey the Father of the said Humphry was seised of the place in which c. in Fee and by his Deed granted the Rent of six pounds to the said Humphrey his Son for life out therof to Commence after the Death of the Grantor and shewed that Humphrey the Father died and for Rent arrear c. The Plaintiff in Bar to the Avowry confesse the grant and seisin of the Land and that the said Humphrey died seised of the Land out of which the Rent was granted and that that descended to William and from William to the Plaintiff who entred and demised to the said Humphrey the Son parcell of the Lands unde c. for five hundred years by force of which Lease the said Humphrey had entred and was possessed The Defendants replyed that afterwards and before any part for which they made Conusance was arrear the said Humphrey the Son surrendred the said Lease to Sir Edward Peto to which surrender the said Sir Edward agreed wherupon the Plaintiff demurred And this Case was argued by Henden and he said that when the act of him which had the Rent made the suspension his act alone could not revive it But a Rent suspended might be revived by the act of Law or by the joynt act or agreement of the parties by whom the suspension was made 21 H. 7. 7. 19 H 6. 4. 19 H 6. 45. 7 H 6. 2. As for the personall things when they are suspended they are extinct unlesse it be in auter droit as if Feme Executrix take the Debtor to Husband and the Baron dies the Wife shall have an action of Debt against his Executors One reason in this case is because that by the surrender which is accepted the Contract is determined and that is by the act of both And by the surrender the Estate for years is extinguisht to all purposes as to that to which the surrender was made as if he had granted a Rent now it shall
proceed by fiue to enforce him to lay it open yet these Affirmative Customs do not toll the Negative And to prove that the Lord had an Inheritance therin he vouched 14 E 2. Fitz. Grant 92. A Rent granted to one and his Heirs out of the Mannor of Dale which he hold of the Mannor of D. this is an Inheritance And if this shall not be a forfeiture then this Customary Inheritance which the Lord had in the feild-course might be tolled at the will and pleasure of the Copyholder Serjeant Hitcham argued strongly to the contrary First That it is no Inclosure because that all is not inclosed Secondly The forfeiture of a Copyhold is alwaies by some thing done to the Copyhold land it self but this is done as it is supposed to the feild-course of the Lord which is not Copyhold and it is better for the Copyhold and makes the land better and also the Feild-course is therby made better and more beneficiall to the Lord and therfore the Copyhold land is not altered but is meliorated and it is like so the case in Dyer 361. Althams case after no Wast done the Evidence was that a Trench was made in a Meadow by which the Meadow was Meliorated and adjudged no wast which might be given in evidence But he said that in Brooks case at the first comming of Popham to be chief Iustice it was adjudged that if a Copyholder build a new house it is a forfeiture for that altoreth the nature of the thing and put the Lord to more charge So if Tenant for yeare makes a Hay-yard in the land that is wast He said that this Custom is qualified by taking a Fine if he would or by imposing a pain in the Court to enforce the Defendant to lay it open And all the Court were of opinion that this is no forfeiture for the reasons before and that this Feild-course is a thing which commence by agreement and is but a Covenant and not of common right And Forfeitures which are odious in Law shall be taken strickly Trin. 5 Car. Starkey versus Tayler Case STarkey an Atterney of this Court brought an action upon the case against one Mr. Tayler of Lincolns Inn for saying of these words to him Words Thou art a common Barretor and a Judas and a Promoter And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that these words maintain not action for the generality and uncertainty that he shall be called a common Barretor And the chief Iustice seemed to be of opinion that those words are not more then if he had said That he was a common Brabler or Quarreller But it was urged by Serjeant Hicham that the action lies and that it is a generall Rule Quod sermo relatur ad personam As in Birchley's Case He is a corrupt man And in Mores Case it was said of an Attorney That he was a cousening Knave And if these words were spoken of a common person he doubted if they were actionable but being spoken of an Attorney action lies And if these words were spoken of Iudge without doubt they were actionable And in this case being spoken of an Attorney who is a Minister of Iustice and who hath the Causes of his Clients in his hands to gain them or to lose them The Statute of Westminster saies the Sheriffs are charged to expell all Barretors out of their Countries And in the Statute of 34 E. 3. is the description of a common Barretor and his punishment who is a stirrer of false and unjust Suits and that he shall be imprisoned during the pleasure of the King bound to his good behaviour and fined And Littleton in his Chapter of Warranties faith they are hired to keep Possessions and therfore an action lies But to say of another man That he is a common Barretor is not actionable unlesse he saith that he is convicted Hil. 3 Car Rot. 1302. Watt versus Maydewell Leicest WIlliam Watt brought an Ejectione firmae against Laurence Maydewell Where acceptance of a new Lease for years makes a surrender of the former upon a Lease made by Robert Rome upon Not guilty and a speciall Verdict found the Case was thus Francis Griffith seised of Land in Fee by Indenture bearing date the fourteen of November and 14 Iac. demised the said Land wherof c. for one and forty years to Robert Rome rendring two shillings Rent to commence from the Annunciation which shall be An 1619. and after the same year by another Indenture bearing date the third of December 15 Iac. to commence from the Annunciation last demised the same Lands for ninety nine years to Dame Frances Perroint who entred and was therof possessed And after that the said Francis Griffith by another Indenture the same year bearing date the fourteen day of November 16 Iac. to commence from the seventeenth of November An. 1619. devise it to the said Robert Rome for one and forty years who accepted it and afterwards entred and being possessed made his Will and appointed Executors and died the Executors administred and made the Lease to the Plaintiff who was possessed untill he was ousted by the Defendant And the only question of this Case was if the acceptance of the second Lease by Robert Rome had determined discharged or extinguished the former Lease And after Argument it was adjudged for the Plaintiff the reason was because that by the Lease made to the Lady Perpoint for ninety nine years and her Entry Francis Griffith had but a Reversion and could not by his Contract made afterwards with Robert Rome give any Interest to Robert Rome This Lease made to Robert Rome viz. his former Lease was good in Interest being to commence at a day to come and is grantable over and may be surrendred or determined by matter in Law before the Commencement therof as if he take a new Lease to commence presently which see in 37 H. 6. 29. 22 E. 4. for it tuures in Contract And in this case it had been without question that the taking of the new Lease had been a surrender of the former if it were not by reason of the Lease for ninety nine years which is for so great a number of years that disables him to contract for one and forty years 37 H. 6. 17. 18. 14 H. 7. 3. Dyer 140. Vide Smith and Stapletons case in Plowden If a man makes a Lease for one and twenty years and after makes a Lease for one and twenty yeares by Paroll that is meerly void but if the second Lease had beene by Deed and hee had procured the former Lease to Attorn he shall have the Reversion vide Ive's Case Coke lib 5. fol 11. there it is adjudged that the acceptance of a Leese for years to Commence at a day to come is a present surrender of a former Lease These Cases were vouched in this Case Baker and Willoughby Serjeant Bakers Case in the Court of Wards with the Lady Willoughby that a
to proceed vide 10 E 4. 6. 1 H 4. 1. vide Coke Lit fol 261. b. Or otherwise to prefer a Bill in the Parliament which ought to be passed by both houses and then it is Attainder by Parliament and so it was done 5 R 2. 54. But in this Case it being that part of the Treason objected against him was supposed to be done Oust le mere and made Treason by the Act of 3 Jac cap 4. that cannot be tryed but by Indictment to be taken before the Iustices of Assise and Gaol-delivery where the party was taken or before the Iustices of the Kings Bench and Law Custome Statute or usage to the contrary notwithstanding And so it cannot be tryed by the Statute of 35 H 8. cap 2. in what place or Shire that the Kings Bench shall be for this Statute had for this Treason prescribed a speciall form of Tryall and the place where he shall be taken shall be expounded the place where he is misprisoned as upon the Statute of Soldiers And he which is charged to have two Wives living shall be tryed in the place where he is taken which is the place where he is imprisoned vide 2. Inst 49. Trin. 12 Car. Quaeries concerning Aliens QUaeries upon the Statutes of 1 Riz cap 9. 1 H 7. cap 2. 14 H 8 cap 2. the Decrees in the Star-chamber made 20 H 8. and confirmed 21 H 8. cap 16. 22 H 8. cap 8. 32 H 8. 16. and other Statutes concerning Aliens and the Statute of 5 Eliz cap 4. 1. Whether the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap 4. doth repeal the former Statutes concerning Aliens taking Apprentices Iourny-men and Servants 2. Whether Aliens made Denizens may use any handycraft within the Realm otherwise then as Servants to the Kings Subjects Memorand That on the seventh day of July We met at Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet Mr. Attorney-generall being there and We debated the matter and upon perusall of the Statute of 1 R 3. cap 9. and the other Statutes And upon some mis-recitall of the Statute 1 R 3. by the Statute 32 H 8. cap 16. And upon differences of the Printed Statute from the Parliament Roll as was supposed upon shewing of an old Book of Statutes which was in French and brought by my Brother Crook and upon the intricacy of the Statute We could not resolve on the suddain upon these Questions at this time nor unlesse the Parliament Roll might be seen But upon perusall of the Statute of 5 Eliz cap 4. We all resolved and agreed That all Aliens and Denizens are restrained by the Statute of 5 Eliz cap 4. That they may not use any Handycraft mentioned in the said Statute Resolves upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 4. concerning Aliens unlesse they have served seven years as Apprentices within this Realm according to the provision of this Statute This was set down in writing by Sir John Banks his Majesties Attorney Generall present Sir John Bramston chief Iustice of England Sir John Finch chief Iustice of the Common Bench Sir Humphrey Davenport chief Baron Baron Denham Iustice Hutton Iustice Crook Baron Trevor Iustice Crawley and Baron Weston the other Iudges being absent viz. Jones and Vernon Hil. 12 Car. Souser versus Burton ONe Widow Souser brought an action of the Case against Burton for these words Thou old Witch thou old Whore leave oft thy witching or else thou shalt be hanged or burned if I can do it And upon Not guilty pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment And it seemed to Lord Finch Hutton and Vernon that the action lay not without shewing that she did any act of Witchcraft for which the pain of Pillory and Imprisonment for two years should be inflicted and the second time Felony And that the words Words Thou art an old Witch or go away thou old Witch are usuall words and old Whore bears no action And as to say Thou shalt be hanged if I can do it it is not possible that he could do it But Iustice Crawley doubted of it at first because that it was alledged that it had been adjudged in the Kings Bench that an action lies for calling one Witch But afterwards he said that he had spoken with the Iustices of the Kings Bench of their reason who said that they adiudged no such thing unlesse that he spoke further that the party had done any act of Witchcraft punishable by the Statute Hugles versus Drinkwater AN action of Account by William Hugles against Thomas Drink-water for receit of eighteen pounds In Account payment by appointment of the Plaintiff is no plea before the Auditors where the Issue was Ne unques receivor by the hands of one William Appowell to the use of the Plaintiff the Defendant plead Ne unquer receivor per manus c. and found or the Plaintiff And the Defendant before the Auditors plead that he by the appointment of William Appowell had paid it to one John Marsh for the Debt of the Plaintiff and therupon Demurrer And adjudged a bad Plea and against his former Issue And the said Appowell by whose hands he received the said summ had not any power to appoint the Defendant to pay it to John Marsh to whom the Plaintiff was indebted and if that had been pleaded in Bar of the Account to have been done by the appointment of the Defendant it had been a good Bar vide Dyer 29. 196. after ne unques receivor and the truth was that he had been Receiver and had paid it over by the appointment of the party and yet by this Plea be hath lost the advantage therof An. 2. Car. MEmorand That the 19. day of May An 2 Car. all the Iudges being assembled at Serjeants Inn in Chancery Lane by the commandment of the King the Attorney Generall propounded In what cases a prisoner arraigned shall have Councell that the King would be satisfied by our opinion Whether any person which is arraigned of Treason of Felony ought by the Fundamentall Lawes of this Realm to have Councell And We all una voce answered That when any one is indicted of Felony or Treason or any other such offence the party ought not to have any Councell unlesse it be upon matter in Law as where he demand Sanctuary or plead any speciall matter and that is agreed by Stamford fol. 151. Also this extends as well to Peers of the Realm as to others vide 1 H 7. 23. and the 9 E 4. 2. and so it was agreed by all that although the party shall have Councell in an Appeal of Murther yet if he be non-suited and the party be arraigned upon the Declaration then he shall have no Councell Also it was resolved that when the party who prosecute suppose that the Grand Iury will not find the Invictment and therfore requires that the Evidence should be given publickly to the Iury at Bar which is sometime done yet the party who