Deposition Literature Profession and the like It 's enough if so much be alledged that they may write to know whether the Fact be so or no and upon a Return thereof that 't is so they can give Judgment Now if his Grace my Lord Archbishop in this Case upon Examination had returned that this Presentee was in Literatura minus sufficiens as undoubtedly he would and so the Plaintiff thought otherwise he would have joyned Issue and so ea occasione inhabilis then unquestionably Judgment must have been for the Plaintiff in Error for default of Learning is a good cause of Refusal and must be agreed to be so The Rule laid down by my Lord Anderson 3 Leon. 200. is That in Matters triable by our Law all things issuable ought to be specially alledged in order to have a convenient Trial but in Matters Spiritual the Law is otherwise because there 's no peril in the Trial and therefore if certain enough to ground a Certificate it 's sufficient My Lord Hob. 296. in Slade and Drake's Case saith That in pleading a Divorce you must shew before whom it was 11 Hen. 7.27 but you need not shew all the Proceedings as you should of a Recovery at Common Law and the Reason why you must shew before whom is only that it may be known who is to try and certifie it In Burdell's Case 18 Edw. 4.29 30. 't is clear that in all Spiritual Acts triable by the Spiritual Law it is necessary to plead no more than what may give the Court ground to write to the proper Ecclesiastical Officer and to judge by his Certificate Now here is ground enough in this Case for the Archbishop to examine this ignorant Person for so he must be taken to be for so he is found by one Ordinary and he refuses to be examined by the Archbishop he is pleaded not to have Learning enough to capacitate him for a Cure of Souls and that by one whom the Law hath constituted his Judge 'T is true this is traversable and triable by the Archbishop but all those Instances of his Insufficiency that were taken in the Bishops Court would be Evidences of the same before the Archbishop proceeding in an Ecclesiastical manner tho' not so proper tho' not possible to be set forth in the Temporal Court this is not a General Return of a Person inhabilis which might occasion an Enquiry into all sort of Disabilities but a Special Plea of inhabilis quia insufficienter Literatus and therefore no further Enquiry is necessary then into the Learning of the Party as Capacitates him for a Rector It was in the third place argued from the Presidents of Pleading in this Case and other Cases of Pleading upon like Occasions and those both Ancient and Modern 40 Edw. 3.25 In a Quare Impedit as this is the Bishop pleads as here That he Examined the Clerk presented and found upon Examination que il ne fuit sufficiens Letter'd and thereupon alledges Notice to the Patron per lapsum temporis he justifies his own Presentation Upon this there 's no dispute but that thus far it was well pleaded but the only doubt was whether the words and so disabled should be added to the Issue and they were ordered to be part of the Issue in that Case and so they ought to be in this Case and so they are ea ratione inhabilis this Case is exactly parallel to that in question and upon this Plea there was Issue joyned and the Trial was directed to be by the Guardian of the Spiritualities vacante Sede Cantuariensi nothing can be offered against this only that 't is Ancient and the Law is changed but by what Authority is hard to know there is no Act of the Legislature to alter it much hath been done to help against Niceties in Pleading nothing to require more And Bro. Quare Impedit 168. they were compelled to joyn Issue able or not able in that respect 39 Edw. 3.1 2. The Earl of Arundel versus the Bishop of Chester says the Book tho' it appears plainly to be a mis-print from the name of the Church and the Trial per pais and the Antiquity of the Bishoprick it self it must be the same that in the Abridgments is called the Earl of Arundel versus the Bishop of Exeter the Bishop pleads as here That he examined the Clerk presented and found him persona inhabilis to have a Benefice in the Church and Issue is joyned upon that which is stronger then ours and a Trial by Jury is directed out of the County of Cornwall because the Clerk was dead Here are two Cases in which all the different Trials are taken that can be had by the Guardian where the Presentee was living and by Jury when dead because he could not be examined And in both these Cases Issue is taken upon this Plea and that in great Cases and after long Debate And according to the Lord Coke in this Reign the Law was pure and uncorrupt and flourished Then were urged Modern Precedents Mich. 15 16 Eliz. Rot. 1941. Molineux versus Archiepiscopar ' Ebor ' in a Quare Impedit in which the Plea of the Archbishop is the same in totidem verbis as here Persona in Literatura minus sufficiens seu habilis ad habend ' praed ' Ecclesiam and there is no Exception taken to the Plea but only Issue joyned upon notice or no notice before the Lord Chief Justice Dyer Another Precedent there is Hill 6 Eliz. Rot. 646. Bodenham versus Episcopor ' Hereford ' there is the same Plea in Bar as here That the Person presented was Persona in Literatura minus sufficiens seu habilis ad habend ' aliquod Beneficium Sanctae Ecclesiae and then avers notice to the Patron and no Exception taken to the Plea but Issue upon notice Pasch 6 Eliz. Rot. 714. Paschall versus Episcop ' Lond ' Quare Impedit the Ordinary pleads an Examination de habilitate honestate doctrina ejus pro eo quod idem Episcopus invenit praed ' Christopherum fore criminosum de non sana Doctrina ideo recusavit and notice and even to that general Plea there 's no Demurrer but Issue upon notice 'T is no Answer that here was no Solemn Judgment upon this very Point for it doth rather inforce the Authority of the Precedents it argues that the Law was taken to be so clear for the validity of this Plea that no Lawyer would venture upon a Demurrer but rather would trust to a Jury upon the Evidence of notice it argues it so constant a Course and Method of Pleading in these Cases that none was so hardy as to dispute it 38 Edw. 3.2 Perjurius was alledged by the Bishop in the Presentee and held to be well enough but nothing of manner time and place nor any Conviction of it mentioned and yet this was admitted a good Plea 2 Rolls Abridg. Presentment 356. and so says Rolls it
after Judgment affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber Or if that proceeding in the Exchequer Chamber doth not come in lieu of Error in Parliament according to the Statute of Eliz. William Bridgman al' Versus Rowland Holt al' A Writ of Error and Petition in Parliament The Case below was thus William Bridgman brings an Assize for the Office of chief Clerk for inrolling of Pleas in the Court of King's Bench and the Plaintiff declares that the Office of chief Clerk for inrolling of Pleas in the Court of King's Bench was time out of mind granted and grantable by the Kings and Queens of this Realm and that King Charles the Second by Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England Dated the Second of June in the Five and twentieth Year of his Reign after a Recital that Robert Henley and Samuel Wightwick were duly admitted to this Office for their Lives granted this Office upon the Petition of Eliott to Silas Titus so soon as it should become void and that Wightwick was dead and Titus had surrendred his Patent did in consideration of Service done by the Earl of Arlington grant this Office to the Plaintiff and his Heirs for the Lives of the Earl of Arlington Duke of Grafton and Dutchess of Grafton and the longer liver of them from and after the Death Forfeiture or Surrender of Sir Robert Henley and that Sir Robert Henly was dead and that thereupon the Plaintiff became seized and was seized of the Office till the Defendants did disseize him c. The Defendants pleaded that they did not wrong or disseize the Plaintiff Upon the Trial of this General Issue at the Bar of the King's-Bench before the three puisne Judges the Chief Justice then sitting near the Defendant's Counsel upon a Chair uncovered the Plaintiff gave in Evidence the Letters Patents of 2 June 25 Car. 2. Then it was proposed by the Counsel for the Defendant That they would prove their Allegation that the Office was anciently granted by the Kings and Queens of England as was declared but no Evidence was given besides this Patent of Car. 2. Then the Counsel for the Defendant waving the just Exception which they might have taken to the Plaintiff's Grant as to him and his Heirs which ought not to be of such an Office for that by that means it might come to an Infant They insisted upon the meer right of Granting the said Office viz. that it was not grantable by the Crown but was an Office belonging to the Chief Justice of the King's Bench and grantable by him Then to prove this it was shewn That this Officer is to Inroll Pleas between Party and Party only and had nothing to do with any Pleas of the Crown or Criminal Matters that all the Rolls and Records in this Office were in the Custody of the Chief Justice that all the Writs to certifie or remove the Records in this Clerk's Office are directed to the Chief Justice and from the nature of the Imployment 't was insisted that in truth he was but the Chief Justices Clerk and that consequently the same must be granted by the Chief Justice And for further proof it was shown by the Records of the Court that for the space of Two hundred thirty five years past this Office when void had been granted by the Chief Justice and enjoy'd accordingly under such Grants In Trin. 36 Hen. 6. Rot. 36. inter placita Reg. Anno Dom. 1458. It is inrolled thus Be it remembred that the Tenth of July this Term in the Court of our Lord the King at Westminster came William Sond chief Clerk of our Lord the King for inrolling Pleas before the King himself in his proper Person and in the same Court of his Free-will did surrender his said Office into the hands of Sir John Fortescue Kt. Chief Justice of that Court to whom of right it doth belong to grant that Office to whomsoever he pleaseth whensoever that Office shall be void during the time that the said Sir John Fortescue shall be Chief Justice and that Office doth resign and relinquish to the use of William Brome and the said Chief Justice doth accept the said Surrender and doth the same day grant the said Office to the said William Brome who is presently admitted into the said Office for his Life and sworn accordingly Mich. 1. Edw. 4. Rot. 51. Upon Brome's Surrender to Sir John Markham then Chief Justice the Chief Justice grants it to Mr. Sonde who is admitted for Life and sworn Mich. 8 Edw. 4. Rot. 26. 1467. Upon the Surrender of William Sonde to the said Sir John Markham then Chief Justice he grants it to Reginald Sonde who is admitted and sworn Reginald Sonde enjoyed this Office till the time of Henry the Seventh and then Bray came in and was Clerk till the 13 H. 7. and then came in Roper Hill 9 Hon. 8. Rot. 3. Anno 1518. Upon the Surrender of this place to Sir John Fineux Chief Justice by John Roper the Chief Justice grants the Office to Sir John Roper and William Roper who are admitted for their Lives and sworn Hill 1 2 Edw. 6. Anno 1547. Upon the Surrender of William Roper Sir John being then dead to Sir Richard Lister then Chief Justice he grants the Office to William Roper and Rute Heywood and they are admitted and sworn Hill 15 Eliz. 1573. Upon the Surrender of William Roper Heywood being dead to Sir Robert Catlin then Chief Justice he granted this Office to John Roper and Thomas Roper for their Lives and they are admitted and sworn Mich. 14 Jac. 1 Rot. 2. Anno 1616. Upon the Surrender of John Roper Thomas being dead to Sir Henry Mountagne then Chief Justice he grants the Office to Robert Heath and Robert Shute for their Lives who are admitted and sworn thereupon Hill 18 Jac. 1. 1620. Shute being dead upon Sir Robert Heath's Surrender to Sir James Leigh then Chief Justice he grants the Office to Sir Robert Heath and George Paul for their Lives and they are sworn and admitted in Court Mich. 5 Car. 1. Upon the Surrender of Sir Robert Heath and Sir George Paul to Sir Nicholas Hide then Chief Justice he grants it to Robert Henley and Samuel Wightwick for their Lives and they are admitted and sworn Trin. 1654. Upon Wightwick's Surrender to H. Roll then Chief Justice Henly being then under Sequestration the Chief Justice grants it to Sam. Wightwick and to Robert Henly Junior for their Lives and they are admitted and sworn Mich. 12 Car. 2. Upon the Surrender of Samuel Wightwick and Robert Henly to Sir Robert Foster then Chief Justice he grants it to Henly and Wightwick for their Lives and they are sworn Wightwick died soon after and Sir Robert Henly enjoy'd it under that Grant 32 years And it was observed on behalf of the Defendant That in all these Records produced and read in Court after the mention of the Surrender to the Chief Justice there are these words To
receive the Allegations and Matters given in Evidence for the Plaintiff as sufficient to maintain his Title whereas they were given in Evidence and considered and if it be meant as a sufficient Evidence to controul and over-rule all other that doth not belong to the Court in Trials to determine unless referred to them upon demurrer to Evidence but is the proper business of the Jury and if the Party be aggrieved the Remedy is an Attaint Nor can it be pretended that the Defendants Evidence was admitted to over-rule the Record produced because no Objection was made to the Defendants Evidence at the Trial and the same was all given before the Record of 15 Ed. 3. was produced and consequently the Jury must consider the force of it for Evidence on both sides being given by the Law of England the Decision of the Right belongs to the Jury and the Act of Edw. 3. being repealed 't is no Matter of Law but the most which could be made of it was that it was Evidence which must be left to the Jury together with the Defendants Evidence But no Bill of Exception will lye in such a Case by the Statute when the Evidence given is admitted as Evidence and left to a Jury and where no Opposition was made to the Defendants Evidence as here in this Case and therefore in this Case a Bill of Exception could not be warrantable because the Plaintiff's Evidence was not refused or over-ruled nor was the Defendant's Evidence fit to be rejected or so much as opposed by the Plaintiff And as to the Allegations made by the Counsel and not proved those never could be an Exception And for these and other Reasons the Judges refused to Seal their Bill Upon this a Writ of Error is brought and a Petition was exhibited to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled in the Name of the Lady Isabella Dutchess of Grafton and William Bridgman her Trustee showing that King Charles the Second granted the Office in question to W. B. for the Lives of Henry Earl of Arlington Henry Duke of Grafton and of the Petitioner the Lady Isabella in Trust for the Duke his Executors and Administrators to commence after the Death of Sir Robert Henly that upon the death of Sir Robert Henly the Petitioner by virtue of the said Grant was well intituled to the said Office but was interrupted in receiving the Profits by Rowland Holt Esq Brother to the Lord Chief Justice Holt and by Edward Coleman Gent. who pretended to be admitted thereto by some Grant from the Chief Justice that thereupon an Assize was brought for the said Office which came to Trial and the Petitioners Counsel insisted upon an Act of Parliament proving the King to have the Right of granting the said Office which the Judges would not admit to be sufficient to prove the King's Right to grant the same That the Petitioners Counsel did thereupon pray the benefit of a Bill therein to be allowed and sealed by the Judges according to Law And the Petitioner's Counsel relying upon the said Act of Parliament as sufficient proof of the King 's Right duly tendred a Bill of Exceptions before Judgment in the Assize which the Judges upon the Trial said they would Seal yet when tendred to them in Court before Judgment would not Seal the same Thereupon Judgment was entred against the Petitioners Title in the Assize by default of the Judges not allowing and sealing the said Bill according to the Duty of their Office by Law whereby they are hindred from making the Matter of the said Bill part of the Record of the said Judgment now brought and depending before your Lordships upon a Writ of Error in Parliament for reversing the said Judgment in the Assize and so are precluded from having the full benefit of the Law by the said Writ of Error to examine reverse and annul the said Judgment Wherefore the Petitioners prayed that their Lordships would be pleased to order the said Judges or some of them to Seal the said Bill of Exceptions to the end the said Case might as by Law it ought come intirely before their Lordships for Judgment c. Upon reading this Petition 't was ordered that the Lord Chief Justice and the rest of the Judges of the Court of King's Bench should have Copies of the Petition and put in their Answer thereunto in Writing on ..... next At the Day appointed there was deliver'd an Answer in these or the like words The Answer of William Dolben William Gregory and Giles Eyre Knights three of their Majesties Justices assigned to hold Pleas in their Court of King's Bench at Westminster to the Petition of the most noble Isabella Dutchess of Grafton and William Bridgman exhibited by them to your Lordships THese Respondents by Protestation not owning or allowing any of the Matters of the Petition to be true as they are therein alledged and saving to themselves the benefit of all the several Statutes herein after mentioned and all the Right they have as Members of the Body of the Commons of England to defend themselves upon any Trial that may be brought against them for any thing done contrary to their Duty as Judges according to the due Course of the Common Law which Right they hold themselves obliged to insist upon in answer to the said Petition think themselves bound to shew and offer to your Lordships consideration That the Petition is a Complaint against them for refusing to Seal a pretended Bill of Exceptions contrary to a Statute in that behalf as the Petition pretends without setting forth the tenour of the said Statute or what that pretended Bill was whereas that Statute is the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 31. and doth enact That if any impleaded before any Justices doth offer an Exception and pray the Justices to allow the same and they refuse so to do the Party offering the Exception is thereby to write it and pray the Justices to Seal it which they or one of them are thereby enjoyned to do So that if the pretended Bill was duly tendred to these Respondents and was such as they were bound to Seal these Respondents are answerable only for it by the Course of the Common Law in an Action to be brought on that Statute which ought to be tried by a Jury of Twelve honest and lawful Men of England by the Course of the Common Law and not in any other manner And the Respondents further shew and humbly offer to your Lordships consideration That the Petition is a Complaint in the nature of an Original Suit charging those Respondents with a Crime of a very high Nature in acting contrary to the Duty of their Office and so altogether improper for your Lordships Examination or Consideration not being any more triable by your Lordships then every Information or Action for breach of any Statute Law is all which Matters are by the Common Law and Justice of the Land of Common Right to be
Denbigh and Montgomery leaving three Daughters and Coheirs Mary Penelope and Susan Susan married Sidney Godolphin one of the present Appellants In July 1674. Mary and Penelope in consideration of 4000 l. paid to the said Mary by Richard Carew Esq and in consideration of a Marriage to be had and which was afterwards had between Penelope and the said Richard Carew by Lease and Release convey all those their two Parts of the said Lands in Denbigh Salop and Montgomery to Trustees and their Heirs to the use of Richard Carew for Life then to Penelope for Life for her Jointure then to the said Trustees and their Heirs during the Lives of Richard and Penelope to preserve contingent Remainders then to the first and other Sons of Richard and Penelope in Tail-Male successively And in default of Issue-Male to the Daughters of Richard and Penelope in Tail And in default of such Issue as to one Moiety of the said two Parts to the first and other Sons of the said Penelope by any other Husband in Tail the Remainder of all and singular the Premisses to the said Richard Carew and his Heirs for ever subject to this Proviso That if it should happen that no Issue of the said Richard upon the Body of the said Penelope should be living at the decease of the Survivor of them and the Heirs of the said Penelope should within Twelve Months after the decease of the Survivor of the said Richard and Penelope dying without Issue as aforesaid pay to the Heirs or Assigns of the said Richard Carew the Sum of 4000 l. that then the Remainder in Fee-simple so limited to the said Richard Carew and his Heirs should cease and that then and from thenceforth the Premisses should remain to the use of the right Heirs of the said Penelope for ever After this Mary intermarried with the Appellant Sir Evan Lloyd and a Partition was made of the Premisses and the same had been enjoyed accordingly ever since and Mr. Carew and his Lady levied a Fine to Mr. Godolphin and his Lady of his part who did thereupon by their Deed dated 23 Sept. 1676. covenant to levy a Fine of Mr. Carew's two Parts to such uses as he and his Lady should limit and appoint but have not yet levied the said Fine Richard Carew and Penelope his Wife to avoid all Controversies that might happen whereby the Estate of the said Richard Carew or his Heirs might be question'd or incumbred by the Heirs of Penelope and to the End to extinguish and destroy and barr all such Estate Right Title Equitable or other Interest as the said Penelope then had or her Issue and Heirs might have or claim to the same by any Power Settlement or Condition on payment of 4000 l. or otherwise to the Heirs of Richard Carew by the Heirs of the said Penelope and for the settling of the same on the said Richard Carew and his Heirs did in Michaelmas Term 1681. levy a Fine of the Share and Part allotted to them and by Deed of 10 Decemb. 1681. declare that the said Fine should be to the use of the said Richard for Life Remainder to Penelope for Life the Remainder to the said Richard Carew his Heirs and Assigns for ever And do further declare That the Fine agreed to be levied by the Appellants Sidney Godolphin and Susan his Wife by their Deed dated the 23 Sept. 1676. should be to the same uses and then direct the Trustees by the first Settlement to convey to those uses Penelope died without Issue in 1690. Richard Carew made his Will in Aug. 1691. and devised the said Lands to Sir John Carew Baronet his Brother subject to pay all his Debts and Legacies and made Sir John Carew his Executor In Decemb. 1691. Richard Carew died without Issue and Sir John Carew entred and was seized and possessed of the Premisses and paid 4855 l. for the Debts of Richard Carew Sir John Carew died and the Respondent Sir Richard Carew an Infant is his Son Heir and Executor The Appellants Mary and Susan claiming the Lands as Heirs to Penelope by virtue of the said Proviso in the first Settlement upon payment of the 4000 l. exhibited their Bill in Chancery to compel the Trustees to convey the Estate to them upon such payment Upon hearing of this Cause on Bill and Answer the Court ordered a State of the Case to be drawn which was as above and afterwards the Court assisted by the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Mr. Justice Rooksby seeing no Cause to relieve the Plaintiffs dismissed their Bill And now it was argued on behalf of the Appellants That such Dismission ought to be set aside and amongst other things it was insisted on in favour of the Appeal that this Proviso was not void that it was within the reason of the Contingent Limitations allowed by the late Lord Chancellor Nottingham in the Case of the Duke of Norfolk and there were quoted several Paragraphs in the Argument made by the said Lord Chancellor as that future Interests springing Trusts or Trusts Executory Remainders that are to emerge or arise upon Contingency are quite out of the Rules and Reasons of Perpetuities nay out of the Reason upon which the Policy of the Law is founded in those Cases especially if they be not of remote or long Consideration but such as by a natural and easie Interpretation will speedily wear out and so things come to the right Channel again That tho' there can be no Remainders limited after a Fee-simple yet there may be a Contingent Fee-simple arise out of the first Fee that the ultimum quod sit or the utmost Limitation of a Fee upon a Fee is not yet plainly determined that tho' it be impossible to limit a Remainder of a Fee upon a Fee yet 't is not impossible to limit a Contingent Fee upon a Fee that no Conveyance is ever to be set aside in Chancery where it can be supported by a reasonable Construction especially where 't is a Family Settlement Then these Paragraphs were applied and further urged That there could not in reason be any difference between a Contingency to happen during Life or Lives or within one year afterwards that the true reason of such Opinions which allowed them if happening within the time of the Parties lives or upon their deceases was because no Inconvenience could be apprehended thereby and the same Reason will hold to one year afterwards and the true Rule is to fix Limits and Boundaries to such Limitations when so made as that they prove Inconvenient and not otherwise That this Limitation upon this Contingency happening was the considerate Intention of the Family the Circumstances whereof required Consideration and this Settlement was the Result of it and made by good Advice That the Fine could not barr the Benefit of this Proviso for that the same never was nor ever could be in Penelope who levied the Fine As to the Pretence That if the
behalf of the Appellants That the half Blood ought to have but a half share That in the Case of Inheritances the whole Blood was preferred and that tho' such Rule could not govern intirely in this Case yet it shewed which ought to have the preference that the true Reason of Distribution was this The Law was to give in like manner as he might reasonably be supposed willing to have given his Estate in case he had made a Will and had not been surprised by a sudden Death that every Man was supposed to favour his next of Kin that the Statute of Distributions did the same thing and then that the whole Blood was nearer of Kin because did partake of both the Stocks from whence he came that the Relation or Kindred in this Case intirely came from the Parents that this was not an Alliance by his own Contract as Marriage or the like that the Inclination was supposed to arise to them from the Natural Love he bore to the Common Ancestors that such Inclination could never be supposed equal where the Party was only of the half Blood And much to this effect and many Arguments drawn from the Civil Law were urged in favour of the Appellant and several Presidents cited where it had been judged since the Statute for the half Blood to have but a half share by Sir Richard Lloyd On the other side it was argued That the half Blood is as near a Kin to the Intestate as the whole Blood and ought to have an equal Share of the Personal Estate with the whole Blood that the Party must be presumed equally inclined to each Parent that the Brother of the half Blood was as much a Brother as one of the whole that the whole Blood was preferrable in Descents but that was only upon account of a Maxim in the Law whereas here they are equally of Kin the whole Blood is no more a Brother than the half in the same Relation there can be no difference or degree it might as well be pretended to have a difference allowed upon the account of Seniority that Opinions and Practise had been with the Decrees that this hath been taken to be the Law in Westminster-hall Before the Statute 't was held that a Sister of the half Blood is in equal degree with the whole Brown versus Wood Allen's Rep. 36. and so cited in Smith's Case Mod. Rep. 209. So in the Case of Milborne and Milborne 30 March 1671. before the Lord Keeper Bridgman W. M. had by Will devised all his Lands in Trust to pay every Brother and Sister he had living 40 l. per Annum each and he had several Brothers and Sisters both of the half and whole Blood the Brothers of the whole Blood did oppose the payment of the 40 l. per Annum to those of the half Blood but 't was adjudged and decreed that they are equally entituled to the 40 l. per Annum a piece and enjoyed accordingly Farmer versus Lane and Nash in Chancery 26 Octob. 1677. declared and adjudged by the Lord Chancellor Nottingham That the half Blood are in equal degree of Kindred with the whole Blood and ought to have an equal Share of the Personal Estate The like was in the Case of Stapleton and the Lord Merion against the Lord Sherrard and his Lady in Chancery by Judge Windham 13 June 1683. the Case was thus Robert Stapleton had a Sister of the whole Blood and a Brother and Sister of the half Blood and died Intestate Administration was granted to his Wife the Lady Sherrard who claimed a Moiety of the Personal Estate by the Custom of the Province of York and a quarter of the other Moiety by force of the Act for Distribution of Intestates Estates and adjudged that the Wife should have only one Moiety and the other Moiety to be divided equally between the Brothers and Sisters both of the whole and half Blood This Cause was Reheard the Seventh of May 1685. by the Lord Guilford upon the Certificate of his Grace the Lord Archbishop to whom it was referred to certifie the Custom of the Province of York who certified that the Wife shall have only a Moiety and the other Moiety shall be divided amongst the next of Kindred and adjudged that the half Blood shall have an equal Share with the whole and so the former Decree was confirmed The same was adjudged by Mr. Justice Charlton June 30. 1685. in the Case of Pullen and his Wife against Serjeant in the Court of Chancery The like was amongst other things declar'd and decreed by the Lord Jessryes Febr. 19. 1686. in the Case of the late Lord Winchelsea against Noraliff and Wentworth upon which Hearing were present and assisting the then Lord Chief Baron Atkyns and Mr. Justice Lutwich and so was it Nov. 20. 1689. between Stephens and Throgmorton in Chancery It hath likewise been held so in the Ecclesiastical Court and accordingly adjudged by Sir Richard Raynes upon Solemn Argument by the most eminent Counsel both of the Civil and Common Law in the Case of James Storey Febr. 26. 1685. and in the Case of George Hawles by the same Judge upon June 1. 1687. Then it was urged That the Statute of Jac. 2. for reviving and continuance of several Acts of Parliament therein mentioned proves this for 't is enacted That if after the Death of the Father any of his Children shall die intestate without Wife or Children in the life time of the Mother every Brother and Sister and the Representatives of them shall have an equal share and that a Brother of the half Blood is a Brother to the Intestate as well as a Brother of the whole Blood and therefore ought to have a share and an equal share with the rest And upon consideration of all those Presidents and there being no Practise against it except that of Sir Richard Lloyd's it was prayed that the Decree might be confirmed and it was confirmed Lee Warner Versus William North. APpeal from a Decree of the Lord Chancellor which over-ruled the Exceptions taken by the Appellant to a Decree made by Commissioners for Charitable Uses concerning a Gift by Bishop Warner's Will and the same was received and the Parties ordered to answer And each side being heard by their Counsel the Decree was affirmed Vide the Statutes concerning Charitable Uses and the Delegates and query how they differ And whether an Appeal doth not lye upon a Sentence by Delegates as well as on a Decree of Chancery upon a Decree of Commissioners for Charitable Uses Briggs versus Clarke WRit of Error on a Judgment in B. R. affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Verdict in Debt for the Escape of one Cook and none appearing for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error the Judgment was affirmed with the increase of Forty pounds in Costs Vide the Case of Ellison and Warner Mich. 18 Car. 2. B. R. 2 Keeble 91. Whether a Writ of Error lyes in Parliament
whom of right it doth belong to grant that Office whensoever it shall be void It was then further insisted on and proved That there are in the nature of Clerks three considerable Officers of the Court of King's Bench The first and chiefest is the Clerk of the Crown called sometimes Coronator Attornat ' Domini Regis c. his Business is to draw all Indictments Informations c. in Pleas of the Crown This Officer being the chief Clerk in Court is always made by Patent under the Great Seal The second Officer is this the Prothonotary or chief Clerk for inrolling Pleas between Party and Party in Civil Matters He and his Under-Clerks do inroll all Declarations Pleadings c. in Civil Causes especially where the Proceedings are by Bill This Clerk files in his Office all Bills Declarations c. and all the Writs of this Court in Civil Matters are made by him and his Under-Clerks and tested by the Chief Justice And he hath the custody of all Returns of Elegits Executions Scire Facias's and the filing of all Villes every of which are in the Eye and Judgment of the Law in the hands of the Chief Justice whose Clerk this Officer is The third is the Custos Brevium who keeps all the Rolls and Records of Judgments in this Court which are also said to be in the custody of the Chief Justice And this Office when void is in his Gift and Disposal It was further shewn on the behalf of the Defendants That in the Statute of Edw. 6. against the Sale of Offices there is a Salvo to the two Chief Justices and Judges of Assize to dispose of the Offices in their disposition as they used formerly And ever since that Statute these two Offices of chief Clerk to inroll the Pleas c. and the Custos Brevium have without controul been disposed by the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench. And it is also observed That in the Grant of this Office to Mr. Bridgman the Plaintiff it is recited that Henly and Wightwick were debito modo admitted to this Office and yet they never had any Grant from the Crown nor any other Grant except that from the Chief Justice before mentioned Then to prove the Defendant's Title to the Office the Grant of the now Chief Justice to them for their Lives was produced and read and proved that they were admitted and sworn To answer all this Evidence there was produced the Copy of an Act of Parliament which was made in 15 Edw. 3. to this effect It is consented that if any of the Offices aforesaid which are other great Offices mentioned in the Act or the Controller or chief Clerk in the Common Bench or King's Bench by Death or other Case be ousted of their Office the King with the consent of the great Men c. shall put another fit person in such Office From whence the Plaintiff's Counsel would have inferred That the King had a right to grant this Office and that this Act was declaratory of such his Right and that all the Grants from the Chief Justices ever since that Act were but Usurpations on the Crown and that no Usage of granting it by the Chief Justices could prevail against the King's Right To this it was replied That the Act was repealed as did appear by the Record it self as well as by their own Copy produced And for a further Answer 't was said That the Office in question was not the Office mentioned in that Act for that Act mentions the chief Clerk of the King's Bench which is the Clerk of the Crown and so called in the 2 H. 4. the Statute against Extortion and he is in reality the chief Clerk in that Court and hath precedency of this Officer both in Court and elsewhere And that this Officer is not called chief Clerk in the King's Bench altho' he is the chief for inrolling of Pleas Civil in that Court And the constant Usage explains the meaning of that Act. And that the Officer called chief Clerk was meant to be the Clerk of the Crown for that that Office hath been always granted by Letters Patents according to that Act And the Office in question was never enjoyed one day by virtue of a Grant from the Crown The Defendants did further insist That it was a Scandalous Imputation upon all those chief Justices who were Persons of Probity and Virtue and had clear Reputations to surmise that they imposed and usurped upon the Crown as they must all have done if the right of granting this Place be in the King And Sir Robert Heath that was the King's Attorney took a Grant of the Office in question from the Chief Justice and upon his Admittance the right of the Chief Justice to grant it is affirmed upon Record Then all this Evidence on both sides being given and the same being strong on the Defendants behalf the Court proposed to the Plaintiff's Counsel to be Nonsuit which they would not but prayed the Court to direct the Jury some of them saying that they would take another Course And then the Court did briefly sum up the same and particularly the Evidence of the Act 15 Edw. 3. and what was urged from it by the Plaintiff and the Answers made thereto and left the Matter to the Jury upon the whole The Jury withdrew and after some time gave a Verdict for the Defendants Upon this Verdict the Counsel for the Plaintiff prayed leave to bring in a Bill of Exceptions and produced in Court and tendred to the three Judges to be sealed a Parchment Writing in form of such a Bill in which after a Recital of the Declaration and Issue in the Cause 't is alledged That the Plaintiff's Counsel produced in Evidence the Grant of the Office to the Plaintiff and that they shewed to the Court and Jury that the Office is of the Grant of the Crown And that to make out the Right of King Charles the Second to grant this Office to the Plaintiff they gave in Evidence the 15 Edw. 3. which in the Bill is set out at large and is in Substance as is before set forth And 't is further alledged in the Bill That the Justices refused to allow admit and receive the Allegations and Matters given in Evidence as sufficient to prove the Plaintiff's Title to this Office by reason whereof the Jury found That the Defendant did not disseize the Plaintiff and prays that the Justices would put their Seals to it according to the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 31. The Justices upon reading this Bill did refuse to Seal it 1. Because 't is asserted therein That the Plaintiff's Counsel did show that this Office was of the Gift and Grant of the King whensoever it should be void whereas there was no such Evidence to show any such Right in the King offered or pretended to besides the Patent in question and the Act of Edw. 3. 2. That the Judges refused to allow admit and
cum aggravatione pene corporalis somewhat more than Death Then this being a Common Law Punishment and not prescribed by any Statute the knowledge of it must be fetcht from our Law-Books and from Presidents for the General Practise of the Realm is the Common Law 't is describ'd with an ipso vivente in Smith's Republica Anglic. p. 28. lat Edit pag. 245. Stamf. 182. en son view which is tantamount and Stamford wrote 2 Eliz. In Coke's 3 Inst 210. 't is ipsoque vivente comburentur Pulton de Pace Regni 224. and many other Books were cited to the same effect And 't was affirmed that there was no Book which recited the Judgment at large but had this Particular in it Several Books do in short put it That for Treason the Party shall be Drawn and Hanged and Quartered but those are only Hints of the Chief Parts not Recitals of the Judgment it self In the English Book of Judgments printed 1655. pag. 292. 't is mentioned particularly as the Kings Bench have adjudged it should be The Duke of Buckingham's was so 13 Hen. 8. Stow's Chronicle 513. shews that he was the Person Then 't was said they have been thus in every Age without interruption 'till 26 Car. 2. Humfrey Stafford's Case 1 H. 7.24 which was per consensum omnium Justiciariorum tho' quoted on the other side as shortly stated in the Year-Book yet on the Roll which hath been seen and perused 't is with an ipso vivente Plowden 387. and Rastal's Entries 645. the same Case is thus Coke's Ent. 699. is so likewise John Littleton in 43 Eliz. Coke's Ent. 422 423 and 366. is so In the Lord Stafford's Case 33 Car. 2. by the Direction of this House and with the Advice of all the Judges was the Judgment so given by the Earl of Nottingham then Lord High Steward In the Lord Preston's Case 't is so which was drawn by Advice of the then Attorney and Sollicitor the present Keeper and Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. As to the Objection That vivens prosternatur doth imply it and that 's enough It was answered That ipso vivente comburentur implies both but not e contra and all the Presidents shew the latter to be requisite And as to the Case of David Prince of Wales mentioned in Fleta there 's only a Relation of what was the Execution not of what was the Judgment And Coke 2 Inst 195. says That the Judgment was in Parliament and therefore the same can be no President to this purpose and any one that runs over Cotton's Records will find the Judgments in Parliament to be different as the Nature of the Case required No Argument can be drawn from the Acts of the Legislature to govern Judiciary Proceedings however John Hall's Case 1 Hen. 4. Cott. 401. is as now contended for Before the 1 Hen. 7. there were some Erroneous Attainders and the 29 Eliz. takes notice of them as so errneous The Judgments against Benson and Sir Andrew Helsey cited below are plainly erroneous they dispose of the Quarters which they ought not but leave the same to the King's pleasure Sir Andrew's President is a monstrous arbitrary Command by Writ to Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer ordering them to Examine him and to give Judgment in manner as in the Writ is directed that therefore is not to be justified and 't was before 25 Edw. 3. Henry Ropers 21 Rich. 2. doth dispose of the Quarters and hath other Errors in it and so have William Bathurst's and Henry South's which were in 3 Hen. 4. But from that time to 26 Car. 2. there 's none which do omit it The four Presidents at the Old Baily were against Popish Priests and what private politick Reasons or Commands might occasion the omission is unknown and Hampden was not Executed but his Judgment was upon a Confession and his Life saved the reason of which is also unknown So that there have been none Executed upon such Erroneous Judgments And that there are no more Presidents with the Omission is a good Argument that those many which have this Particular in them are good and legal the constant Current having been this way proves the same to be the Common Law And this is the most severe part of the Punishment to have his Bowels cut out while alive and therefore not to be omitted As to the Earl of Essex's Case in Moore and Owen's Case in Roll's Rep. the first is only a Report of the Case and the last a descant upon the Judgment but neither do pretend to recite the whole Judgment Then to pretend that this Judgment cannot be Executed is to arraign the Wisdom and Knowledge of all the Judges and Kings Counsel in all Reigns And Tradition saith that Harrison one of the Regicides did mount himself and give the Executioner a Box on the Ear after his Body was opened c. Then 't was argued That if it be a necessary part of the Judgment and be omitted it is a fatal Error and doth undoubtedly in all Cases give a good reason for the Reversal of such Judgment as in the Common Case of Debt where dampna are omitted in the Judgment tho' for the Advantage of the Defendant as is Beecher's Case and Yelv. 107. Besides if this be legal then all those Attainders in which this Particular is inserted must be illegal for 't is impossible that both the Judgments should be right for either those are more severe than they should be or this is more remiss To say that 't is discretionary is to give the Judges a power which they themselves have disclaimed and to Reverse this Reversal is to tell the Court of Kings Bench that they are not obliged to follow the General Practise of their Predecessors that they are obliged to no form in their Judgment for Treason that nothing but Death and being Drawn to it are essential and according to that Doctrine a Woman might receive the Judgment of Quartering and a Man might be Burnt and both according to Law But the Constitution of this Kingdom hath prescribed and fixed Rules and Forms which the Executive Power is obliged and bound to follow that as nothing can be made or construed to be an Offence at the Pleasure of the Court so no Judgment can be given for any known Offence at Pleasure But the Law either Statute or Common hath established what is an Offence and what is its Punishment and there is nothing of Arbitrary Power allowed in respect of either Wherefore upon the whole it was prayed that the Reversal might be affirmed and it was affirmed accordingly Sir Evan Lloyd Baronet and Dame Mary his Wife and Sidney Godolphin Esq and Susan his Wife Appellants Versus Sir Richard Carew Baronet an Infant the Son and Heir of Sir John Carew Baronet deceased Respondent APpeal from a Decree of Dismission in Chancery The Case was thus Rice Tannott died seized in Fee of several Lands in the several Counties of Salop
upon the Livings becoming void by Cession viz. by the Incumbents being made a Bishop but never a word of the King's Title in all the Case or any such Prerogative as is now contended for And in Owen's Rep. 144. Walmesly cites a President which he had seen in Edward the Second's time adjudged that the King had no such Prerogative and all that was said for it was eight or nine Presidents in Tradition or History of a Patron being complemented out of his Right but not one Law-Book for it Coke 4 Inst 356 357. who wrote and published much he never mentions this Prerogative but says that the Law is otherwise for upon his Observation on a Record of 24 Edw. 3. Rot. 25. coram Rege Cornub ' Admittitur Episcopus Exon ' pro fine 200 merc ' pro contemptu in non admittendo presentatum Regis ad Ecclesiam de Southwel pro quo contempt ' omnia temporalia Seisita fuerunt in manus Regis tunc temporis ante finem fact ' vacavit Archidiaconat ' Cornubiae ratione quod Incumbens Electus fuit in Archiepiscopunâ— Dublin ' in Hibernia Temporalibus Episcopi Exon ' ad tunc in manibus Regis existent per quod Dominus Rex recuperavit versus Episcopum dict' Archidiaconat ' Upon this Record he makes two Conclusions 1. Tho' Ireland be a distinct Kingdom yet 't is governed by the same Law as England in these Matters 2. That when the Arch-Deacon was by the King preferred to an Archbishoprick he had the Presentation to the Arch-deaconry in respect of the Temporalties of the Bishop of Exeter Patron of the Arch-deaconry and not by any Prerogative Here 't is observable That my Lord Coke took it that the Patronage by reason of the Temporalties gave to the King this Right and not the Prerogative Then his next Paragraph is stronger If a Bishop in England be made a Cardinal the Bishoprick becomes void and the King shall name his Successor because the Bishoprick is of his Patronage All which implies That if 't were not of his Patronage 't would be otherwise else why is that reason added Obj. But then say they The Pope's Usurpation prevailed in all those times and the Pope had it when Provisions were in use But that can be no Argument to give the Crown a Prerogative for the Pope was a Tyrant over the English Church and by the same Reason the King may claim to be above all Laws because some Judges said as Hank did in Hen. 4. quod Papa potest omnia at that rate no Act of Parliament shall bind the King because the Pope thought himself bound by no Law of ours Besides There were several of our English Monarchs and English Parliaments that boldly withstood these Usurpations and there were divers Intervals of Liberty and Freedom from that Romish Yoke and we never read of any Exercise of this Prerogative in those Intervals 'T is questioned in 41 Eliz. and in Owen's Rep. 't is said that the Pope's practise was no Authority to warrant a Prerogative for they used to do strange things and the Clergy then made his Will a Law and our English Lawyers have always complained of it Obj. There 's no ancient Books that mention Title by Lapse But 't was answered That in Caudries Case 't is fetch'd from the Reign of Edw. 3. and that is no very late Reign and Lapse is so ancient as it appears by the close Roll 21 Hen. 3. in n. 12. that the Deâ— and Chapter pretended to it during a Vacancy of a See upon an Advowson of the King 's own but it appears there by a Writ to that purpose that no Lapse per tempus semestre accrued on the King which shews that 't was old Law for the Subjects Pryn 2.481 By a Writ 8 Hen. 3. num 4. Dorso Prynne 2 Vol. 389. it appears the Archbishop of York was to present si ultra tempus sex mensium vasari contigerint and 1 Inst. 2 Inst. and all the Booksare full of it and Doctor and Student which is no new Book treats of it cap. 31. Besides that and this are different Cases there is a necessity of such a Law for the Service of the Church the King is by the Constitution intrusted with the Supreme Care of his People both for Religion and Property and if a Patron will not do it in reasonable time 't is reasonable he should lose it and the King present But to make that a similar Case they should shew that these Prerogatives were of equal duration and that there 's as much reason for the one as for the other but because the King hath preferred the Patron 's Friend therefore the King shall have it that cannot hold upon a toties quoties when the Friend is dead and three or four more of the King 's presenting for by this means the Patron may never present to his Church 2. The next Query was Whether this Commendam for above the six Months with power to take the Profits to his own use shall be a fulfilling of this turn or otherwise prevent the Operation of the Prerogative on it by this he was a plenary Incumbent after Consecration and he had the Profits to his own use He was not meerly the Ordinary's Deputy to supply the Cure during six Months but hath it in his own right and this with the King's concurrence The Prerogative could only work upon an Avoidance by Promotion and that is upon Consecration this becomes void at the expiration of therein limited T is to be considered That this is none of the old Prerogatives of the Crown which in a Competition are to be preferred before the Subject's Right it is a Prerogative not to be favourably interpreted but stricto Jure for 't was only taken up as a Papal Right and so 't is plain from 2 Rolls Abridg. 358 359. As such a Papal Right it ought to be interpreted stricto Jure even by the Pope's Law being against the Patron 's ordinary Right and so 't is nature odiose there might be cited Suares and others to this purpose Perhaps the Pope's Right was not so much allowed here as to make it clear with him in this Point for Dr. and Student cap. 36. 37. says that the Pope's Collection of Benefices vacantium in Curia was held to be within the Statute concerning Provisions viz. 25 Edw. 3. This Prerogative hath been construed stricto Jure here 1. In the Case which the Lord Chief Justice Vaughan Reports where the Crown upon the promotion of an Incumbent to the Bishoprick of Oxford and who by Dispensation retained his Living till death would have presented to the Living when it fell vold by the Incumbent the Bishop's Death it was resolved that the King's Prerogative was not to present to the next Avoidance after the Promotion but to the next Avoidance by the promotion which in that Case was none for that the Avoidance was by Death 2. In the Case my Lord Chief Justice Dyer
Court recommitted which is the same Assault Taking and Imprisonment and Traverses absque hoc that he was guilty of the Assaulting Taking or Imprisoning him within the time last mentioned at London or elsewhere then in the Isle of Barbadees or otherwise or in other manner then as before The Plaintiff demurred and the Defendant joyn'd in Demurrer and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff and a Venire awarded tam ad triand ' exitum quam ad inquirend ' de dampnis c. and the Issue was found pro quaerent ' and 6 d. Damages and on the Demurrer 500 l. Damages and Judgment for Damages and Costs amounting in the whole to 590 l. The Plaintiff Sir J. Witham dying Trin. 2 Wil. Mar. the Judgment was revived by Scire Facias brought by Howel Gray and Chaplain Executors of Sir J. W. quoad omnia bona catalla sua except one Debt due by Bond from Henry Wakefield And at the Return of the Scire Fac ' the Defendant appears and demurs to the Scire Facias and there is an Award of Execution and thereupon a Writ of Error is brought in the Exchequer Chamber and the Judgment was affirmed Then a Writ of Error is brought in Parliament and the General Error assigned And here it was argued on the behalf of the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error that this Action did not lye against him because it was brought against him for that which he did as a Judge and so it appeared on the Record according to 12 Rep. 25. that the Rule seems the same for one sort of Judge as well as for another that this Person was lawfully made a Governour and so had all the Powers of a Governour that this was a Commitment only till he found Security tho' not so Expressed that this is not counsable here in Westminster-hall that he was only censurable by the King that the Charge is sufficient in that Sir J. W. had not taken the Oaths that male arbitrarie executus fuit is Charge enough to warrant a Commitment that this was a Charge before a Councel of State and there need not be all the Matters precisely alledged to justifie their Acts and by the same reason Actions may lye against the Privy Counsellors here and enforce them to set forth every particular which would be of dangerous Consequence the Plea might have been much shorter as only that he was committed by a Counsel of State and the addition of the other Matters shall not hurt and that the Charge was upon Oath shall be intended no Presumption shall be that the Supream Magistracy there did irregularly 't is a power incident to every Council of State to be able to commit This action cannot lye because the Fact is not triable here the Laws there may be different from ours Besides no Action lies unlefs 't were a malicious Commitment as well as causeless and that no Man will pretend that an Action can lye against the chief Governour or Lieutenant of Ireland or Scotland and by the same reason it ought not in this Case he had a power to make Judges and therefore he was more than a Judge and they have confessed all this Matter by the Demurrer The Statute of Car. 1. which restrains the power of our Councel of State supposes that they could Commit that in case of Crimes there they are punishable in that place and in Sir Ellis Ashburnham's Case there was a Remanding to be tried there and if so it can't be examinable here and if not this Action will not lye And further that what was done here was done in a Court for so is a Councel of State to receive Complaints against State Delinquents and to direct their Trials in proper Courts afterwards that there was never such an Action as this maintain'd and if it should it would be impossible for a Governour to defend himself First For that all the Records and Evidences are there 2. The Laws there differ from what they are here and Governments would be very weak and the Persons intrusted with them very uneasie if they are subject to be charged with Actions here for what they do in those Countries and therefore 't was prayed that the Judgment should be reversed On the other side 't was argued for the Plaintiff in the Original Action That this Action did lye and the Judgment on 't was legal That supposing the Fact done in England the Plea of such Authority so executed at Plymouth or Portsmouth or the like had been ill for that Liberty of Person by our Law is so sacred that every Restraint of it must be justified by some lawful Authority and that Authority must be expresly pursued That here was no Authority to commit for that must be either as a Court of Record or as Justices of Peace Constable or other Officer constituted for that purpose that the Letters Patents are the only Justification insisted on and that gives none 't is true the power of Committing is incident to the Office of a Court here 's only the Government of the Place committed to Sir Richard Dutton with a power to erect Courts and appoint Officers but none to himself He in Person is only authorized to manage and order the Affairs and the Law of England takes no notice of such an Officer or his Authority and therefore a Court of Law can take notice of it no further or otherwise then as it doth appear in pleading The Councel is not constituted a Court they are by the Letters Patents only to advise and assist the Governour and the Governour hath no power to commit or punish but to form and establish Courts to do so which imports the direct contrary that he had no such power The Ends of appointing the Councel as mentioned in the Letters Patents are quite different viz. to aid the Regent by their Advice not to act as of themselves and if neither the Governour of himself nor the Councel of it self had such a power neither can both together have it A Court of Justice is not to be intended unless the same be specially shewn Excepting the Case of the common known general Courts of Justice in Westminster-hall which are immemorial if any thing be justified by the Authority of other Courts the same must be precisely alledged and how their Commencement was either by Custom or Letters Patents Here it appears by the Plea it self that they had Justices of Oyer and Terminer appointed It doth not appear that he or the Councel were Judges of things of this kind Besides when a Councel is constituted as here was Twelve by Name that must be the Majority as is the Dean and Chapter of Femes Case Davis's Rep. 47. and that 's Seven at least which are not in this Case There must be a Majority unless the Erection did allow of a less Number The practise of the Courts of Westminster-hall do not contradict this for there 't is a Court whether more or less and so
it hath been time out of Mind But here 's a new Constitution and the Rule holds so in Commissions of Oyer and Terminer if the direction be so as is the Case in Plowden 384. the Earl of Leicester's Case If a Mayor and three Aldermen have Conusance of Pleas what a Mayor and two does is null and void And if there be no direction in particular for the number the Law requires the majority So that here was no Councel because but five of them present The Councel have not the power but the Governour with the Advice and Assent of the Councel and so ought their pleading to have been according to their Case That if a Man justifies as a Judge to excuse him from an Action he must set forth his Authority and the Cause must appear to be within his Conusance and so are multitudes of Cases 3 Cro. 130. 2 Leon. pl. 43. and 1 Cro. 153 557 579 593. 12 Rep. 23 25. Mod. Rep. 119. But taking it as a Councel neither Person nor Thing are within its Jurisdiction for if their Doctrine be true that by being Governour he is so absolute as to be subject only to the King then what Sir John Witham did being while and as Deputy Governour which is the true Governour to all purposes in absentia of the other is not examinable by a Successor But admitting for the present that by the Law one Magistrate may be punishable before his Successor for Miscarriages which were committed colore Officii yet here are no such Miscarriages sufficiently alledged to be charged on him 1. There 's no pretence of an Oath nor Circumstances shewing a reasonable Cause of Suspicion one of which ought to have been 2. In pleading no Allegation is sufficient if it be so general as the Party opponent can't in reason be supposed capable of making an Answer to it and that is the true Cause why our Law requires Certainty He did male arbitrarie execute the Office to the Oppression of the King's Subjects No Man living can defend himself on so general a Charge as this is for if Issue had been taken thereon all the Acts of his Government had been examinable which the Law never allows Then the Particulars are as general 1. That he did not take the usual Oath and it doth not appear what Oath or if any was requirable of a Deputy Governour nor who was to administer it so that non constat whether 't was his Fault or the Governours besides that 's no cause of Imprisonment for any thing which appears in the Plea 2. Assuming illegally the Title of Lieutanant Governour that is so trivial as it needs no Answer for Deputy Governour and Lieutenant Governour are all one locum tenens is a Deputy è contra 3. Altering of Orders at his Chamber ad libitum which were made in Court not said that there was any such Court or what Orders or where made non tantum without etiam or verum etiam is not a sufficient positive Allegation not said that he was guilty but only charged and not said how charged whether with or without Oath in writing or by parol nor said to be in any such manner as that the Councel ought or might receive it tho' Oath be not necessary to be mentioned in the Commitment yet it ought to be alledged in pleading because 't is necessary to warrant the Commitment as was held in the Lord Yarmouth's Case in B.R. It could not be to secure his answering the same for not so expressed and 't is not said that Sureties were demanded or denied or that he had notice of the Charge and surely this was bailable As to the Query If conusable here 't was argued That they had not pleaded to the Jur ' nor any Matter to oust the Court of its Jur ' If they intended by this Plea to have done that they should have given Jur ' to some other Court in some other place but this is not done for if an Injury 't is relievable somewhere in the King's Dominions and whether it be so or not is examinable somewhere Now here is a Wrong complain'd of as done by one English-man to another English-man and a Jur ' attacht in the King's Bench both of Cause and Person by the Bill filed and his Defence to it besides Jur ' could not be examined in the Exchequer Chamber because both the Statute and the Writ of Error expresly provide against it and. this Writ of Error is founded upon that Affirmance and therefore questionable whether that could be insisted on here But supposing it might 't was argued that the Action lies for that 't is a transitory Action and follows the Person wheresoever he comes under the power of the Common Law Process and that a Man may as well be sued in England for a Trespass done beyond Sea as in Barbadoes or the like place as for a Debt arising there by Specialty or other Contract that no Body but Prynne ever denied it and he did so only in case of Bonds dated there That many Actions have been maintained and tried here for Facts done in the Indies notwithstanding special Justifications to them and the Trials have been where the Actions were laid There was quoted Dowdale's Case 6 Rep. 47 48. and 7 Rep. 27. and if otherwise there would be a failure of Justice in the King's Dominions 32 Hen. 6.25 vide Jackson and Crispe's Case Sid. 462. 2 Keeble 391 397. 'T was then argued That whatsoever question might be made about the Trial of the Issue if one had been joyned yet now Demurrer being to the Plea if that Plea be naught then the Plaintiff is to have Judgment upon his Declaration and that is all right It was further said That the Justification of such a tort or wrong ought to be according to the Common Law of England for that Barbadoes is under the same Law as England and if 't were not upon his pleading it must be intended to be so and tho' they should be intended different yet the Defendant in the Action was obliged to the same Rules of Pleading for tho' the Matter may justifie him for an Act done there which would not justifie him for the same Act done here yet he must shew that he hath pursued the Rules of Law in that place or in case of no positive Laws the Rules of Natural Equity for either the Common Law or new instituted Laws or natural Equity must be the Rule in those places 'T was agreed That according to Calvin's Case 7 Rep. 17. upon the Conquest of an Infidel Country all the old Laws are abrogated ex instanti and the King imposes what he pleases and in case of the Conquest of a Christian Country he may change them at pleasure and appoint such as he thinks fit tho' Coke quotes no Authority for it yet 't was agreed that this might be consonant to reason But 't was denied that Barbadoes was a Conquest 't was
not against him here 's no Fraud or ill Practise c. Then if the nature of the thing be considered the Demand is of a Right not arising by Agreement of Parties but by Operation of Law if the former Chancery might perhaps construe and enlarge it so as to fulfil the utmost Intention but here her title is the Marriage the Seisin and Death of the Husband And there never was a time when if her Lord had died she could have had immediate Dower for even the Term had been pleadable by an Heir of Law to a Writ of Dower Now what doth give her an Equity against the Respondent Her Claim is by from and under her Husband as having a Right to a Proportion of what he had that is a Right by the Law where is the Equity that should improve or mend this Right Perhaps it must be agreed That if the Husband had just before Marriage made a long Lease on purpose to prevent Dower and the Woman expecting the Priviledges which the Common Law gives to Women married had surviv'd him Equity might have interposed and yet even this was practised by a Reverend Judge of Equity Mr. Serjeant Maynard who made such Lease to his Man Bradford the day before his last Marriage but here is no such Action 't was an old Term created by the old Earl of Warwick As to the Case of the Mortgages The Feme intituled to Dower is let in because the Person who is the Mortgagee hath no Interest but to have his Money and Equity is to execute all these Agreements but never where there is a Purchaser or where the Interest of the Mortgage is assigned to the Heire Between her self and the Mortgagee she comes in place of her Husband and the Husband could redeem and so may the Wife but against a Purchaser she has no more Equity then her Husband had and that is none at all If she hath a Legal Title antecedent to the Purchasers as Marriage and Seisin where there 's no Term standing out that shall prevail and Equity shall not help the Purchaser against her so where the Purchaser hath a Legal Title as by a Term precedent Equity cannot relieve her And whereas it was objected That there was no Case adjudged in Chancery against the Appellants pretence the Answer is plain The Common Law is against it and if no Precedent in Equity the Common Law ought to stand 'T is nothing but Precedent that Consecrates half the Decrees in Equity And no Man will say that ever any Woman was endowed in Equity of a Trust Estate If a Man hath a Term for Ten thousand years and be entirely and properly owner of it tho' the same be equal in value to a Feesimple for the Reversion after it is worth little or nothing yet no Dower can be claimed in Equity nay If the Husband be seized together with another Person and not sole seized yet no Dower even in Chancery can be claimed against the Survivor So that Equity doth not exceed the Rules of Law in advancing the Right of Dower 'T is true unless Fraud be in the Case according to the Case of Nash and Preston in Cro. Car. 190 191. Relief in Equity shall not be given against a Legal Title to Dower yet 't is as true that where the Law doth not give Dower Equity will not unless there be Fraud and Covin used to prevent it and then common Reason enjoyns a Court of Conscience to Relieve If any Allowance had been in the Purchase upon Consideration of the Title to Dower the same would have been a very material Argument but in this Case there was none And therefore 't was prayed that the Dismission might be affirmed and it was so Dominus Rex versus Baden WRit of Error to Reverse a Judgment given in the Court of Exchequer and affirmed upon a Writ of Error in the Councel Chamber before the Chancellor with the Assistance of the two Chief Justices The Case upon the Record was only this One Allen outlaws one Clerk in Debt on a Bond in Mich. 1690. on the Seventh of Jan. 1690. by virtue of a Special Capias utlagatum and inquisition thereupon seizes Clerk's Lands into their Majesties hand In Hillary Term following the Outlawry and Inquisition are certified into the Exchequer and Allen obtains a Lease under a Rent In Mich. 1692. Baden comes and pleads that in Mich. 4 Jac. 2. he recovered a Judgment against Clerk for 1080 l. that in Trinity Term 1691. he took out an Elegit and had a Moiety of the Lands extended and therefore prays that an amoveas manus may be awarded Mr. Attorney replies That the Lands were seized by virtue of the Outlawry and Inquisition long before the Elegit was sued and therefore c. Baden demurs and Judgment for the King It was argued on behalf of the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error that this Judgment was Erroneous for that there 's a vast difference between an Outlawry in a Civil and one in a Criminal Process That in a Civil Action 't is only a Civil Process for the benefit of the Party and 5 Edw. 3. cap. 12. the King cannot pardon an Outlawry at the Suit of a private Person that 't is only to help one Subject to his Debt from another that the King hath no Advantage by it and so no need of a Preference by reason of the Prerogative that at Common Law no Man could be outlawed that now it is purely given for the sake of the Plaintiff that the common Practise is to make a Lease or grant a privy Seal to the Party That by this Outlawry the King hath no Interest in the Land he cannot cut down the Trees 9 H. 6.20 that he cannot Plow or Sow but only collect and receive the Profits which arise out of the Land Bro. tit Outlawry 36. tit Patents 3. that the King hath not the possession of the Land which shews it not to be a Forfeiture to the King but it remains the Parties still in respect of Ownership he may make a Feoffment 21 Hen. 7.7 2 Inst 675. Hob. 122. by the Judgment the Lands were bound tho' the Title was not compleat till the Elegit was sued out a monstrans de droit or Petition did lye and now the same Matter may be pleaded 'T was further argued That great Mischief must follow if an Outlawry upon Civil Process may defeat a Judgment that Judgments with release of Errors are taken and used as common Securities that this is most plainly a device to avoid them that this can be no Security if an Elegit may not be sued but prevented by the Party himself for here it is his own default not to avoid this Outlawry by Appearance that no act of the Debtor could alter the Security and there 's no reason why his neglect should that this Contest is between Baden and Allen and not between Baden and the King Allen's Suit was but just begun and this is
Court. If such Bill be tendred and the Exceptions in it are truly stated then the Judges ought to set their Seal in testimony that such Exceptions were taken at the Trial But if the Bill contain Matters false or untruly stated or Matters wherein they were not over-ruled then they are not obliged to affix the Seal for that would be to command them to attest a falsity a Bill is not to draw the whole Matter into Examination again 't is only for a single point and the truth of it can never be doubted after the Bill is sealed for the adverse Party is concluded from averring the contrary or supplying an Omission in it This Bill was without Foundation the Plaintiff was not over-ruled in any one Point of Law 'T is true the Counsel desired the Opinion of the Court after all the Defendant's Evidence had been heard concerning their Record and the Judges did declare that they thought it did not extend to the Office in question but to the Clerk of the Crown who is the chief Clerk in Court and hath precedency and the Grant of that Office by the King both before and since that supposed Act proves that to be meant and not the Office in question which hath always been granted by the Chief Justice and this was afterwards left to the Jury Here was no cause for a Bill of Exceptions the Judges at the Counsels desire gave their Opinion upon the thing but did not over-rule them for that the Act being repealed could make no Point of Law but only be Evidence for the Jury to consider Besides this Act tho' repealed is inserted in the Bill as an Act in force And if an Act be set out and no repeal appears it must be understood to be in force and if the Bill had been sealed it must have been taken as in force and the Defendants could not here upon the Writ of Error have shewn the repeal which was in the 17 Edw. 3. and appeared so upon the Evidence from whence 't was inferred That this Bill was too artificial If any point of Law had arisen upon the whole Evidence and a particular point there was none the whole ought to have been inserted in the Bill or at least all that which concerned that Matter If this should be allowed 't would be in the power of any Counsel to destroy any Verdict as in case of a Title by Descent from Father to Son and a Will of the Father had been produced and proved at the Trial and a Bill had been sealed only shewing the Seisin and Descent the Son must prevail tho' he had no Title This is enough to shew that the Judges are not obliged nay are obliged not to Seal this Bill Then it was argued That the present Complaint is beneath the Honour and besides the Jurisdiction of the House of Peers that this was a Complaint of a Default in the Judges which cannot be tried in this place that MagnaCharta was made for them as well as for others that if they offend against any Rule of the Common Law or particular Statute whether in their Personal behaviour or as Judges they are triable only by their Peers that Peers are only such qui pari conditione lege vivunt that the Crown and Constitution of England had so far exalted their Lordships in their State and Condition that 't is beneath them to judge or try Commoners that all Powers and Priviledges in this Kingdom even the highest are circumscrib'd by the Law and have their limits That this is a Complaint of a great Crime in the Judges a Breach of their Oaths and with the insinuation of Partiality to one of themselves which if true incurs loss of their Offices and Forfeiture of their Estates by Fine and of their Liberty by Imprisonment and all this to the King besides Damages to the Party grieved and therefore it concerns them to have the benefit of the Law That this comes not regularly into the House 't is not any matter of Advice to the King nor of Priviledge nor of Contempt to this Court because the Matter complained of was before any Judgment below or any Jurisdiction could be attached here by pretence of the Writ of Error 'T is brought hither by way of Complaint for a supposed Miscarriage in Westminster-hall in a private Cause between Bridgman and Holt two Commoners It presumes the Lords to be proper Judges in the first Instance for the hearing and punishing of all Offences committed by the Judges and that in a Summary way upon a Petition and without that due Process of Law which is established under our Government Either this Refusal is punishable or not If not the Petition ought to be rejected If it be 't is either by the Common Law or by Act of Parliament but neither do warrant this Practise of Petitioning and the old Law is that which past Ages have approved and that by which Justice is to be administred and whatsoever is done by way of Judgment in a different manner than the Law allows is against that Law The proceeding in this manner is against the Consent of the Respondents for they have Pleaded to the Jurisdiction of this House as to this matter c. and therefore it differs from all Cases where the Parties concerned have Answered the Complaint and thereby submitted the same to an Examination and this will prevent the force of many presidents which may be Cited on this occasion Some Persons perhaps have from a confidence of Success or from a slavish Fear or private Policy forborn to Question the Power of their Superiors but the Judges must betray their Reputation and their Knowledge of the Laws if they should own a Jurisdiction which former times and their Predecessors were unacquainted with 'T is necessary to answer the pretence of a failure of Justice in case this method be Rejected and therefore it must be observed That our Law knows nothing of extraordinary means to redress a Mischief but that upon a defect of ordinary ones recourse is to be had to the Legislature and to that only either to explain and correct in reference to things past or to provide remedies for the future But here is a common easie means of relief if there had been occasion By the Statute of Westminster 2 cap. 31. In case the Judge refuses then a Writ to Command him which is to issue out of Chancery quod apponat sigillum suum and then a Writ to own or deny his Seal By 2 Inst 426. the party grieved by the denial may have a Writ upon the Statute Commanding the same to be done juxta formam Statuti Reg. 182. Fitch Natura brevium 21. and 11 Hen. 4.51 62 63. there 's the form of the Writ set out at large It recites a surmise of an Exception taken and over-ruled and it follows vobis precipimus quod si ita est tunc sigilla vestra apponatis Si ita 't is conditional if the Bill
be true and duly tendered then this Writ and if it be returned quod non ita est then an Action for a false return and thereupon the surmise will be tried and if found to be so Damages and upon such a Recovery a peremptory Writ Commanding the same that the Law is thus seems plain tho' no precedent can be shewn of such a Writ 't is only for this Reason because no Judge did ever refuse to Seal a Bill of Exceptions and none was ever refused because none was ever tendred like to this so artificial and groundless But that such Actions lie upon this Statute were Cited Regist 174. Nat. Br. 10. and they are called Attachments and Damages shall be to the Party and a Fine to the King so it is in all Cases of Statute Laws which do either prohibit or Command the doing of a thing for the advantage of any person such person if injured by a disobedience to that Law is intitled to an Action tho' the Statute doth not in express words give one 2 Inst 55.74.118.131 and the same holds in judicial proceedings the Case of the Marshalseas 10 Rep. 75. 4 Edw. 4.37 and the same Reason warrants the Action for a Scandal ' Magnat ' But perhaps 't will be said that tho' an Action lies for a disobedience to this Writ yet the Writ not being returnable no Action lies for a false return and consequently no peremptory Writ and by consequence there 's no adequate remedy in case of an unjust Refusal but to this it may be answered That the Writ being Conditional 't is a good Answer to it that the Fact was not as is surmised and that return will justifie the Refusal And certainly such return may be made and if not when the first Writ is proved to be true in all its Suggestions by Judgment in an Action for not obeying it the same Reason will warrant a peremptory Writ But whether this be thus or not it only argues an imperfection in the Law proper for the notice of the Legislature and will not justifie the method of proceeding now attempted here in this place It hath been Objected That such Proceedings are not like to be successful because Judges still are to try those matters but these are Reflections not Arguments and our Constitution is founded on a Notion that parity of Condition is the best Qualification of a trier and here must be a Jury to try the Fact and they are subject to an Attaint if their Verdict contradict the Evidence And no direction of a Judge can excuse them for if it be a point of Law they are not oblig'd to find a special Verdict but may find a general one upon their own peril of an Attaint Then Either this is designed as a Criminal proceeding against the Judges in order to Punishment or as a Civil proceeding for to gain Damages to the Party or else neither one nor the other but to have an Order Commanding the thing to be done which if refused then to have them compelled by Imprisonment quousque c. neither of the first are pretended and the last is not a Warrantble method when the Law hath prescribed a Writ in Chancery and that 's not prosecuted Here cannot be tried the particular requisites to ground such an Order as they desire as whether the Evidence or Exception as stated was offered at the Trial or if offered whether 't was over-ruled nor whether the matter offered were believed for if not believed it makes no Evidence and so can raise no point in Law There can be no Jury impanelled to try this nor can an Issue be directed hence for the trial of it By this means the Judges lose the benefit of that legal Trial by a Jury of their Peers which is their fence and protection against Power Art or Surprize the best for indifference and discovery of Truth The Institution of the Law is cautions and wise in its provision for both Challenges are admitted below 't is derogatory to the Honour of this Court to suppose it necessary here but to have it in Westminster-Hall is however reckoned a Commoner's priviledge and Birth-right there the Law is determined by one and the Fact is ascertained by another here both are in the same hands Not that any Jealousie can be supposed of mischief by it in this House but the practice of it now may give president to future Reigns and Ages in which there may be danger of a partiality Below there are by the Law appointed and provided particular Terms and days for doing Justice and they are certain the distances between them are known according to the nature of the Suit which capacitates the parties concerned their Agents and Witnesses to be ready and there can be no surprize It must not be presumed That this House may err but if any Error be possible 't is impossible for the Judges to be relieved for these Reasons in respect of the Court for no Address can be made in such case but to the same persons who did the wrong which is always with some prejudice or disadvantage because the party Erring is to Judge if he himself hath Erred Then the Proceedings here being in English and Summary it cannot well be made appear what was the proof in the first instance no Record being kept thereof Then suppose Evidence be allowed which is none the person against whom the same is given is remediless these Evils may happen in the repeating of this practise in the next Reign tho' they cannot in the present Then this method is not only against the general tenor and frame of the Common-Law but against divers Acts of Parliament and Declarations of this House Magna Charta 9 Hen. 3. cap. 29. is express per judicium parium vel per legem terre now the latter only refers to such cases which are not Triable per jud ' par ' besides to make it the lex terre there must be Ancient and continual usage 22 Edw. 3. numb 30. shews that no new practice can make a Law By 25 Ed. 3. cap. 4. 't is Enacted That no Man shall be taken by Petition or Suggestion to the King or to his Counsel without Presentment or by process or Writ Original at Common-Law and that none shall be put out of his Franchise or Freehold but by due course of Law before used here the one explains the other by Writ or due course of Law are taken for the same thing and both used in contradistinction to Petition the 28 Ed. 3. cap. 3. is the same Then the 42 Edw. 3. cap. 3. 't is by due process and Original Writ according to the Old Law of the Land the 1 Rich. 2. numb 87. Cott. 162. no Suit to be determined before the Lords or before the Counsel but before the Justices only But the 4 Hen. 4. cap. 23. is fuller it recites That in Pleas as well real as personal in the King's Courts the parties be made to come
the Respondents Davenport and Townsend and their Heirs to the use of him and his Heirs till his then intended Marriage should take effect And after such Marriage had then as to part in trust for his intended Wife and her Heirs and Assigns for ever And as to the rest in trust to permit the said Earl to receive the Profits during his Life and after his decease to sell the same for the best price and out of the Money raised by Sale to defray the Funeral Expences and pay his Debts and deliver the surplus as he should by his last Will and Testament in writing attested by three Witnesses or by another Deed in writing so attested appoint and for want thereof to the Executors and Administrators of the Earl with a Proviso That the said Earl by his last will and Testament or any other Deed in writing to be thereafter by him made and executed and attested as aforesaid might alter change determine or make void all or any the Trusts aforesaid and for want of such after to be made will or deed then in trust for the said Earl Edward his Heirs and Assigns for ever Earl Edward died without Issue of his Body and without Marriage The Appellant exhibited a Bill to have the said Deeds of Lease and Release set aside and to have the Will executed The Respondents as Heirs insist upon the Deeds as a Revocation and their Heirship was thus Theophilus Earl had Issue Edward Katharine Arabella and Margaret Edward died in the Life time of Theophilus leaving Issue Edward late Earl of Lincoln Katharine by Sir George Booth had Issue the Respondent Veer Booth Arabella by Robert Roll had Issue Samuel Roll and Margaret married Hugh Buscowen and had Issue the Respondent Bridget Fortescue And the Court assisted with the two Chief Justices and Mr. Justice Powel saw no Cause to relieve the Appellant And now it was argued with the Appeal That the Dismission was Erroneous there being Cause for Relief for that the Marriage never did take effect nor any serious Overture or Treaty was made by the said Earl on that behalf so as the said Earl did continue and at the time of his death was seized of the same Estate in the Premisses he had at the time of making and publishing the Will that if at Law the Deeds of Lease and Release were in strictness a revocation of the Will yet in Equity they ought not to be construed a Revocation of the said Will so often and so solemnly and deliberately made and published and upon so good a Consideration as the support of the Honour that the said Will was the Result of the Earls continued Intentions throughout his Life and the Deeds were only the effect of some sudden Fancy or Passion and even by those Deeds no benefit was designed to the Respondents for the disposition of the Surplus of what should be raised by the Sale was to be to his Executor Sir F. C. the Appellants Father and that did evidence a continued Kindness to him who never had offended him and no regard to the Respondents who tho' they were his Heirs general were related only at a distance and scarcely known by him and very well provided for by great Portions raised out of the Estate for their Mothers Then 't was argued that this Estate was meerly an equitable one and consequently Equity only ought to govern the disposition of it here 's no express Revocation pretended that a Mortgage in Fee is no Revocation for in Equity it doth not make the Estate anothers Here is a Noble Peer who is to sit in the Seat or Place of his Ancestors and therefore no Presumption Intendment or forced Implication ought to be against him or his Interest that this was designed to take effect in case the Marriage was had and not otherwise that here was no intention to revoke but upon the Contingency of his Marriage And there was cited Zouch and Barker's Case 1625. in the Lord Coventry's time Chancery Rep. and the Lord Boucher's Case in Edward the Sixth's time the Case was said to be in Dyer left as a Query and in 1 Rolls Abridg. And for these and many other Reasons and Authorities urged 't was prayed that the Dismission should be Reversed and the Appellant Relieved On the other side 't was insisted That tho' this was not an express Revocation by the use of words declaring it to be such yet 't was a true legal and effectual Revocation that these Deeds of Lease and Release did alter the Estate that here 't was for payment of Debts as well as in consideration of the intended Marriage that here was a manifest change of his Intention that both Will and Deed were voluntary and inconsistent and therefore the latter must stand that here were no Children or Creditors claiming under the Will that tho' the Subject Matter were an equitable Interest yet Equity ought to follow the Rules of Law that the Law made this a good Revocation and Equity ought to judge it the same way unless Fraud were proved to be used in the procuring of the Execution of these Deeds that the reason why a Mortgage even in Fee is not a Revocation is because a Mortgage doth carry upon the face of it a Defeasance 't is not reckoned an Inheritance to the Heir of the Mortgage but shall be Personal Estate and Assets to pay the Mortgagee's Debts This Deed was revocable by an after Will which shews the Party to have no regard for any former Will nor is there any reference to the Will then in being If a Marriage had happened 't would be agreed to have been a Revocation and if so when was the Will revoked by what Act by the Deed or by the Marriage That it was said that it certainly would have been revoked by the Deed and consequently ought to be construed a Revocation tho' no Marriage did ensue Revocations are the same in Equity as at Law and so was it held in the Case of the Earls of Bathe and Mountague The Statute of Frauds never was thought to extend to such Revocations as these Tho' Earl Edward's Intentions were once to support the Honour with the Estate yet it was always in his power to alter it The Lease and Release passed the Equity of Redemption and consequently 't is the same now between the Appellant and Respondents as if there had been no Mortgage in the Case 'T was further urged That a Will is but an imperfect Conveyance inchoate only and ambulatory as the Books term it till the death of the Party and another Will may revoke it and with greater reason may a Deed which alters the Estate and shews a change of the Intention of the Person who was Owner of it There 's no need of a Consideration to warrant the Revocation of a Will there needs no reason to be given for it 't is only the Mind of the Party which both makes and revokes the Will A Will is