omit to take them every other year I cannot take them in the third year But for Rent and such other things that are in the Render I ought to have it when ever I demand it as it best pleases me And note that in such case one prescribed for eight Loads of Wood to be cut and taken as appertaining to a Messuage which was held naught by the whole Court for the Prescription should be laid for Estovers to be imployed upon Repairs of the said Messuage or to be spent in it for a man cannot prescribe to have a Prescription to come and cut down my Wood which is as much as I that have the Free-hold can do For the claim to take and sell my Wood cannot be good And the Court held it a good Prescription to prescribe to have Common every other year although you shew not the Commencement as to shew what time of the year when it begins If a man hath Common of Pasture in divers Closes and parcels of Ground where he hath some Land of his own there and in all other cases where one is to prescribe he need not to make his Title to every peice but to say he hath Common in loco in quo c. in t alia and need not to speak of the rest of the Land in the residue of the Feild because he hath Land of his own Common appendant belongeth to arrable Land not to Pasture Land If two Issues be joyned and in the awarding the Venire facias these words Videlicet Quoad triandum tam exit istum quam praedictum alium exit superius junct were omitted and after a Verdict such Default was moved in Arrest of Judgement and the Exception over-ruled and held good notwithstanding that omission The whole Court were of opinion that local things shall not be made transitory by laying the Action in a forrain Shire as for Corn growing in one Shire and an Action of Trover brought in another COmes Cumbr. versus Comitem Dorset It was moved by the Defendant that whereas the Plaintiff had prosecuted a Distring Jur. and onely eleven of the Jury appeared and the Inquest remained to be taken for want of Jurors and that at such time neither Plaintiff nor Defendant desired a Tales and afterwards the Defendant in another Terme prayed a Tales of that Writ which the Plaintiff had prosecuted and the Court denied to grant it because he prayed not a Tales when the Distress was retorned and if he would have a Tales he must purchase anew a Plur. distring and if then the Jury fill not the Defendant may pray a Tales and the Court ought to grant it And note upon the first Habeas Corpus the Defendant shall not have a Tales but in Default of the Plaintiff IF the Chamberlain of the County Palatine of Chester make an insufficient Return to the Court of Common Pleas upon a Writ issued out of that Court the Sheriff shall be amerced because the Sheriff is the Officer responsible to the Court. The King hath power to make and create a Leet anew where none was before A Distress is incident of Right but in a Court Baron a Prescription must be laid to distrain J. Rogers versus Powell My Lord Cook held that the Surrender of a Copy-hold in Tail is not any Discontinuance and Justice Foster of the same opinion In Doctor Husseys case in a Ravishment de gard wherein the Judgement is penal the Habeas Corpus was denied by the Court to be amended being a blank Writ after a Verdict but was adjudged Error For the Proviso in the Statute of Jeofailes 18 Eliz. excepts Actions upon penal Statutes One Jury was impannelled of the Town of Southampton and called to the Bar and made Default and the men of that Town shewed to the Court a Grant made to the Inhabitants of that Town that no Return should be made of the men of that Town to be of any Jury and prayed the Allowance of their Charter and the Court appointed them to plead their Charter and it was done accordingly TRier versus Littleton A special Verdict was found whether Fraud or not Fraud and the Jury did not finde the Fraud expresly but they found Circumstances that the Deed might seem thereby to be fraudulent but the Court will not adjudge it Fraud where the Jury do not expresly finde the Fraud for the Judges have nothing to do with matter of Fact and so by the whole Court no Fraud Tenant for Life Remainder for Life Remainder in Tail Remainder in Fee the first Tenant for Life suffereth a Recovery the Remainder in Tail is barred although the second Estate for Life be no party Baron Feme seised of the Wives Land for Life of the Wife Remainder to the Husband and Wife in Tail and afterwards the Husband doth bargain and sell the Land by Deed inrolled and a Precipe is brought against the Bargainee and he voucheth them in Remainder this is a good Recovery to barr the Estate Tail If an Information be brought against three upon the Statute of Maintenance and two of them appear and the third doth not appear the Plaintiff may declare against the two that do appear before the other appears for it is but a Trespass and Contempt as in Trespass and Conspiracy but it is otherwise in Debt upon a joynt Contract for there the Plaintiff cannot declare against one untill the Process be determined against the other by the opinion of the whole Court If Judgement be entred in Trespass of Oct. Hillarii the Writ to inquire of Damages may bear teste of any other Return of that Terme besides of Octab. Hillarii for the Terme is as one Day and so hath been adjudged upon a Writ of Error in the upper Bench but it is otherwise held in the Common Pleas. If a Bargain and Sale be void in part it is void in all If an Officer or priviledged person of the Court of Common Pleas sue another priviledged man of any other Court whatsoever yet he of the Common Pleas that first sued shall force the other priviledged person to answer in the Common Pleas but if a priviledged man be sued with another as Executor no Priviledge lies Summons and Severance lies between Executors Plaintiffs and if one of the Executors be outlawed or excommunicated he may be demanded and if he comes not shall be severed by an award without Process after he hath appeared and the other shall proceed without him but if he had not appeared then Summons and Severance shall issue out against him FLetcher versus Robson An Extent upon a Statute Merchant issued out against Robson the Cognisor and the Sheriff returned that the Cognisor was possessed of divers Goods and seised of Lands which he delivered to the Cognisee and that the Cognisee accepted of the Land and because the Sheriff did not return that he had not any other Lands Goods or Chattels it was
Fawden an Attorney of the Common Pleas and he pleads in Barr an Outlary against the Administrator and adjudged no Plea MIch 4. Ed. 4. rotulo 144. An Action of Debt was brought against J. R. de W. in Com. L. Chapman the Defendant appeared by his Attorney and offered to wage his Law and essoyned and at that Day the Plaintiff appeared and the Defendant being solemnly required one J. R. came to answer the Plaintiff as Defendant in that Action in his proper person and offered to wage his Law the Plaintiff said that J. R. now appearing to wage his Law ought not to be admitted because the said J. R. is not that person which the Plaintiff prosecutes because this I. R. appearing is I. R. de W. in Com. L. Jun. Chapman and he who the Plaintiff prosecutes is I. R. de W. in Com. L. Sen. Chapman both of them at the purchasing the Plaintiffs Writ living at W. and that he agreed with the Defendant so to do therefore because I. R. de c. hath not appeared to wage his Law prayes Judgement the Defendant confesses such matter and sayes that he beleiving that the Writ was prosecuted against him appeared by his Attorney and offered to wage his Law and prayes to be discharged of the Debt and the other I. R. being exacted appeared not and the Court would advise but no Judgement for the Plaintiff HIll 26. Eliz. rotulo 420. The Lessor makes a Lease by Indenture for years and the Lessee grants over his whole Terme and the Lessor grants over the Reversion and it was adjudged that the Grantee of the Reversion should have an Action of Debt for the Arrears of Rent against the Assignee of the terme and not against the first Lessee HIll 43. Eliz. Pasch 41. Eliz. rotulo 425. An Action of Debt brought against an Executor in the Debet detinet for Rent due in the time of the Executor upon a Lease made to the Testator upon a Judgement given in the upper Bench and that Judgement was reversed in the Exchequer because it was not in the Detinet alone but afterwards in the upper Bench. Int. dominum Rich. Frank Administrator for Arrears due after the Death of the Intestate it was adjudged good in the Debet detinet and also in the Common Pleas Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 2013. MIch 30. 31. Eliz. rotulo 907. An Action of Debt brought to which the Defendant pleads an Outlary against the Plaintiff in its force the Plaintiff replies the general Pardon granted by Parliament the Defendant demurrs and Judgement that he should answer over MIch 40. 41. Eliz. Ralph Rogers brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation of 400. l. and Judgement was entred by the Clerk upon a Nichil dic that the said Roger should recover c. and for that Default the Defendant brought his Writ of Error to reverse the Judgement given for Ralph and when the Record was certified the Judges of the then Kings Bench would not proceed And afterwards the Judges of the Common Pleas upon a motion and before another Writ of Error brought amended the Mistake of the Clerk And Justice Walmsley would have committed Keale the Clerk to the Fleet for his carelesness but afterwards the Amendment was withdrawn by the Court and upon further advice the Roll made as it was before An Action of Debt was brought upon a single Bill for Payment of Money upon Demand and the Plaintiff declares generally that he often had requested c. and Serjeant Harris demurres to the Declaration and the opinion of the Court was that he ought to plead yet if the Defendant had demanded Oyer of the Bill and upon that have demurred it had been a good Demurrer because one special Demand was in the Bill and no special Demand alleadged in the Count. MIch 3. Iac. Burnell versus Bowes Action of Debt brought upon a Bond and the Plaintiff in the Imparlance Roll had counted upon a Bond made the tenth of March and an Imparlance thereupon untill the next Terme and in the next Terme he declared as of a Bond made the tenth of May and the Defendant pleaded per Dures and it was entred of Record and the next Terme after Entry thereof the Plaintiff moved that that Mistake might be amended and at first it was denied to be amended because the Defendant had pleaded to it and by that Amendment his Plea should be altered as if he had pleaded that it was not his Deed and the cause of his pleading that Plea was the the Mistake and if that Mistake should be amended he would be trised and overthrown and upon the first motion it was denied to be amended but afterwards granted to be amended by the whole Court for the Imparlance was entred Hillar first of James and the Issue was Pasch second of James but the Defendant was admitted to plead a new at his pleasure MIch 3. Jac. rotulo 2575. Fitch versus Bissie An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition to pay Money yearly according to the forme and effect of the Indenture made between the Plaintiff and Defendant the Defendant pleads that there was not any such Indenture made between the Plaintiff and Defendant as is in the Condition supposed and the Plaintiff demurrs upon that Plea for that the Defendant is estopped to plead that Plea KIng and his Wife Executrix of J. Wright Plaintiffs brought a Scire facias after the said Executrix came to full Age against Death and his Wife Administratrix of W. D. to have Execution of a Judgement had by J. D. and H. E. Administrators during the minority of the Executrix upon a Bond entred into to the Testator and whether a Scire facias lay by the Executrix or no was the Question and by the better opinion of the Court it did not lie MAyor and Burgesses of Linn Regis in Norfolk Mich. 10. Jac. rotulo 2413. brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against one Pain and it was Ad respondendum Majori Burgensibus de Linn Regis in Comitatu Norfolciae Pain pleads that it was not his Deed and a special Verdict was found that the Mayor and Burgesses were incorporated by the name of Majores Burgenses Burgi de Linn non per aliud And whether the omission of this word Burgi should barr the Plaintiffs was the Question and Judgement was given by Cook Warburton and Nichols for the Plaintiff for Cook said that if the essential part of the Corporation was named it was sufficient and in this case the Mayor and Burgesses was one essential part and Linn Regis is another essential part and those two were duly expressed and sufficient to maintain the Action and Cook said that those words Et non per aliud shall be intended to be Non per aliud sensum non literae and of the same opinion were the other Judges there NIchols versus Grimwin Mich.
the use of her eldest Son in tayl c. With power to her self at any time to make Leases for one and twenty years and before the Lease in being expired she made another Lease to B. for one and twenty years to commence after the determination of the first Lease And as to the third part of the Land she made a Lease of that for one and twenty years after the death of one Carn who in truth never had any estate in the Land and afterwards she dyes the first Lease expires And I the Son enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiffe And the Defendant claims under B. the Lessee And adjudged for the Plaintiffe for by such a power she could not make a Lease to comence at a day to come but it ought to be a Lease in possession and not in interest to comence in future nor in reversion after another estate ended but the Law will judge upon the generall power to make Leases without saying such ought to be Leases in Possession for if upon such power she might make Lease upon Lease she might by infinite Leases detain those in Reversion or Remainder out of the Possession for ever which is against the intent of the parties and against reason and adjudged accordingly Trin. 30 Eliz. Earle of Sussex case 6 Rep. 33. And Justice VVilliams said that when he was a Serjeant it was so adjudged in the Common Pleas in the Earle of Essex Case and Judgement by the the whole Court BRasier versus Beal Trin. 10 Jacobi Upon an especial Verdict in Ejectment the Case was that a Copy-holder in Fee of the Mannour of B. in the County of Oxford by license of the Lord lease the Land in question for sixty years to M. if he should live so long rendring Rent with a Condition of re-entry the Copy holder surrenders to the Lessor of the Plaintiff in Fee who demands the Rent upon the Land which being not paid he entred and made a Lease to the Plaintif without any Argument the Court seemed to be of opinion that the Entry of the Lessor was not congeable for Copy-hold land is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Conditions nor the Lessor such an Assignee that the Statute intends for at the Common Law a Copy-holders Estate is but an Estate at will custome hath onely fixed his Estate to continue which Custome goes not to such collateral things as Entries upon Condition for such an Assignee of a Copy-holder being onely in by Custome is not privy to the Lease made by the first Copy-holder nor onely by him but may plead his Estate immediately under the Lord by the opinion of the whole Court ODingsall versus Jackson Mich. 10. Jac. In Ejectment the Declaration was that the Defendants intraverunt and that he did eject expulse and amove in the singular number and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon Not guilty pleaded the Defendant shewed this matter to the Court in Arrest of Judgement for the Declaration is incertain in that point because it cannot be known which of the Defendants did eject the Plaintiff for by his own shewing it appears that the Ejectment was but against one and upon that Declaration the Jury could not finde all the Defendants guilty for by the Plaintiffs supposal one onely did eject him but the Court gave Judgement for the Plaintiff that the Declaration should be amended in that point for it was but the Clerks fault and so it was and upon an Evidence in an Ejectment by the Lessees of Cresset and Smith Yelverton said that if a man comes into a Copy-hold tertiously and is admitted by the Lord and afterwards he makes a Lease for three Lives which is a Forfeiture of his Estate yet if he that hath the pure Right to the Copy-hold release to the wrong-doer that it is good for untill the Lord enter he is Tenant in fait and if the rever as Copy-holder 4 Rep. 15. But Walter seemed of another opinion and therefore quaere what benefit he shall have by the Release In an Ejectment the Plaintiff declared of an Ejectment of decem acris pisar and upon the general Issue it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement because the Plaintiff had declared de decem acris pisar which is not good for Pease are not known by the Acre and therefore he should have declared de decem acris tene pisis seminaris as if a man will demand Land covered with water he must say decem acras terrae aqua co opertas but the whole Court held it good for in a common acceptance ten Acres of Pease or ten Acres sowed with Pease is all one and so is the opinion of Catesby 11 E. 4. 1. And the man the Secondary said that so it had been adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Writ of Error MEerton versus Orib Trin. 11. Jacobi Orib brought an Ejectment against Meerton in the Common Pleas 6 Jacobi of a Cole-mine in Durham in the County Palatine there the Defendant pleaded not guilty and it was found for the Plaintiff before the Justices Itinerantes there upon which Judgement the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Errour that the Plaintif appeared by an Attourney whereas it ought to have been by Guardian being under age And upon an Issue that he was of full age was tryed at Durham and found that he was within age but the Plaintif had license to discontinue his Writ of Errour and brought a new Writ of Errour Quod coram nobis residat And declared that M. was inhabiting at Westminster in the County of Middlesex and being within age appeared by an Attorney the Defendant in the Writ of Errour confessed that he was inhabiting at Westminster but that he was at full age at the time And upon the tryall in Middlesex it was found that M. was under age And it was alleadged in Arrest of Judgement and it depended a long time that it was a mistryall and the doubt and question was onely whether the tryall at Westminster in this Case was good And Davenport and Yelverton were of opinion that it was not good for the Errour assigned was done at Durham and because they there have the best notice of it it ought to have been there tryed As if Errour be in a Record it shall be tryed where the Record is 19 H. 6. 79. Secondly This is a reall Action in which the Land shall be recovered and therefore though the Issue be upon a collaterall matter yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes because it concernes the realty but if it had concerned the person onely it had been otherwise and this difference is taken by Montham 19 H. 6. 10. And therefore if a Feoffment be made upon payment c. If upon an Assise brought the Defendant plead payment in another place yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes And so likewise if the Issue should be which
not the accidentall as here it is but it is the substantiall forme and every one knows that Meale of Wheat is the same as Pepper beaten in a Morter and Pepper and all other Spices so that it is the same in number existence substance and essence and he intended also the same in intention for Meale is Victuall and is dead Victuall be it Corne or Meale and Corn grownd and made in Meale then sold yet that remains dead Victuall and Meale is the same dead Victuall though that it be not the same Corne and to prove that Corn is Victuall he cyted the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. 5. Stat. Chap. 7. Which provides that no Forester shall make any gathering of Victuals by colour of their Office and hee intended that Corne was within this statute and so also of the statute of the 3. P. and M. Chap. 15. Rastal Universities which provides that to the Purveyor Bargainor for any Victuals within 5 miles of any of the Universities of Oxford or Cambridg where Grain and Victuall are joyned together So the Statute of 25 H. 8. Chap. 2. abridged by Rastall Victual 15. which inhibits the transportation of Victuall if it be not of Meal and Butter into Ireland by which it appears that Meale is dead Victualls And he said that Victuals is that which refresheth men and Victualls are those things which to the use of eating and drinking are necessary So that Meale is the same in number though that the Corne were turned into Meale And he cyted Peacock and Reynolds Caâ—e to be adjudged 42 Eliz. That if a man buy Corne and convert that into Meale and so sell it it is within this Statute And hee said that if a man be made a Knight hanging his action that this shall abate his action but yet he remains the same person but his name is changed which is the cause of the abatement of his action 7 H. 6. 15. Also the Defendant is concluded by his demurrer upon the Information to say that it is not the same thing for this is confessed by the Demurrer and though that the name be changed this is not materiall if the substance be the same and he agreed that a Baker which buys Wheat and makes it into Bread is not within the Statute for he furthers that to the use of man as a Curryer makes the Leather more fit and apt for use but so doth not he which makes it into starch for he furthers the abuse for it is no lawfull Occupation but idle and friâ—olous furtherance of vanity of men And in 35. H. 6. 2. If a man enter into the Land of another man and cut Trees and that square and make into Boards yet if the Owner enter hee may take them But if it be made into a House otherwise it is for there it is mingled with other things as it is 5 H. 7. 15 16. So Iron made in Anvill But of Leather made in Shooes otherwise it is insomuch that it is mingled with other things 12 H. 8. 11. a. A dead Stag is not a Stag but is a certain dead thing and flesh As a man dead is not a man but agreed the Book of H. 7. 15. and 16. That Corne converted into Meale cannot be restored nor reprized no more may that if it remains in Corne if it be not in Baggs And hee said that upon the Statute of Merton the Re-disseisin after the Recovery in Assise if the same Disseisor makes Re-disseisin the Sheriffe may examine that c. And it is agreed in 27 H. 6. That if Tenant in tayle be disseised and recover in assise and is put in possession and after his Estate is altered and he become Tenant in tayle after possibility of Issue extinct and then the Disseisor makes Re-disseisin that this is aided by the statute not that it is alteration of the Estate And also he saith it appears more fully by the Proviso by which it is provided that Barley turned into Malt and Oates turned into Oatmeale if it be by Ingrossing it is within the purview of the statute So if it be by way of Fore-stalling or if they sell them again before that they are converted shall be Regrators And to the Objection that other things that is Water and Fire are added to that he saith that none of them remains for the Fire dryes the water and the fire also goeth out and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the King and the Informer and it was adjourned Michaelmass 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. IN Dower against Infant which makes default upon the grand Cape returned and agreed by all the Justices that Judgment shall be given upon the Default for the Infant shall not have his age and so it was adjudge upon a Writ of Error Charnock against Currey Administrator of Allen. IN debt upon an Obligation against the Defendant as Administrator as above he pleads Judgment had against him in an action of debt and over that hath not to satisfie to which the Plaintiff replies that this Judgment was for penalty and the condition was for a lesser sum and that the Plaintiff in the first action had accepted his due debt and had promised to acknowledg satisfaction of the Judgement at the request of the Defendant and at his charges and the Administrator which was the Defendant did not make request upon fraud and Covin to avoid the Plaintiffs action Upon which the Defendant hath demurred and so confesseth the matter of the Plea But Foster seemed that the Plaintiff ought to aver that the Plaintiff in the first action hath offered to acknowledg satisfaction and that otherwise he should be put to his action upon the Case but Coke and Warberton intended that the Replication is very good without such averment for it shall be intended that the Plaintif will perform his promise But further this Demurrer which was only for part was also for another part an Issue joyned for the other part which was to be tryed by the Country and which shall be tryed of the Issue or of the Demurrer was the question and it was agreed by them all that the Issue or Demurrer shall be first at the discretion of the Court see 11 H. 4. 5. 38. Ed. 3. Commission is granted to the Councel in Wales of which the President Vice-president or Cheife Justice to be one And the question was if they might make a Deputy and it was agreed that a delegate power could not be delegated but they might make an Officer to take an accompt in any such act Note that a Caveat was entred with a Bishop that he should not admit any without giving notice that the admission this notwithstanding is good but if he admit one which hath no right he is a disturber but otherwise the Caveat doth nothing but only to make the Bishop carefull what person he admits Foster Justice seemed that if the Ordinary now after the statute of
for the matter it is not within the Statute and then for the persons also he intended that it is not within the Statute and this appears by the words of the Statute of 28. Edw. 1. Articuli super Chartas and to that 10. H. 6. 130. it is adjudged that Judgement in such case there given is void and Coram non Judice so 7 H. 6. 30. expresses the cause to be insomuch that none of the parties are of the houshold of the King 4 H. 6. 8. 19 Edw. 4. 8. 5. Edw. 4. 32 H. 6. Rot. 27. And he cyted also Michelburns Case to be adjudged upon a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench 38 Eliz. That they could not tender a Plea in Trospasse for Trover and Conversion if none of the parties were of the Kings house and further he said that when a Court hath Jurisdiction and errs in matter of proceedings or in Law there the Execution made by force of their Process shall be lawfull But where the Judgement is void by default of Jurisdiction as in this Case there it is otherwise as 10 H. 6. 13. Recovery of Land in the Spirituall Court is void so Formedon commenced Judgment given upon that before the Judges of Assises void So 36 H. 6. 32. Recovery of Land in Wales in this Court is void and 8 Edw. 4. 6. Recovery of Land in ancient demesne is avoidable by Writ of Deceipt But in the other cases before the Judgment and Recovery is absolutely void and Coram non Judice for default of Jurisdiction So in 9 H. 7. 12. b. Recovery of Land in Durham Chester or Lancaster here is void for the same cause And in this case also the said Statute makes that void by expresse words see the statute of Articuli super Chartas Chap. 3. And to the case of 14 H. 8. before cyted of Warrant awarded by Justice of Peace he agreed that insomuch that the Justice of Peace had Jurisdiction of causes of Felony and erred only in the forme and manner of his proceedings and so in all the other cases which were put of the other part And also hee agreed that a Writ of Error may be well maintained if such Judgement which is void as it was in Michelburns case for the party may admit the Judgment to be but voidable if he will And to the exceptions to the pleading that is that the authority is not prosecuted 1 Postea that is such a day which was before the Judgment and yet it seems good and that in the first the authority was very well prosecuted in the 2 Postea was sufficient and the other words that is such a day is but surplusage and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and it was adjourned Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Peto against Checy and Sherman and their Wives Triâ— 9. Jacobi Rot. 1151. IN Trespasse and Ejectione firme the Defendants pleaded that one of the Defendants made agreement with the Plaintiff for the said Trespasse and Ejectment with satisfaction and demands Judgment if action upon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law and it was argued by Nicholls Serjeant for the Plantiff that the agreement was no plea though it be said by Keble in the 11. H. 7. 13. That though it be a Plea in Ravishment of Ward quare Impedit and quare ejecit infra terminum insomuch that they are actions personall But Wood denyed that insomuch that Inheritance is to be recovered and in Ejestione firme tearm shall be recovered and for that it shall not be spoken and of this is Wood expresly in the 13. H. 7. 20. b. That in Ejectione firme agreement shall not be a plea insomuch that the tearm is to be recovered which is the thing in demand And there also it is agreed that in Waste brought against Lessee for yeares in the Tenet agreement is good plea and so Vavasor intended if it be in the Tenet but not if it be brought against Lessee for life And also he intended that by Recovery in Ejectione firme more shall be recovered then the tearm only for by that the reversion shall be also reduced and for that the Inheritance is drawn in question and it is said in 11. H. 7. 13. that it shall not be a plea in Assise insomuch that there the Free-hold is to be recovered and by the same reason hee intended that shall be no plea insomuch that more is to be recovered then in Assise for there the Tenant only shall recover the free-hold and his damages but here the Tearm and the Inheritance also are reduced and revested And this is the reason also which is given in 11. H. 7. 13. b. by Fisher That if a man make a Lease for years rendering Rent and after brings Debt for the Rent behind the Defendant cannot wage his Law notwithstanding that the action is personall But this is more high in his nature as it is there said and yet there nothing shall be recovered but only damages for which a man may have satisfaction Also he intended that it was not well pleaded that is that such agreement was had between the Plaintiff and one of the Defendants and betwixt those shall be intended those two only and also Ipsum and Alios by his commandâ—ment and doth not shew that this was made by the other two by his commandement and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Shirley Serjeant for the Defendant that the Plea is good and that the nature of the Action is only Trespasse by force and arms and differs from a Quare ejecit but Ejectione firme differs from predict infra terminum and lyes against the immediate Ejector but Quare ejecit lyeth against him which hath title as he in reversion 7 H. 4. 6. b. Ejectione firme was brought by Executors of Land let to their Testator for years upon outing of the Testator by the statute of 4 Edw. 3. Chap. 6. which gives action for the Executors of goods taken out of the possession of their Testator and it seems to him also that proces of Outlawry lyes in an Ejectione firme but in Quare ejecit infra terminum only summons So it is 11. H. 7. 13. There is a great difference between Waste and this for there the Process is Distress and other speciall Process But so is it not here but only the Process which is in other generall actions of Trespasse and so is the expresse opinion of Keble in 11. H. 7. 13. That in ravishment of Ward Quare Impedit and quare ejecit infra terminum that agreement is a good plea and yet all these trench upon the Realty and in ejectione firme if the tearm expire hanging the action this shall not abate the Writ but the Plaintiffe shall have Judgement for his damages otherwise in a Quare ejecit infra terminum And it was resolved 20 Eliz. That if an ejectione firme be brought at the common Law of Lands in
and fees c. And further granted the Herbage and Paunage and have not found that this was granted by the same Letters Patents and then if this be not granted by the same Letters Patents then there is not any grant of this to the Earle of Rutland because there is no receitall of the Patent by which the Herbage and Paunage was granted to Markham The fourth errour was that they have erred in point of Law and to that the point is but this the King grants the Herbage and Paunage of a Park to one for life and after reciting that grant and that the Patentee is alive grants that to another and doth not say when that shall begin and it seems to them that the Argument for the Plaintiffes in the Writ of errour that this was a voyd grant and so the Judgment erronious but I have not the Report of the Arguments of the Conncellors at the Barr but only of the Judges which moved two other errours in the case not moved by the councell at the Barr and Crooke Justice rehearsed the case as before And to the first errour he conceived that this is no errour and that for two reasons First He tooke a difference betweene a thing which abates the Writ by Plea as if a man brings an Assise against another and mesne between verdict and Judgment the Plaintiff dies this matter shall abate the Writ without Plea and for that if Judgment be given upon such verdict the Judgment is erronious but in our case an entry doth not abate the Writ without pleading that and now as this case is this cannot be pleaded being between Verdict and Judgment and for that it shall not be assigned for Errour see 19 Assise 8 Where this difference is taken and agreed Secondly Admit that this entry might have abated the Writ in Facto without Plea yet there is no such entry alledged which might abate the Writ in Facto without Plea for the entry is alledged that the Earl of Rutland entred to hunt and kild a Buck and took a shoulder of that for his fee and it seems that this is no such entry that shall abate the writ for he hath now entred to another purpose to hunt the which he could not do but the entry ought to have been alledged that he entred to keep for in every entry the intent of the Entry is to be regarded and to this purpose he cited the case of Assise of Freshforce Com. 92. and 93. Where entring into the Seller hanging the Assise of that to see the Antiquity of the House there was no Entry to abate the Writ and the case of 26 Assise 42. where the Disseisee hanging the Assise comes and sets his foot upon the Land but takes no profits and adjudged that he should recover notwithstanding so in this case the intent is not shewed that is that he entred to keep possession but to hunt nor was it such entry which should abate the writ and to that which is sayd that he kild a Buck and took the shoulder of that for his fee this doth not help for if that had been a Buck which he might to have kild by vertue of his Office he ought to have shewed his warrant for otherwise a Parker cannot kill a Buck if not that it be for his fee and then he shall have the Buck and not a shoulder only also it is alledged that he took a shoulder and doth not say the best shoulder or the right shoulder and this ought to be shewed in certain And so for he first Errour he couceived that this is no cause to reverse the Judgment and to the challenge he sayd that he would speake to that at the last and for that he now spake to the errours supposed in the grant And first to Markhams Grant where the Jury found the Queen Eliz. granted to him the keeping of the Park and by the same Letters Patents grant the fees and Wages and further granted by her Letters Patents and doth not say Easdem the Herbage and Paunage it seems to him that this is very well for two reasons First insomuch that there is a copulative which is this word Et and also a Relative which is this word Vlterius and this word conjoynes the matter precedent with the subsequent and the word Vlterius hath necessary relation to the same Letters Patents and so Ex precedentibus subsequentibus the Iury hath well found the matter Secondly these words are supplied in the second Patent for there the Jury have found that the Queene hath granted that to Marham by the same Letters Patents and so for these two reasons he concluded that this is no Error to reverse the Judgement And to the Patent made to the Earle of Rutland it seemes to him also that this is very good and all that he said in effect was that in construction of the Patents of the King such exposition is to be made that if any reasonable meaning may be conceived they shall not be defeated but shall stand good And so he said in our case that it is necessarily intended that this was also to begin after the Estate of Markham determined and for that good And he said that a man ought not to make a curious and captious interpretation of the Kings Patents for Talis Interpretatio injure Reprobatur And to the challenge that seemed unto him a principall challenge and this not being allowed where it ought to be allowed this is an error as it is said 8. of Assises 23. and for this error it seemes to him that the Judgement shall be reversed and to that he said he relied much upon the book of 11 H. 4. 25. which takes a difference between Debt and Trespasse for battery for the booke saith that a man may demand his Debt without giving occasion of any malice But Battery is an evill Action and there the book is resolved that it shall be a principall challenge and so he saith in Trespasse this being with force and Armes that c. And in 8. H. 5. in a Assise the Tenant challenges the array because he had an Action of Trespasse hanging against the Sheriff And there the array was affirmed because it appeares that the Defendant had brought this Action by Covin against the Sheriff which case proves as he said that if there be not any Covin this is a principall challenge and 38 H. 6. 7. accordingly and the case 28. Assise 11. where the Defendant in Assise challenged a Juror because he had an Action of Trespasse hanging against him and was outed by award and in 21. Ed. 4. 12. it is said where there is an apparent favour or apparent displeasure there shall be principall challenge and certainly though the Law may intend that a man may lawfully demand his right and without malice yet it appeares that the nature of men is perverse and froward and few Actions are begun without apparent displeasure especially
Actions of Trespasse Pedibus Ambulando and vexation plainly appeares when Actions are begun upon such slight occasions and in Actions of Trespasse there issueth a Capias for a Fine and so the Defendant shall be Fined and Imprisoned and sure to be deprived of his liberty is a thing distastefull And it cannot be but that displeasure shall be between them which endeavour to restraine one the other of their liberty and so he concluded that this was a principall challenge and not being allowed this is error and so for this cause he reversed the Judgement Also it seemed to him as this case is there is no seisin found of the Paunage for the Jury have found that the Earle of Rutland hath put in two Horses and it seemes to him that Horses cannot take seisin of Paunage which is properly meate for Hoggs and so for this reason also insomuch that there is no seisin found of the Paunage and the Jury ought to find of necessity a Seisin and Desseisin it seemes to him that this is error and so the Judgement ought to be reversed and at the same day Williams Justice rehearsed the case as before and in his argument he spake First to Grants Secondly to the challenge Thirdly to the abatement of the Writ And it seemes to him that none of these matters were sufficient to reverse the Judgement but yet he conceived for two other causes that the Judgement shall be reversed And first concerning Markhams Patent that the Jury have found very good though that they have not said by the same Letters Patents but he said that it had been more proper if they had found that the King had granted that by the same Letters Patents and for that he cited the case of Information of Mines in the Com. And the pleadings before the case there the Letters Patents of the King are pleaded and where the King grants divers things it is there said that the King by the same Letters Patents granted and so the case of Grendon against the Bishop of Lincolne where the King by his Letters Patents granted to a Deane and Chapter that they should hold an Advowson to their proper use and further granted by the same Letters Patents c. And so he said in this case that this had been more properly found if it had been found that the King Per Easdem Litteras Patentes granted yet this is very good as it is and this as he said by the Intendment for it cannot be otherwise intended and for that he cited the book of Entries in Title Covenant That where a man brings a Writ of covenant and counts upon an Indenture that is that the Defendant covenanted to do such a thing and further covenanted and doth not say by the same Indenture yet this is very good because it cannot be otherwise intended but when that is by the same Indenture and where things shall be taken by Intendment he cited the case of 5. Assis 2. Where in Assise of Common the Plaintiff made him Title that is that he was seised after the Coronation of King H. this shall be intended H. 3. See Brooke Limitation 4. and the Case of 17. Eliz Dyer 342 Where these Letters H. R. A. F. shall be intended Henricus Rex Angliae Franciae c. And he cited the case of 21. H. 7. 32. Where a man pleads a release made in Villa de West the County of Middlesex and doth not say secondarily In Predicta Villa And there these Justices held that good and it shall be intended the same Town so he said in this case this shall be intended that Grant by the same Letters Patents though that Easdem be left out And to the Grant to the Earle of Rutland he held that good also though that it is not expressed as concerning the Herbage and Paunage when that should begin and he said that this is also for the intent and also he said that this is not in prejudice of the King nor in deceit of the King nor to the double Intendment and for that good And he put the case where the King made a Lease for one and twenty years rendring Rent and doth not shew when that shall begin That shall begin from the Date of the Letters Patents because it cannot be otherwise intended so in the principall case the grant of the Herbage and Paunage depends upon another Grant That is the custody of the Parke which was to begin after death surrender or c. of Markham and having relation to that by this word Vlterius that shall be necessarily intended to begin at the same time and he well agreed the bookes of 3. H. 7. fol. the last and 6. H. 7. 14. 8. H. 7. 1. 9. Eliz. 259. 7. Ed. 6. Dyer 80. That there is no reversion of an office But yet the King may grant an office after the first Grant determined and this shall be good And so shall be in our case of the Herbage and Paunage and he cited the case of 8 H. 7. 12. 13. where the King was Founder of an Abbey and he had granted a Corody to another for life and after he released that and granted it to the Abbot this shal not be a good release presently because another hath the possession for present of it but this shall be good after the death of him which hath this granted for his life And he cited the case of the Lord Chaundois 6. Coke where the King grants the Mannor of Dale in tayl and after grants the Mannor to another this shall passe the reversion for this is all that the King can passe So he said in this case this shall passe in such manner as it may passe by which he concluded the Grant to the Earle of Rutland good Also to the challenge it seemed to him it is no principall challenge and for authority he cited the case in 11. H. 4. That hath been cited of the other part which was for him as he said for this takes the difference between Debt and Battery and 38. H. 6. a. Juror was challenged because one of the parties had an Action of Trespasse hanging against him and this was not any principall challenge unlesse it be Trespasse of Battery and to the booke of 20. Assis 11. Where a Juror was challenged because he had Trespasse against him before the Assis he said it did not appeare by the book what Trespasse that was So it shall be intended Battery and he concluded with this difference that if such an Action be hanging which tends to the utter undoing of him against whom it is brought then if the Defendant in such Action make the array this shall be a principal challenge but if it be but such an Action in which a man shal recover but his Debt or Damages or such lawfull duties there to say that such Action is hanging between them at the time of the array made shall be no principall challenge And for that he
cited the book of 24 Ed. 3. Where a Tales was returned by the Sheriff of Middlesex and the party challenged the Jury because he sued the Sheriff for the death of his Servant and this was a principall challenge for in such case his life was in question the same Law in case of Maintenance and Champerty for the Law hath inflicted great punishment upon such Offences so these matters tend to utter subversion of his Estate and life but otherwise in Actions of Trespasse and so he concluded no principall challenge To the abatement of the Writ it seemes no Error First he conceived that there is no entry and for the reason that Crooke had given before that is because he entred to hunt and not to keep possession and hath not shewed any Warrant to kill the Buck and he cited the book of the 5. of Ed. 4. fol. 60. Where Babington brought an Assise of the house of the Fleete and hanging the Assise Babington came to the Jury within the house when they had the View with his Councell to shew Evidence for the view and this was not any entry to abate the Writ and so the entry to hunt is an entry for another purpose then an entry to keep possession not being by warrant as it is not found and for that no entry to abate the Writ But admitting that this had been an entry to abate the Writ yet being a thing which doth not abate the Writ without Plea and that cannot be pleaded as the case is he conceived was no Error but if it had been a thing which abated the Writ in Facto without Plea then to give Judgement upon a Writ abated is Error As if the party die hanging the Writ or if a woman sole brings an Assise and takes a Husband hanging the Assise or if the Plaintiff in a Assise be made Judge of Assise as the 15. of Assise in all these cases the Writ is abated in Facto without Plea But entry shall not abate the Writ without Plea and so it seemes to him no error But he conceived that there were two other errors for which he reversed the Judgement The first was that this Assise was de Libero Tenemento in Clepson and the plaint was of the keeping of the Park of Clepsom and of the Herbage and Paunage of the Parke aforesaid called Clepsom and made his Title for Herbage and Paunage of the Park of Clepsom and so he conceived that there is variance between the Plaint and the Title and Park of Clepsom and Clepsom cannot be intended one without speciall averment and for that he conceived it to be errour And to that he cited the case of twelve Assises two Where in attaint the first originall was of the Mannor of Austy and the Attaint was of the Mannor of Auesty and yet for that that the Attaint is founded upon the Record and not upon the Originall and the Record was of the Mannor of Auesty this was very good but the Booke saith that this variance between the Originall and the Record was sufficient to reverse the Record for errour and the case in 42 of Ed. 3. Where Scire facias was brought of Tenements in Eastgrave and the Fine was of Tenements in Deepgrave and for the variance the Writ abated and in the case of 5 Coke 46. Formedon was brought of the Mannor of Isfeild and the Tenant pleads in barr a recovery of the Mannor of Iffeild and this shall not be amended unlesse it appear that this is a misprision of the Clark or by other averment he cited also the case of 3 H. 4. 8. Scire facias upon garnishment in a Writ of Detinue of writings the Originall name John Scripstead and the Scire facias was made Iohn Shiplow and therefore agreed that he shall sue a new Scire facias so he said in the Principal case the Plaint being of Herbage and Paunage of Clepson Parke aad the title being at Clepsom Parke these shall not be intended to be the same Parke without averment and there in no averment in our case and for that such variance is such errour that shall reverse the Judgment The second errour for which he reversed the Judgment was that which was moved by Justice Crook that the Jury have not found any seisin of the Paunage for it seemed to him that a Horse could not take Seisin of paunage and for that he defined paunage and he sayd that Linwood title-Tithes saith the Paunagium est pastus Porcorum as of Nuts and Akornes of trees in the wood and Crompton saith that this is Pastus Porcorum and he saith that Paunagium is either used for Paunage or the Paunage it self and the Statute of Charta de Foresta saith that every Freeman may drive his Hoggs into our royall Wood and shall have there Paunage but he doth not say Horses or other Beasts but he conceived that if the Earle of Rutland had right in the Park that this had been sufficient seisin of Herbage and Paunage also for Hoggs will feed upon grass as well as upon Akornes and he cited the Book of 37 H. 6. saith that Seisin to maintain an Assise ought not to be of a contrary nature to the thing of which seisin is intended to be given but in one case only and that is where the Sheriff gives seisin of a Rent by a Twig or by a Clod of Earth and this is in case of necessity for the Sheriff cannot take the Money out of the purse of the Tenant of the Land and deliver seisin of that and for that he cited the case in 45 Ed. 3. Where Commoner comes to the Land where he ought to have Common and enters into the Land and the Lord of the Waste or the Grantor of the Common outs him he cannot have an Assise of his Common upon this outing for this was not any seisin of the Common so it is in this case the Horses cannot take Seisin of the Paunage and so there is no seisin or disseisin found by the Jury and then no Assise and this being after Judgment no abridgment may be of the Plaint and so for these last reasons he reversed the Judgment And at another day the case was rehearsed again and argued by Yelverton and Fenner Justices but I did not hear their Arguments insomuch that they spake so low but their opinions were declared by the cheife Justice and Yelverton affirmed the Judgment in all First he held that this entry shall not abate the writ Secondly admit that it is abated yet being between Verdict and Judgment shall not be assigned for errour Thirdly he held that no principall challenge Fourthly he held both the grants good Fifthly that Clepsam and Clipsam are all one and not such variance that shall make Errour And lastly that a Horse may well take Seisin of Paunage and Fenner agreed in all but he held that this was a principall challenge and not being allowed this
was Error and for this cause and another exception to the Record which was not much materiall he reversed the Judgment And at another day Flemming cheife Justice rehearsed the case and this argued and to the first matter he conceived First That it is no such entry that abates the Writ Secondly Admitting that it were yet this cannot be assigned for Errour And to the first matter he took this ground That every entry which may abate a writ ought to be in the thing demanded and for that he sayd if a man brings an Assise of Rent or common and hanging this Assise he enters into the Land this is not any Entry which will abate the Writ and he sayd that the Park and the keeping of the Park are two distinct things and for that the entry into one that is the Park will not abate the Writ for the keeping of that and to that which is sayd that he took a Fee that is a shoulder of a Buck that doth not make any matter for two reasons First he hath not shewed a Warrant he had to kill the Buck. Secondly the taking of the fee is no entring into the Office but the excercising of that but admit that this were an entry or the thing it self yet he sayd every entry into the thing shall not abate the Writ and to that he sayd that if this entry of the Earl of Rutland to hunt was no such entry that shall abate the Writ for his office was not to hunt and for that his entry being to another purpose it shall not be sayd an entry to abate the Writ and for that he cited a case which hath been cited as he sayd by Justice Yelverton that if a man have Common in the Land of J. S. between the Annunciation of our Lady and Michaelmas and the Commoner brought an Assise of his Common and at Christmas put in his Beasts and this shall not be any entry to abate his Writ for it cannot be intended for the same Common which case is agreed to be good Law and he cited the case put by Brooke in Assise of Freshforce before remembred Com. 93. Where hanging a Formedon the Tenant pleads in abatement of the Writ that the Demandant hath entred after the last continuance and upon the evidence it appears that many were cutting wood upon the Land and the Demandant comes into the Land to them and warnes them upon the perill that might ensue to them that they should do no more then they could do by Law and this was found no entry Also the case of 26. Assise before cited by Justice Crooke and he sayd that the Statute of Charta de Foresta chapter 11. willeth that every Arch-Bishop Bishop Earl or Baron comming to the King by his command and passing by his Forrest c. Was licensed to take one Beast or two by the sight of the Keeper c. Put case then that the King had sent for the Earl of Rutland and he had passed through this Park and had killed a Buck had this beene an entry to abate this writ Quasi diceret non for this was entry to another purpose so he sayd in the principall case the entry to hunt and so no entry to abate the Writ but admitting that this had been an entry which would abate the writ then let us see if this entry hath so abated the writ being Mesne between the Verdict and the Judgment it cannot be assigned for errour and to that he agreed the diversity before taken by Crooke and Williams where the writ is abated by Plea and without plea and he cited a Judgment in the Kings Bench between Jackson and Parker 2 Eliz. where in Ejectione firme the Plaintiff entred Mesne between Verdict and Judgment and this was assigned for Errour in the Exchequer Chamber and the Judgment notwithstanding affirmed and he sayd that if Memorandum had been made of it or if a Jury had found it and it had been prayed that that might be Recorded yet this had not been materiall and that that be not assigned for Errour And to the matter moved by my Brother Williams that there should be a variance between the plaint and the Title he conceived that there is no such variance that shall make the Judgment errronious and to that he examined the matter First that the Assise was of a Free-hold in Clepsom and his title is made of the parke of Clipson that that cannot be otherwise intended but that of necessity it ought to be the same park For first there is but one park by all the Record Secondly the plaint saith De parco predicto which hath reference to Clepsom park and there is but one park put in view by all the record Fourthly It shall be so taken according to the common speaking Fiftly when he hath made his plaint of the custody of the park of Clepsom and of the Herbage and paunage of the park aforesaid called Clepsom these words called Clepsom are but Idle and Trifles and that which is but Surplusage shall not annoy Also he said that J. and E. are letters which do not much differ in pronunciation and they are all one as I and he shall be pronounced as hi and he cited the Book of 4 H. 6. 26. Where in Debt variance was taken between the writ and the Obligation that is Quatuordecem pro Quatuordecim and this variance was not materiall but that the writ was awarded good and so he conceived that in this case the variance of Clepsom and Clipsom shall not be such a materiall variance that shall make the Judgment erronious and to the title First to Markhams grant that is where the Jury have found Quod ulterius concessit c. And doth not say Per easdem he held that good without scruple and this for the necessary relation that this had to any thing before granted for he sayd that this should be a strange and marvelous patent which begun in such a manner that is Et ulterius Rex concedit c. And there was not any thing granted before And for that he cited the case of 11 Ed. 4. 2. where Debt was brought upon an Indenture against the Abbot of Westminster and the Indenture was between the Abbot of the Monastry of the blessed Mary of Westminster and rehearsed divers Covenants for performance of which Covenants the Abbot of Westminster bound himself in twenty pound and doth not say that the aforesayd Abbot and yet good for it shall be intended the same Abbot for he is party to the Deed and the case of 10 H. 7. 12. Where in Assise of Common the plaintiff makes his plaint of Common appurtenant to his Free-hold in D. and shews for Title that he was seised of a Messuage and of a Carve of Land in D. to which the Common is appurtenant and that he and his Ancestors and all those whose Estates c. have used Common of pasture with ten Beasts and exception
a Book that ought not be given in evidence the Court above cannot remedie it except it be returned with the Postea A release to Tenant at sufferance void Commoner cannot chase the Lords Cattell if the surcharge be Common The Statute of 13 Eliz. for non-residence a generall law Where Husband and Wife shall be joyned and where severed in Action The Venire facias vicious no damages in Partition If the Jury find a man guilty in Trespass for a foot where it is layd in an Acre good enough and so in all Actions where damages onely are to be recovered Nota. Error assigned because in trespass nothing was entred of the Fine c. where it was a continued trespass and part of it was layd to be after the Pardon Nota. Nota. If the verdict find the tenure in substance though not in manner and form it is good intrespasse Difference between Replevin and Trespass In a writ to enquire of damages the Plaintif is not bound to prove the property of goods but the value only Where of his own wrong without such cause shall be a good issue and where not The Defendant prescribed for a passage over Land and naught it should have been for a way Nota. If the Lord cut the Wood in which the Commoner hath Estovers he shall have an Action of the Case but not an Assise Nota. Nota. Nota. An action will not lie for the counter-part of an Indenture without a speciall grant Nota. A man cannot Justifie the digging of a mans ground in hunting a Badger Nota. Nota. One Venu out of two places in the same County Whether a Copyholder may lop the trees growing upon his Copy-hold and held he might The Copy-holder is in by custome which is above the Lords estate The Copy-holder shall have trespas upon the Case against the Lord for cutting down of trees Nota. Nota. Nota. Nota. Nota. Nota. Waste in the Tenuit for digging of Sea coals Custodes Brev. Capital Prothon Sedi ' Prothon Try ' Prothon Cliri ' Warr. Cliri argenti Regi Cliri Error Cic. lib. 1. de Invent. Rhet. Prohibition upon the statute of 23. H. 8. Chap. 9. Prohibition to the High Commissioners High Commission Prohibition Joynt prohibitions and severall Counts Prohibition upon the statute of Symony upon the stat of 31. Eliz. Prohibition upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. for the dissolution of the Hospitall of Saint Johns of Jerusalem For not setting forth Tythes Husband sue only Prohibition to the Cort of Requests Against Forreiner for Ornaments for the Church and for Sextons wages Admiralty Contract for retaining of Tithes Admiralty Prohibition At the Archess discussed in right of Office Prohibition Admiralty for staying ships for Ballast High Commissioners and their power in Ministring Oâ—th and taking obligation High Commission Clandestine marriage Admiralty Coâ—rt if a thing done beyond Sea shall be there tried Agreement by word â—…p back tithes Where a Prohibition shall be granted without Action hanging High Commissioners Alimony Adultery Houghton Shirley Barker Court of Admiralty's Jurisdiction Admiralty Prohibition Modus decimandi Prohibition to a Court Baron Replevin 2. Executors one refuses Waste 2. Executors one refuses Bargaine and sale upon Condâ—… Ravishment of Ward Mich. 〈◊〉 Jacobi Rot. 213. Common of Pasture Trespasse Ejectione firmae Common Recovery Judgement in Debt Accompt See the beginning fol. Debt by Executor Administrators during the minority of the Executor Action upon the Case for words Replevin Attornement of Tenant being under age of 21. yeares Shirley Harris Harris Montague Hutton Surrender after Statute acknowledged Executors sued and also the Heire Court of Equity Debt upon a Bill Harris Shirley Fealty gives Seisin of all annuall Services Atturney brings Action of Debt for Fees Survivor doth not hold amongst Merchants to have all Award void Action upon the Case for words Devise that Executors shall sell Land A Towne incorporated with the consent of the greater part Action on the Case for slander Action upon the Case for suing one in a Court which hath no Jurisdiction Prescription for Common for Beasts without number Priviledge out of higher Court Fine amended Feoffinent to a Son and Heir for a valuable consideration Avowry Teste of a Venire facias amended after verdict Ejectione firme Ejectione firme Dodridge Houghton Replevin Grant without date Obligation Accompt Information Dodridge Hanghton Montague Dodridge Dower Debt against Administrator Commission to the Councell in Wales Caveat to a Bishop If administraon to the next of blood cannot be repealed Action for words Trespasse for breaking a House and taking a Cow Haughton Barker Barr not good Copy-hold intailed Extent upon a Statute Summons in Dower Patent of a Judge of the Common bench Action upon the case for slander Haughton Barker Periured Actionable Trespasse for imprisonment Dodridge Hutton Coram non judice Judgement void Shirley Wynch Foster Arbitrement Lease by the Dean and Chapter of Norwich Hutton Haughton Office granted by a Bishop Assumpsit Wilt of Right Haughton Nicholls Dower of titâ—e of Wooll Attachment Executrix during nonage Nicholls Harris Copy-holder Harris Dodridge Coke Replevin Waste Informer Lybell Debt against Administrator Copy-hold Coke Revocation of Uses Dodridge Nicholls Dodridge Nichols Wynch Warburton Coke Common Recovery Obligation to perferme Covenants Arrest of Judgment Audita querela Wast Estrepement awarded Ejectione firme Refusall Lord of a Mannor inclose the Demesnes adjoyning to the Common Warrantia Charte Dodridge Nicholls Devise of a Lease Dodridge Harris Assent to a Legatee Remainder of a Chattell Sherley Debt by Obligation Request is necessary for his Rent though that he have a bond for performing Covenants Nichols Debt Wynch Warburton Debt against Executors Davis What acts doe make an Executor De son tort what not Barker Warburton Wynch Trespasse Harriot Nicholls Harris Coke 253 Eliz. Dyer 193. a. Wrensfords case accordingly Warberton Wynch Release Cinque Ports Tenant for life with warranty Nicholls Haughton Wynch Warburton Ayd granted Coke Wynch Verdict uncertaine Falkland What is so called Warburton Coke Quod non occupantur conceditur Debt against Administrator for Rent in the Debet and Detinet Chibborne Detinet onely 2. Heire charged in Debet and Detinet 3. Towse Crook and Harris Joynt Covenant shall survive Copy-holder shall hold charge Error Elegit Testatum where no Writ had issued Confirmation to a Copy-holder destroys Common Expresse Covenant qualifies Covenant in Law Prohibition Defendant re-enters after Possession delivered by Habere facias possessionem Custome among Copy-holders Nonsuit after Verdict Reservation of Rent Michaelmasse or ten dayes after Grant of Common extinct Exposition of Usage Ejectione firme Errour Abatement of a Writ by entry Markhams Grant Earle of Rutlands Patent Challenge Earl of Rutlands Patent Challenge Abatement Errour Variance Seisin Abridgment of the Plaint in Assise Yelverton Fenner Challenge prin Flemming What matter shall be assigned for Error after Judgement Variante Challenge Seisin Misnaming of a Corporation Walter Yelverton Fenner Flemming Prohibition Prohibition A married Wife cannot make a Letter of Attorney Replevin Warburton Justice Walmesley Re-entry after possession executed Slander of Attorney Grand Cape Petit Cape Waging Law Release Inn-Keeper in London Action of false Imprisonment Serieant Harris the younger Walter Walmesley Coke Priviledge Assise View Coke Walmesley Challenge Errour in a Fine Barwick Returne of Writs Idemptitas nominis Fine Infant Tayle Maintenance Habeas Corpus Prohibition Trespasse for Slander Party Jury of two Counties Action upon the Case for Slander Errour Covenant for Rent Continuance Assumpsit Consideration Debt against Executors Errour Ve. fa. hab Carpus Formedon in Remainder Challenge Partition Dures Action upon the case for slander Prohibition Will. Devise Priviledge Postea 218. Adjournment of Tearm Infant levies Fine brings Errour Action upon the Case Action upon the Case Debt for Obligation Hutton Dodridge Court Sheriff committed to the Fleet. Grant of a Rent Priviledge of London Harris Hutton Where the Owner of Wood may Inclose Hutton Arbitrement Submissior Revocation Devise and grant â—enures to bargaine and Sale Harris Lease to determine upon Limitation Grant of the King that the Burrough should be incorporated Bayle Suit begun hanging another Writ Casuall intire Services Harris Nicholls Foster Dauiell Warburton Walmesley Coke Trade with Infidels without License Prohibition to the Court of Requests Approvement of Common Walmesley Foster Action upon the Case for Slander Bankrupt actionable Grant of Reversion Error in Proclamation Forfeiture of Office of a Chiroghapher Release Error in a Writ of Dower Copy-hold Certificate of the Bishop Minister Arrested Grant of the King of Alnage Haughton Dodridges Statutes how to be understood c. Account Devise of a Teerme Award Submission Arbitrement Where the death of the Defendant in Execution shall be satisfactory Dodridge Certiorari Outlawry Hutton Foster Debt upon escape against whom Warburton Land extended at too high rate Walmsley Coke Harris Haughton Foster Justice Warburton Walmsley Coke Charta de Foresta Assise Office Trespasse Estovers Boote its signification c. Nicholls Walmesley Coke Fee when forfeited Trespass Grant le Roy.
upon the Estate and to the Livery made after two Rent dayes incurred he intended that Livery is good that notwithstanding for the deferring of the Execution of a letter of Attorney shall not defeat the Lease or other meane act which amounts to a Command for the Lessâ—r takes the profits in the mean time and it is not like to Littletons case that if a man devise his land to his Executors to be sold and they take the profits and do not make Sale that the Heir may enter insomuch that the Executors have not performed the Condition and it was not the intent of the Devisor that they should take the profits in the Interim to their own use and he intended that the declaration was not repugnant for it is of the aforesaid Church and not of the Dean and Chapter aforesayd and also there need not such congruity as it were the Foundation of the Action insomuch that this is only Allegation of the truth of the matter see 1 H. 7. 18. For variance upon shewing in Deed and 17 Ed. 3. 33. b. and here the aforesaid shew that it is the same in substance though it vary in words and though that the name is altered yet are the same persons in substance and the same Body and though that it be as it is intended to be of another part yet it is but name and the Foundation then is not Issuable as if the King H. 8. had been the Founder and made speciall provision in the Foundation that after the Time of Ed. 6. it shall be said to be the Foundation of Ed. 6. this shall be good and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff see after adjudged Michaelmas 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. The Bishop of Ely THE Bishop of Ely granted an Office with the Fee for the exercising of that if it be an ancient office it is a good grant and if the Fee be newly increased yet Foster Justice thought that the Grant shall be good for the Office and for so much of the Fee as hath been anciently granted with the Office Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Holcroft against George French IN an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit if the consideration be Executory then the Declaration ought to contain the time and place where it was made and after it ought ro be averred In Facto when it was performed or executed accordingly but if it be by way of Reciprocall agreement then the Plaintiff may count that in consideration that he hath promised for the Defendant the Defendant hath promised to do another thing for him there he need not that the Declaration contain time or place for the consideration or otherwise that it is performed and executed But if in the first case where it is executory that is also an averment that it is executed there if the Defendant plead Non Assumpsit generally and do not plead the speciall matter he cannot after take exception to that Count for the Default aforesayd where he pleads specially to that as in an action of Trover the Conversion ought to be averred to be in a certain place and so in submission and Arbitrement they are contained in the declaration it need not to expresse any time or place certain but if the Defendant pleads that the Arbitrators made no award or that the parties have not submitted themselves to their award there the Plaintiff may reply that the Arbitrement or Submission was made at such a place and this was agreed by all the Justices Michaelmasse 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench Sir Edward Puncheon against Thomas Legate IT was adjudged in the Kings Bench and affirmed upon a Writ of Errour in the Kings Bench that an action upon the case upon an Assumpsit made by the Testator is very well maintainable against the Executor and this was for Money borrowed and so the Count speciall but not upon generall Indebitatus Assumpsit but is good without any averment that the Executors have assets over the payment of Debts due by specialty and Legacies and he sayd that the Record of the Case of 22 H. 8. with this agrees and that the book in this is misprinted and so Coke cheife Justice who publickly reported this Judgment in the Common place sayd which was adjudged in the 11 H. 8. in this Court Note that Land of which a Writ of Right Close lyeth shall be assetts in a Formedon and it is a Free-hold and not a Copy-hold and so are all Lands in ancient Demesne 3 Ed. 3. 14 H. 4. It is no matter what is known to the Judge if it be not in the form of Judgment Pasche 1611. fol. 50. HAughton Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the entry of him in Remainder is not lawfull insomuch that he intended it is not any forfeiture of the Estate tayle and first he argued that the condition is not good but repugnant to Law and for that voyd and yet he agreed that Tenant in tayl may be distrayned from making unlawfull Acts but here the condition tends to restraine him from doing of things which are lawfull as if a man makes a Gift in tayl upon condition that the Wife of the Donee shall not be indowed or that the Husband of the Donee shall not be Tenant by the Curtesie or that a Feoffee shall not take the profits of the Land though that the profits may be severed from the Land as in 16 Ed. 3. Formedon was brought of the profits of a Mill yet the condition is voyd insomuch that it is against the nature of an Estate tayl or in Fee-simple to be in such manner abridged so if a man makes a gift in tayl upon condition that the Donee shall not make waste the condition is void for the making of wast is a priviledge which is incident to an Estate tayle and for that the condition restraynes the Tenant in tayle of a thing which the Law inables him to do the condition is yoyd so a Donee in tayle upon condition that he shal not make a Deed of Feoffment or Lease for his own life as it is agreed in Mildmayes Case so here when the condition restraynes Tenant in tayl of concluding and agreeing the which in him is not any wrong no more then if a man should make a gift in tayl upon condition that the Donee should not bargaine and sell the Land this is voyd insomuch that he doth not make any wrong or discontinuance So in the case here for the thing which is restrayned that is concluding agreeing is in it self a lawfull act and also this is only the affections and qualities of the minde that they cannot make an Estate conditionall if an open act be not annexed unto it but he agreed that if a man make a gift in tayle or a Lease for life of white acres upon condition that the Donee or Lessee shall not take the profits of Black acre this is
doth not pass till Livery and Seisin be made Also the intent of the parties is not that they shall pass together for if the intent were otherwise the Law would not devide them as it was adjudged Hillary 15. Eliz. in the Lord Cromwells case where Tenant in Tayl was of a Mannor with the Reversion to his right Heirs and he by his Deed gives and grants the Mannor and the Reversion of that and includes Letter of Attorney within the Deed to make Livery but Livery was not made and yet the Reversion doth not pass for his intent appeares that it should pass by Livery and Seisin and not by grant and also in Androwes case the Advowson appendant to a Mannor shall not pass without inrolment of Bargaine and Sale yet there were words there that that might passe by Grant for this was against their intent otherwise if a man makes a Lease for life or years of a Mannor and grants the Inheritance of the Advowson by the same Deed and so of the case of 23 Eliz. Dyer 374. Lessor deviseth Grants and to farm lets the Mannor and the Trees and they passe joyntly and the Reason is insomuch that it is but a Joynt sentence and not severall as it is here also he intended that the life of the Lessee for life is not averred and for that he shall be intended to be dead and for that it is a severall grant of the Trees of the Free-hold for the Interest of them is setled in his Executors for if he had made Sale of them before that the Copy-holder had cut them down then that had not been forfeiture see 5. H. 7. 15 Ed. 4. 14 Eliz. Dyer And then the Case is this Tenant for anothers life of a Mannor makes a Lease for yeares of the Free-hold of which an Estranger hath a Copy-hold Estate for life in Esse Lessee dies and he conceived that the Copy-holder shall not be an occupant for it ought to be Vacua Possessio and this was the reason of the judgment in Adams Case in 18 Eliz. Where a man makes a long Lease for years and after intending to avoyd this Lease makes a Lease to another old man for anothers life to the intent that the Lessee for yeares should be occupant when the old Lessee died and so drowned his Tearm and after the Lessee died and resolved that the Lessee for years shall not be an occupant insomuch that there was not Vacua Possessio and for this it seems to him that if Lessee for anothers life makes a Lease for years and dyes that the Lessee for yeares shall not be an occupant notwithstanding that he made speciall claim and that for the reason aforesaid but he agreed that a Lessee for anothers life makes a Lease at will and dies there the Lessee at Will shall be an Occupant insomuch that his Estate is determined and yet there is not Vacua Possessio according to 38 H. 6. 27. But he did not say there should be an occupant in these cases but cyted Bracton fol. 8. that if the Sea leave an Island in the midst of that the King shall have it and not Occupanti conceditur and so he concluded that the Plaintiff shall be barred and that Judgment shall be entred for the Defendant which was done accordingly and it was afterwards agreed upon motion in this case whether it would not make difference if the Trees were cut by the Copy-holder before that he hath made his nomination or not notwithstanding it was objected that when he hath made his nomination then he was only bare Tenant for life and the Priviledge executed and he in Remainder was also Tenant for life only for he cannot nominate till he comes to be Tenant in possession but this notwithstanding insomuch that they had power to make nomination that is the first Tenant again if the second died in his life time and the second if the first died in his life time and so the Peiviledge continues all the Justices continued of their opinions and according to that Judgment was entred for the Defendant and that the Plaintiff should be barred and should take nothing by his Writ Trinity 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Kings Bench. The Lord Rich against Franke. THE Lord Rich brought an action of Debt against Franke Administrator of one Franke and this was for a rent reserved upon a Lease for yeares made to the Intestate and the Action was brought in the Debet and Detinet for rent due in the time of the Administrator and verdict for the Plaintiff and after moved in Arrest of Judgement by the Councell of the Defendant that this Action ought to be brought in the Detinet only and not in the Debet and Detinet and Chibborn of Lincolnes Inne conceived that the Action was well brought in the Debet and Detinet and to that he sayd that Hargraves case 5 Coke is so reported to be adjudged but he saith that he hath heard the councell of the other part insisted upon that that this Judgment was reversed and for that he would under favour of the Court speake to that And hee conceived that the Action so brought is well brought for three Reasons The first shall be drawn from the nature of the Duty and to that the Case rests upon this doubt that is if the Administrator is now charged for this Rent as upon his own duty or as Administrator and it seems to him not as Administrator but as upon his own duty for he saith that it is not Debt nor duty till the day of payment as Littleton takes the diversity in his Chapter of Release between Debt upon an obligation and a Rent and the day not being incurred in time of the Intestate this cannot be his duty therefore that ought to be duty in the Administrator and to the cases of 19 H. 8. 8. Where the Executor of a Lessee for twenty years which had made a Lease for ten years rendring Rent brought action of Debt against the Lessee for ten years for rent incurred in the time of the Executor and this is in the Detinet only and the Case of 20 H. 6. 4. Where an Executor brings an action of Debt upon Arrerages of Account of an Assignement of Auditors by themselves in the Detinet only and he sayd that in these Actions the Executors were Plaintiffs and in all actions brought by Executors where they are Plaintiffs and the thing recovered shall be Asset the Action shall be brought in the Detinet but in our case they are Defendants and so the diversity and to the Objection that may be made to this Contract out of which this duty grows and arises it was made by the Intestate and not by the Administrator himself and so this is a duty upon the first Privity of the contract he answered that there is great difference when a thing comes due by the Contract of the Testator alone and ought to be payed in his time in
they be reversed by Errour A man is bound in an Obligation dated the third of January and by Release dated the second day of the sayd Moneth of January releases all Actions c. From the beginning of the World untill this present day and delivered the Release after he had delivered the Obligation And Coke cheife Justice conceived that a Release of all Actions untill the Date shall not discharge duty after but a Release Vsque confectionem presentium that discharges Duties after the Date and before the Delivery But he conceived that the Day of this present time shall be the Day of the Date and it shall not be averred that it was delivered 20. years after and it shall not wait upon the Delivery of the Deed. A Writ of Dower was brought by Frances Fulgham against Serjeant Harris the younger in this manner Precipe c. Quod c. Frances Fulgham Widdow where the form in the Register Que fuit uxor and not Widdow and the words of the Writ are Rationabilem detem Tenementorum que fuerunt Fran. Fulgham quondam viri suâ— and yet it was resolved to be Errour see the Register and yet it doth not vary in substance and 38 Ed. 3. In re nisi sunt all one yet for that the forme in the Register is otherwise The Justices would not amend it John Warren Plaintiff in Trespasse and Ejectione Firme against Cicely Spackman it was resolved that the admittance of a Copy-holder for life was sufficient for him in remainder In a Writ of Dower by Mistris Fulgham upon Ne Vnques couple c. pleaded a Writ was awarded to the Arch-Bishop in the time of the vacation of the Bishoprick of Lychfeild and Coventry who returned that he had a Delegate which made a Commission to Babington Chancellor of the said Diocesse to make inquiry and certificate of the said matter which have certified that they were lawfully coupled in lawfull matrimony And adjudged without question that the return was not good for the Arch-Bishop himselfe ought to execute it and Delegata potestaâ— non potest delegari and for that it was ordered that he should amend her Certificate See the Statute of 5 Ed. 3. That an Arrest Eundo rediundo from celebrating divine service And it seemed to the Justices that such Arrest is not lawfull for he ought to be priviledged rather then a man which comes to any Court to procecute or defend any suit here Pasche 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Exchequer The Duke of Lenox case IN Trespasse the case was this the King by his Letters Patents created the Duke of Lenox Alneger and he made his deputy And the Duke by the said Letters Patents of the King was to measure all Clothes and to have so much for every Peece and to search and to view that if it be well and sufficiently made or not and he made his Deputy which offers to measure search and view certain parcell of Worsted and demanded the duty due to the Alneger for that and for that that the owner refused to pay it he seised certain peeces of Worsted and kept them upon which this Action was brought And Haughton Serjeant for the Defendant conceived that the sole question rests upon these Letters Patents of the King and for that he would first consider First if these duties of Subsidies and Ausnage are due by the Common Law and if they are not due by the Common Law then if they are due by Statute Law And if they be due neither by the Common Law nor Statute Law then if the King by his Letters Patents may grant it And to the first he said That Subsidy is ayd or help And there are two manners of ayd one which is Inheritance in the King as ayd to make his Son Knight or to marry his Daughter and others which are given by grant of others and these are not Inheritances in the King and these duties were not demandable by the Common Law nor by Custome And this appeares by the 25. Ed. 3. 6. Where any prises were demanded which were due by the common Law and some which were not due and subsidie for Woolls were not due by the Common Law but it was granted to the King and is now due but this is by grant and not by the Common Law and in the 14. Ed. 3. A Statute was made for the King for his subsidy for Woolles what part he should have which part was given to him in quantity and in time of H. 6. A Statute was made by which subsidy was given to him during his life and 36 Ed. 3. Subsidy was granted for three yeares and after should not be any subsidy paied as appeares by 45. Ed. 3. And if subsidie were not due by the Common Law for Woolles then may it be concluded that it was not due for clothes for Woolles grow without mans labour and the 11. H. 4. and 13. H. 4. The King makes a grant of Alnage of clothes and a Writ is awarded to the Mayor and Sheriffs of London to give possession to the Patentee which returnes the Writ that the Office was not granted before this time And the Statute of 24. Ed. 3. was the first Statute that gave profit to the King for clothes But he granted that the Office of Alneger was of ancient times and an ancient Office but it was no Office of profit but an Office of Justice and Right and no Fee was due for the exercising of it and that 1. Ed. 2 was a Grant of the Office of the Alneger and 11. H. 4. was a Grant of the Office of Alneger for Canvas but it doth not appeare by any account that the King had any profit for the Alnage it selfe or upon the said Grants either before or after and allowing that there were accounts for Cloth yet it doth not appeare that there were any accounts for Worsteds The Statute of 27. Eliz. gives subsidy of four pence for every broad Cloth so that the Statute made expresse mention of broad Cloth but there was not any mention of Worsteds and this Statute shall not be taken by equity though that the Statute of 1. R. 2. 12. for escapes by the Warden of the Fleet being a penall Statute yet for that that it was for a generall mischeife shall be taken by equity as it appeares by Platts Case in the Comment So the Statute of 9. Ed 3. chap. 3. provideth that where Debt is brought against diverse Executors that they shall have but one Essoyn and the Statute mentions Execurors only yet Administrators are taken within the equity of this Statute as it appeares by 3 H. 6. yet in this case at the Bar the Statute of 27. Eliz. was not for the remedy of a mischeife but is a Grant to the King and Grant of one thing cannot be Grant of another thing as if the King pardon an Offence another Offence cannot be pardoned by this As it appeares
Damages c. An Assise brought and the Grant was of the Herbage and Pannage c. and whether this were good or no some held it void for the incertainty of the Grant when it should begin Sir Edward Cook held the Grant good for if the King make a Lease for Life and granteth the Land without reciting the state to one for life this is a good Grant for Life of the Reversion to begin immediately after the Death of the Tenant for Life Trin. 7. Jacobi rotulo 35. An Assise brought for the Office of a Harald at the Funeral of the Earle of Exceter and the great Question was where the view should be made and it was alledged that it should be made in the place where he exercised his Office but the Court doubted of that but they were examined of the view made in the Abbey of Westminster being the place where the Funeral was performed and the Court were of opinion that in Dower where Tithes are demanded no view lies for of things that are invisible no view lies but the Tenant in such case shall be denied it SIr William Saint Andrew brought an Assise de Darrein Presentment against the Arch-bishop of York the Countess of Shrewsbury and F. H. for the Church of O. in the County of Nott. The Archbio p and H. appeared and the Countess did not appear and though the Countess made Default yet the Assise was not taken against her by Default but a re-summons was awarded against the Countess and the same Day given to the Arch-bishop and H. and a Habeas Corpora against the Recognisors And note the Tenants that appeared pleaded in abatement that a Writ of Quare impedit for the said Church was hanging in such a Court between the same parties and the Assise was brought afterwards and with this agrees the Register and it was adjudged a good Plea The Writ was returned in this manner Pleg de prosequend John Doo Richard Roo The within named Arch-bishop and Countess are attached and either of them is attached per Pleg H. S. N. J. And the within named H. hath nothing in the Sheriffs Bailywick by which he may be attached nor hath a Baily within his Liberty nor is therein found and the residue of the Execution c. and Judgement given that the Writ should abate and the like was in the Earle of Bedfords case where two Quare impedits were brought one after another and the last Writ abated J. Lovelace versus Baronissam Despencer R. Harvey Clericum Trin. 12. Jac. rotulo 74. de Darrien Presentment for the Church of M. And the said H. being solemnly exacted came not and the Sheriff made a Return that he was summoned by J. O. and W. C. and therefore the Assise was to be taken against him by Default but the said Baromsh by T. her Attourney faith the Assise ought not to be so taken and confesses the said J. was the person last presented but conveys a Title to her self of the Mannour to which the presentation belongs and that being so seised the Plaintiff in the Assise by usurpation presents the Clerk in the Count whereupon the Defendant brought a Quare impedit and hanging the Writ the Clerk in the Count dies and the Plaintiff presented the Clerk that made Default who by vertue of that presentation is yet Parson of the said Church by which she is seised of the Advowson as in her former Estate and so she saith that the Presentation of the said J. by the said L. made ought not to prejudice her and a Demurrer upon this Plea and that the Assise should remain to be taken c. for want of Recognisors and the Sheriff was commanded to distrain them c. and Judgement given that the Plea was good but quaere of the Declaration whether sufficient because it was not alleadged that he that presented was seised of the Advowson Pasch 8. Jac. rotulo 31. An Assise brought for the Office of Clock-keeper of and it was held that it must be an ancient Office and because they could not prove that it was an ancient Office the Plaintiff was non-suit and the Plaintiff shewed a Grant of the same in E. 6. time but that was held no ancient time Pasch 6. Jacobi It was held by the whole Court that an Assise of Sadler to the Queen would not lie being granted to one by the King but was held void by the whole Court for the King cannot make an Officer to the Queen and by the Patent no place was expressed where he should injoy and exercise his Office and take the Profits and therefore the Jury could not have the view and for that cause an Assise cannot be taken and if the King should grant the Office of Usher to his Son the Prince an Assise would not lie An Assise brought against Demetrius the Plaintiff was non-suit and Demetrius moved to have Cost and it was denied by the whole Court because an Assise is not within the words of the Statute Audita Quaerela BIrd versus Kirton Trin. 13. Jacobi rotulo 3118. An Audita Quaerela brought and the case was this Bird and Milles were bound to Kirton and Kirton makes a Bond to Milles in the summ of 100. l. that if Milles be not sued upon the first Bond then that shall be void and it was alleadged that Kirton did both sue Milles and Bird and that he had no notice of the second Bond that he might have pleaded it and so pretends that the second Bond should be a Defeasance of the first and Judgement was given for the Defendant BEck brought an Audita Quaerela and surmises the matter following that Boon Administrator of C. brought his Action of Debt upon an Obligation and before Judgement that Administration was revoked and Administration granted to another and notwithstanding the Revocation he procured Judgement and the second Administrator released and the rest brought an Audita Quaerela upon that Release and the Court would not grant a Supersedeas because the Revocation was but matter in fait for that Revocation was not under Seal and the first Administrator might appeal Cases in Law and Notes IF a Writ of Covenant be brought against two and if one acknowledge the Fine before one of the Justices and the other acknowledge by Dedimus or before another Justice that Fine cannot be proceeded upon these two acknowledgements by the opinion of the Court. A Writ of Covenant was brought against three men and their Wives and onely two men and their Wives acknowledged the Fine and the other Husband and Wife never acknowledged and the Fine was sued as a Fine acknowledged by all and it was desired the Fine might be amended and the Man and Wife that did not acknowledge might be put out but the Court would not grant it If I make a Lease for years reserving Rent during the Life of A. and B. if one of them die
Defendant replies that the Plaintiff had entred into part of the Premises the Day before the Day of Payment and so at Issue upon that and Exception was taken because the Plaintiff had alledged no Demand to be made and the Court held that was implied by the Issue and that it was not necessary FRyer Administrator of Mary Costiden of the Goods not administred by Mary Fryer Executrix of the said M. C. versus Jacobum Gildiich Executor of N. Pope Hill 11. Jac. rotulo 1990. The case was this two were bound to one and the Obligee makes the Wife of one of the Obligers his Executrix and one of the Obligers makes the same Woman Executrix and she dies and the Plaintiff takes Administration of the Goods of the Woman not administred and Judgement was given for the Defendant by the whole Court If an Executor hath a Lease and purchaseth the Fee-simple the Lease is gone but it shall be Assets in the Executors hands if a persnal thing be once gone it is extinct for ever If the Husband had survived the Wife he should be charged HArcock Executor of Harcock versus Wrenham Administrator of Wrenham Hill 11. Jac. rotulo 1963. A Scire facias brought to revive a Judgement had against the Intestate and the Defendant pleads Plene administravit which was held a naughty Plea by the whole Court for he cannot pay so much as Funerals before he pay the Judgement and therefore that general fully administred is naught The Jury found that the Intestate in trust conveyed one Lease to Fisher and that Fisher promised upon the Payment of 300. l. to re-assure the Interest to Wrenham and after his Death the Administrator the Defendant preferred a Bill in the Chancery as Administrator against Fisher and that the Chancery ordered that Fisher should pay the Defendant for his Interest in the Lease more then the summ received the summ of 1060. l. which was paid the Defendant accordingly and whether that should be Assets was the Question and it was held to be Assets If an Executor make gain of the Testators Money that gain shall be Assets the Doubt in this case was because this was but in Use and now whether the Court shall take notice of this Use they shall being found by the Jury Judgements shall be paid before Statutes or Recognances and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff and although in this case the Barr of generally administred be naught yet an Issue taken thereupon and tried shall not arrest the Judgement for the Plaintiff PEase and Stilman Executors Hanchet against E. Meade Mich. 11. Jac. rotulo 945. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition if Meade his Executors Administrators or Assignes or any of them shall pay 20. l. within the Porch of the Parish Church of R. unto such person or persons as the said Hanchet shall by her last Will and Testament in writing limit nominate or appoint the same to be made in manner c. The Defendant pleads that the said Hanchet by her last Will and Testament in writing hath not nominated limited or appointed to what person or persons the said 20. l. should be paid The Plaintiff replies and sues that the Testator made him Executor and died and that he took upon him the burden of the Will and that the Defendant did not pay the Executor the Money and a Demurrer thereupon And if it had been to pay to her Assignee that she should name the Executor should have it such things as go by way of Executorship shall be to the Executor without nomination or appointment STannard versus Baxster Trin. 9. Jac. rotulo 1123. An Action of Debt brought for Damages recovered in an Assise of Nuzans for stopping the way before special Commissioners The Defendant pleads no such Record and the Record was delivered into the Court by the special Commissioners TRin. 8. Jac. rotulo An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond with a Condition for performance of Covenants of an Indenture The Defendant confesses the Bond and that after the making the Bond and before the purchasing the Plaintiffs Writ the Indenture by the consent and assent of Plaintiff and Defendant was cancelled and the said Plaintiff cancelled the said Indenture and it was held a naughty Plea by the said Court for it did appear but that the Bond might be forfeited For he ought to have pleaded performance of Covenants untill such a Day which Day the Indenture was cancelled BRook versus Smith Hill 9. Jacobi rotulo 829. Two Tenements in Common make a Lease and reserve a Rent and Covenant that neither should release and one of them releaseth his part this is a Breach for that in Debt they both should joyn and now by the Release the Action is gone LAny versus Aldred and another Executor Trin. 10. Jac. vel Pasch 9. Jac. rotulo 504. An Action of Debt brought against them as Executors one pleads that he was Administrator and that the Administration was committed to him by the Bishop and pleads a Recovery against him as Administrator and that he had fully administred and had no Assets to satisfie the Judgement and the other Executor acknowledged the Action and the Plea was held a good Plea but it was said the Defendant might have defeated the Action which was brought against him as Executor and therefore they would infer that it was no good Plea but it was a good Plea and it was held by the chief Justice that if an Executor of his own wrong be sued with a rightfull Executor in one Writ the Executor of his own wrong shall not by his Plea prejudice the rightfull Executor MArsh versus Curtis Hill 38. Eliz. rotulo 132. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for performance of Covenants in a Lease upon which Rent is reserved and the Condition was that if the Rent should be behinde then lawfull to re-enter and the Rent was behinde and before re-entry the Rent was accepted The Question was whether he may enter for the Condition broken after the acceptance of the Rent Sir Edward Cook was of opinion that by the acceptance of the Rent he did confirm the Estate but if a Bond be entred into to perform Covenants in a Lease whereupon Rent is reserved and a Fine to be paid with a Condition of re-entry for not paying the Rent or Fine and if the Rent be received and the Fine not paid the acceptance of the Rent doth not take away the Condition for not paying the Fine R. Milton versus R. Pearsey Trin. 10. Iacobi rotulo 445. An Action of Debt brought and in the Venire facias the Defendants name was mistaken for the Venire was to impannell a Jury between R. Milton Plaintiff and I. Pearsey Defendant in a Plea of Debt and the Court held the Venire as none and a new Triall awarded and the like Judgement was given Trin. 7. Iacobi rotulo 787.
H. 6. 46. be it true or not and if it be not true the party may have his action against the officer which doth it and it was adjudged in Fullers Case in the Kings Bench that the high Commissioners may imprison and impose a fine for Heresie and Schisme and it was also resolved that Poligamy before the Statute of the 3. of King James was punishable before the high Commissioners for this was an heynous crime otherwise the Statute would not have made it Felony and he said that it was agreed in the time of the last Queen Elizabeth that the high Commissioners should not meddle with any thing but only those five that is Heresie Schisme Poligamy Incest and Recusancy and with no others and it was moved that a Writ De causione admittenda lieth for that they would not allow of the submissions And the Justices would consider of that and the Prisoner was remanded and it was adjourned And at an other day it was moved by Nicholls Sergeant that the high Commissioners supposed for that that the Statute of 5. El. gives authority to the Queen and to her heires and successors to grant Commission to Visite Reforme Redresse Order Correct and amend all Errours Heresies Schismes Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities whatsoever and that the Commissioners may execute all the premises according to the Tenure and effect of the said Letters Patents that by that they might fine and imprison at their pleasure But Coke chiefe Justice said that it appeares by the preamble of the said Statute that after the Statute was in the â—5 yeare of the Raigne of King Henry the 8. by which the ancient Jurisdictions Authorities superiorities and Prehemenences were united or restored to the Crown and by meanes of the said Statute his Subjects were continually kept in good order and were dâ—sburthened of divers great and intollerable charges and exactions before that time unlawfully taken and exacted untill such time as the said Statute of 25. H. 8. was repealed by the Statute of 1. and 2. of Phillip and Mary which said Statute of 1. and 2 of Phillip and Mary should be repealed and void by which it appeares that the Kings Subjects were greviously burthened with grevious and intollerable charges and exactions and yet in this time of usurped power of the Pope doth not challenge that he might Commit or Imprison or Fine in any case but in the cases especially mentioned in the last Case aforesaid and for that all the usurped power was annexed to the Imperiall Crown the which he called the clause of annexing the second was the clause of deputation and this was the clause of the Statute by which the Queen hath power to grant Commission to such persons being naturall borne Subjects as her Majesty her Heires or Successors shall thinke fit to Exercise Use and Execute under her Majesty all manner of Jurisdictons Privelidges and Preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall Jurisdiction in all her Majesties Dominions and to Visit Reforme Redresse Order Correct and amend all such Errors Heresies Schismes Abuses Offences Contemps and Enormities whatsoever which by any manner spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power authority or Jurisdictions can or may be lawfull Reformed Ordered Redressed Corrected Restrained or amended and the third he calleth the clause of execution by which power and authority is given to the Commissioners to Exercise Use and execute all the premises according to the Tenure and effect of the said Letters Patents And it seems it was not the intention of the Statute to give any power to the Commissioners which was not given to the Queen by this Statute for the clause of deputation shall not be more ample then the clause of annextion and then the clause of execution refers to the first too clauses as it appears by the words of that that is to use and execute all the premises according to the said Letters Patents and the premises are expounded by the first clauses that is Errors Heresies Schismes c. And the said Letters Patents refer all Letters Patents before mentioned where the persons are appointed to be naturall borne Subjects and the materiall manner of Jurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminences Ecclesiasticall Siprituall and to Visit Reforme Order Redresse Correct and Amend all such Errors Heresies c. Which by any manner of spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Power Authority or Jurisdiction can or may lawfully be Reformed Redressed Ordered Corrected Restrained or Amended c. So that it cannot be intended that they may proceed in any other forme but only according to the Ecclesiasticall power and Jurisdiction and no other for otherwise they may Fine Imprison and ransome any man at their pleasures which was never intended by the makers of the said Statutes But only to transfer the Power and Authority which at that time was in the Bishops which then were Papistes to the high Comissioners the which the King may alter at his pleasure and so he cannot the Bishops for they are nor displaceable after their consecration Michaelmas 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Place A Man was cited before the High Commissioners for Poligamy which was agreed to be a cause examinable punishable there and upon examination of the Cause the Defendant was acquit and yet he was censured to pay costs though that he was acquitted of the Crime and this Court was moved for a Prohibition and it was denyed for they may hold plea of Principall and then Prohibition shall not be granted for the accessary and the Lord Coke said that they have just cause of lawfulnesse of punishing the offence though they have not just cause of the Deed and peradventure it was very suspitious that he was guilty and for that he hath only God for his revenger Parkers Case THree were cyted to appeare in the Court at Chester for Tenths and treble damages demanded and also in the Libell it is suggested that the Land is barren and very unfruitfull and Prohibition was awarded against those joyntly and yet it was agreed that they ought to count upon the Prohibition severally Penns Case PEnn Parson of Ryton in the County of Warwicke sued for Tithes in the Ecclesiasticall Court before the Ordinary and the Defendant here pleads that the same Parson was presented upon a Symonicall contract and for that his Presentation Admission and Institution were void by the Statute of 31. Eliz. And the Symony was for that that it was agreed between the said Parson and another man that was Brother to the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry who was Patron of the same Church That if he should procure three severall grants of three severall next avoydances to them severally granted to surrender their said severall grants and procure the said Bishop to present him when the Church became void that being then full of an old Parson being deadly sick that he would make to him a lease of parcell of the Tithes of his Rectory And the brother
be avoyded and also he seemed that they could not examine any lay man upon his Oath But in causes Matrimoniall and Testamentary and he said that so was the common Law before the making of that Statute of Articulis cleri as it appears by a Canon made by Ottamon which was a Legate A Latere from the Pope in the 22 H. 3. and Canonicall by which is recited that where such were drawn in length because that lay men were examined upon their Oathes and therfore it was provided that lay men should be examined upon their Oathes although it did not concern causes Testamentary nor Matrimoniall the custome of England to the contrary thereof notwithstanding see Fitzherberts Natura brevium 41. a. Cromptons Justice of Peace fol. 59. b. Register 36 b. and Hyndes Case 18. Eliz. or the Margin in Scrogs case Dyer 175. b. So also Lamberts Justice of Peace that those things are to be given in Charge by the Justice of Assise and Coke saith that the Writ in the Register was framed before the Statute of Articuli cleri And also he cited one Lees Case who was committed for hearing of a Masse and refused to be examined upon that upon his Oath and had a prohibition and so he agreed that a Prohibition should be granted and upon that it was awarded accordingly Note that a Prohibition was granted to the high commission Court for that that they examined the lawfullnesse of a Marryage Symonds against Greene. NOte one suit was before the high Commissioners and 16. were brought by Pursivants before them for that that they were present at a Clandestine marraige and it was urged that this was not to be punished by any inferior Ordinary in any of their consistories for the contract was made in the Diocesse of the Bishop of Worcester and the marriage in the Diocesse of Glocester and the Preist which married them inhabited in the Diocesse of Oxford And yet Prohibition was awarded and the Justices were of the opinion that every of them for which the Pursivant was sent might have an action of false imprisonment against him for they cannot use any other processe but cytation only Admirall Court NOte that it was urged by Haugton that the intent of the Statute of 13 R. 2. chapter 5. Was not to Inhibite the Admirall Court to hold Plea of any thing made beyond Sea but only of things made within the Realme which pertaines to the common Law and is not in prejudice of the King or common Law if he hold plea over the Sea and that this was the intent of the Statute appeares by the preamble But to this Coke saith that the office of the Admirall was an ancient office though it hath been otherwise conceived by some for he hath seen Records and Libells and proceedings in the time of King Iohn where he was called Marina Anglie in the time of Ed. 3. And also he said that the words of the Statute are in the negative That is that the Admirall nor his Deputy doe not meddle from henceforth of any thing done within the Realme but only or things done upon the Sea and he said that it was adjudged in one Wrights case that a thing made at Constanticople shall notbe tried in the Admiralty for itought to be made upon the deep Sea otherwise they shall hold no trial of that see 48. or 50. of Ed. 3. 2 Ed. 2 F obligation and if a man be slaine or murthered beyond Sea the offender shall not be punished in the Admiralty Walmesly and Warburton Justices agree that if a thing be done beyond the Sea and may be tried by the common law there the admirall Court shall have no Jurisdiction But if an obligation beares date beyond Sea or be so locall that it cannot be tried by the common law there if the Admirall hold Plea of that Prohibition shall not be awarded for it is not to the prejudice of the King nor of the common law But if the party can have his remedy by the common law the common law shall be preferred And if at the common law one matter comes in question upon a conveyance or other Instrument made beyond Sea according to the course of the civill law or other law of the Nations where it was made the Judges ought to consult with the Civilians or others which are expert in the same law and according to their information give Judgement though that it be made in such forme that the common law cannot make any construction of it Michaelmas 8. Jacobi 1610. in the common Bench. IF a Parson agree contract withme that I shall keep back my own tithes if that be made after that I have sown my Corn and for the same year only this shall be good and if the Parson sue in the spirituall Court for tithes I shall have a prohibition but if it be for more years then one or before the Corn be sowed this shall not be good by Coke and Foster against Warburton and Coke said it was adjudged in the Kings Bench in Parson Boothes Case that a contract made with a parishioner for keeping back of his tithes for so many years as he shall be Parson was not good and so it was Wellowes Case here also but it was agreed by them all that such a contract or agreement for the tithes of any other was void but only of the party himself which was party to agreement and that ought to be made by way of keeping them back See before Easter 8. of James See 20 H. 6. and the 21. H. 7. 21. b. Pasche 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. THE question was upon a motion to have a Prohibition to the President and Councell of Wales if that shall be granted without action hanging And Coke cheife Justice said that the Record of the booke of 38. H. 6. agreed with the Report and is witnesse John Prisott and 2. Ed. 4. Is adjudged in the point but yet he advised that there shall be information Walmesley Justice said that this is no action But Coke Foster and Warburton said that it is an action fufficient upon which a Prohibition shall be granted and Coke said that if they hold Plea of a thing out of their Instructions he would grant Prohibition without action hanging But if they proceed in erronious manner in a thing which is within their Instructions he would not grant Prohibition without action hanging or Information Sir William Chanceys Case SIr William Chancey was cited before the Ordinary of the Diocesse of Peterbrough and sentenced to do Pennance for Adultery and this he commuted and after that he lived in Adultery with one in his house and had two Bastards by her and continued in Adultery with her for many yeares and for that he was cited before the high Commissioners and for that that he would not allow his wife competent allimony who had seperated himselfe from her company in respect that he lived in
any private Prison And it seemes if any do against this Statute that an action of false Imprisonment lies For every one ought to be committed to the Common Goal to the intent that he may be dilivered at the next Goale delivery and also if any be committed to any of the Counters in London unlessthat it be for debt that an action of false Imprisonment lieth for that for these are private Prisons for the Sheriffes of London for Debt only Note in Debt for ten pound the Defendant confesseth five pound and for the other five pound pleades that he oweth nothing by the Law and at the day the Plaintiff would have been nonsuited And it was agreed by all that if he be nonsuited that he shall loose all as well the debt confessed as the other Note the yeare of the Reigne of the King was mistaken in the Record of nisi prius but the Record which remaines in the Court was very well and it was amended For insomuch that it was a sufficent and certaine Issue this was sufficent Authority to the Justices of nisi prius to proceed but nothing being mistaken but the yeare of the Reigne this shall be amended for it is only the misprision of the Clark see Dyer 260. 24 25. 9. Eliz. 11. H. 6. Note also if Tenant in Dower be disseised and the Disseisor makes a Feoffment the Tenant in dower shall recover aâ—l their dammages against the Feoffee for she is not within the Statute of Glocester chapter 1. By which every one shall answer for their time Hillary 8. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Reyner against Poell See Hillary 6. Jacobi fol IN second deliverance for copy-hold in Brampton in the County of Huntington the case was copy-hold Lands were surrendered to the use of a woman and the Heires of her Body and she took a Husband the Husband and the Wife have Issue 2. Sonnes and after Surrenders to themselves for their lives the remainder to the eldest Son and his Wife in fee the Husband and the Wife dye the eldest Son dies the youngest Son enters and Surrenders to the use of a stranger And the sole question upon which they relied if the Wife was Tenant in tayl or if she had fee simple conditionall and it was argued by Nicholls that the Wife was Tenant in tayl and to prove that he cited 2. cases in Littleton where it is expresly mentioned who may be Tenant in tayl see Sect. 73. 79. And who may have a Formedon see in the discender sect 76. And he grounded that upon reason for that that it cannot be denied But that fee simple might be of copy-hold according to the custome and as well as fee simple as well it may be an estate tayl for every greater containes his lesse and he said that this is grounded upon the reason of other cases as if the King grant to one to hold Plea in his Court of all actions of debt and other actions and then one action of debt is given in case where it lieth not at the common Law yet the Grantee may hold Plea of that But if a new action be framed which was not in experience at the time of the grant but is given after by Statute the grant shall not extend to that and to the Objection that copy-hold is no Tenement within the Statute of gifts c. As to that he saith that that shall be very well intended to be within the Statute as it is used and 4. H. 7. 10. A man makes a gift in tayl by deed the Donee hath an estate tayl in the deed as well as in the Land so Morgan and Maxells case Commentaries 26. And so of Office Honour Dignity and copy-hold also and Dyer 2 and 3. Phil And Mary 114. 61. It is found by speciall verdict that copy-hold Lands have been devisable by copy in tayl and so it is pleaded 2 and 3 Eliz. Dyer 192. b. And when a lesser estate is extracted out of a greater that shall be directed and ordered according to the course of the Common Law and for that the Wife shall have plaint in nature of a Cui in vita and 15. H 8. b. Title Tenement by copy of Court Roll it was said for Law that tayl may be of a copy-hold and that Formedon may well ly of that in descender by protestation to sue in nature of a Formedon in descender at the Common Law and good by all the Justices for though that Formedon in descender was not given but by Statute Yet now this Writ lieth at the Common Law and shall be intended that this hath been a custome time out of mind c. And the Demandant shall recover by advise of all the Justices and the like matter in Essex M. 28. H. 8. And Fitz. affirms that in the chamber of the Dutchy of Lancaster afterwards and also he saith that when custome hath created such Inheritances and that the Land shall be descendable then the Law shall direct the discent according to the Maximes and Rules of the Common Law as incident to every estate discendable and for that shall be possessio Fratris of a copy-hold estate 4. Coke 22. a. Brownes Case b. And there 28. a. Gravener and Tedd the custome of the Mannor of Allesley in the County of Warwick was that copy-hold lands might be granted to any one in fee simple and it was adjudged that a grant to one and the Heires of his Body is within the Custome for be that Estate Tayl or Fee simple conditionall that is within the Custome So he may grant for life or for yeares by the same Custome for Estate in Fee simple includes all and it is a Maxime in Law to him that may do the greater it cannot be but the lesse is lawfull and over he said that in all cases where a man was put to his reall action at the Common Law in all these cases a copy-holder may have plaint with protestation to prosecute in â—…re of the same action and to the objection that there cannot be an Estate tayl of copy-hold Land for that that the Tenant in tayl shall hold of him in revertion and shall not be Tenant to the Lord to that he said that this Estate may be created as well by Cepit extra manus Domini as by Surrender and then there is not any reversion or remainder but it is as if Rent be newly granted in tayl but he said there may be a reversion upon an Estate tayl as well as upon an Estate for life and he did not insist upon the Custome but upon this ground that if the Custome warrant the greater Estate which is the Fee simple the lesse shall be included in that And he did not argue but intended that it would be admitted that discent of copy-hold Land shall not take away entry nor Surrender of that nor shall make discontinuance so prayed Judgement and â—…rne Harris the youngest Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that it shall be
ancient Demesne that this shall not alter the tenure insomuch that it is meerly personall and the damages are the principall which are to be recovered and in 21 Edw. 4. 10. b. the difference is shewed between ejectione firme and quare ejecit infra terminum for one lyes against the Lessor or other Ejector immediately and the other lyes against the Feoffee of the other immediate Ejector and the first is by force of armes and the other not and it alwayes lyes against him that is in by Title and the first against him which is the wrong doer and hee intended that the agreement with one of these Defendants is good for it is satisfaction and discharges the action as release the which every one which hath it may plead and here it is pleaded with satisfaction that is obligation upon which the Plaintiff may have action and so he concluded and prayed Judgement for the Defendants Wynch Justice argued this case notwithstanding that hee had not heard any argument at the Barr this being the first case that he argued after he was made Justice of this Court and he delivered his opinion that the agreement was a good Barre and he said that the difference is where the thing to be recovered is in the Realty and where it is in the Personalty as it is agreed in Blakes Case 6 Coke 43. b. So that here the only question is if this action be in the Realty or in the Personalty and it seems to him that it is in the Personalty and that it is of the nature of Trespass and the tearm is not anciently to be recovered as it is 6. R. 2. Fitz. Na. Bre. and it is within the statute of 4 Edw. 3. Chap. 6. which gives action to Executors for goods carryed away in the life time of the Testator as it is 7 H. 4. 6. b. And to objection that ancient Demesne is a good plea and for that is in the Realty and hee said and so it is in Accompt and Accompt is not in the Realty and the reason why it shall not be a Barr in Assise is in so much that there the Free-hold shall be recovered but this fails here so in Waste also this toucheth the Inheritance but here the Inheritance doth not come in question but the tearm only and it doth not appeare to the Court that it concerns Inheritance for it may be betwixt the Lessor or another which claims under him and the Lessee And if a Husband which hath a tearm in right of his Wife submits himself to Arbitrement this shall not bind the Wife but shall bind the Husband and shall be a Barr if the Wife hath not Interest and so he concluded that Judgment shall be given for the Defendants and that the agreement is a good Barr. Foster Justice intended that the agreement is a good Barr in an Ejectione firme c. And it seems that it is no question but that the action is personall and yet hee agreed that ancient Demesne is a good plea. So in debt receipt of part hanging the Writ abates all the Writ And 21 Ed. 4. 10. b. Two Tenants in Common were of a Tearm and 7 H. 4. 6. b. Executors shall have an action upon Entry made in the time of their Testator by the statute of 4 Edw. 3. Chap. 6. and in this the Plaintiff shall recover his Tearm but he denyed that the reversion is reduced by the recovery nor revested in the Lessor till the Lessee enter And to the Objection that the Realty and Inheritance may come in question in this that is not to the purpose for so it may in an action of Trespasse And he intended there is no difference between agreement and Arbitrement and agreed that none of those is a plea where the Inheritance or Free-hold comes in question And he conceived that Arbitrement for free-hold is not good unlesse the submission be by Deed indented for by Obligation with Condition is not sufficient 11 H. 4. 44. b. and it is not in difference 14 H. 4. that in ravishment of ward submission may be without Deed insomuch as it is in the personalty and he intended that there is no difference between that and Ravishment of Ward and Ward is but Chattâ—ll so is tearm which may be sold by word as well â—s the possession may be sold by word so may the right of that be extinct by word And as if a may be bound to pay a certain summe of money at a certaine day and the Obligee accept parcell in satisfaction before the day and that is very good So in this case acceptance of a summe of lesse value may be a satisfaction of such personall thing 4 H. 8. Dyer 1. 8 Edw. 6. Dyer 19 H. 6. 9 H. 7. And so he concluded that for that nothing is to be recovered but Chattell that for that the agreement shall be good plea. Warburton Justice agreed that the agreement should be good in Ejectione Firme insomuch that this is meerely personall And he argued that it is no Plea in assise insomuch that this is reall and there the Free-hold is to be recovered and this is the reason that waging of Law lieth in Debt upon arbitrement insomuch that the seale of the Arbitrators is not annexed unto it and for that to him it is but only matter in Deed 13. Ed. 4. And he intended that agreement with satisfaction is as much as Arbitrement for a personall thing cannot be satisfaction for a reall thing and that is the cause that it cannot be a Barr in Debt upon arrerages of accompt insomuch that that is founded upon Record and is a thing certaine And in wast it is no Plea insomuch that this is a mixt Action if it be against a Lessee for life otherwise if it be against a Lessee for yeares for a Tearme is taken in 7. H. 4. 6. b. to be within the word Goods and an Executor may have an Action upon that of goods carried a way in the life of the Testator And though that the Entry abate the Writ yet this doth not prove that it is more then a Tearme and though that the Tearme determine hanging the Writ this shall not abate the Action but the Plaintiff shall recover Dammages and in Ravishment of Ward Summons and Severance lies and the Body of the Heire shall be recovered and so in Quare Impedit Summons and Severance lies and the presentment shall be recovered and Dammages and yet the principall is but presentmemt which is but a Chattell and for that agreement shall be a Barr and so he concluded that Judgement shall be given for the Defendant and that the agreement is a good Plea Coke cheife Justice agreed that the agreement is a good Plea he thought that that savered of Realty for that that the Tearme is to be recovered and of the personalty in respect of the Dammages which are to be recovered and that in all Actions where money or Dammages
and before the originall purchased the Indentnre was by the assent of the Plaintiff and the Defendant cancelled and avoyded and so demands Judgment if action and it seemes by Coke cleerly that the Plea is not good without averment that no Covenant was broken before the cancelling of the Indenture Pasch 12. Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Barde against Stubbing IT was moved in arrest of Judgment that the Venire facias wants these words Et habeas ibidim nemina Juratorum but the words Venire facias duodecim c. were incerted and it seems by all the Justices that it was good and that the first words are supplyed in the last and they are aided by the statutes of Jeofai es after verdict and so it was adjourned In Audita querela sued by the sureties upon an escape made by the principall they being in execution offered to bring the Money into the Court or to put in sufficient Sureties to the Court and so prayed that they might be bayled and it was agreed that if Audita querela be grounded by specialty or other matter in writing or upon matter of Record Supersedeas shall be granted before that the party be in Execution and if he be in execution he shall be bayled but if it be founded upon a matter in Deed which is only surmise he shall not have Supersedeas in one case nor shall be bayled in the other case and so was the Opinion of all the Justices In an Action of Waste for digging of earth to make Brick Estrepement was awarded and upon Affidavit that the Writ of Estrement was delivered to the Sheriff and that he gave notice of that to the party and he notwithstanding that continues to make waste attachment was awarded Pasch 12 Iacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Fetherstones Case Trinity 1612. IN Ejectione firme The Plaintiff had Judgment and an Habere facias possessionem to the Sheriff of Coventry which returnes that he had offered possession to the Plaintiff and he refused to accept it and it seems that the Plaintiff cannot have Habere facias possessionem insomuch that it appeares by the Record that he hath refused to have the possession The case was A Dean and Chapter being Lord of a Maunor parcell of the Demesnes of the Mannor being severall adjoyned to the Common which was parcell of the wast of the Mannor and one Copy-holder which had Common in the sayd Wast puts his Beasts into the sayd waste to take his Common and they for default of inclosure escape into the sayd Demesnes by which the Lord brings his action of Trespass and upon this the Defendant pleads the speciall matter and that the Lord and all those whose Estate he had in the said place where the trespass is supposed to be made have used to fence the said place which is parcell of the Demesnes of the sayd Mannor against the Commoners which have Common in the sayd Common being parcell of the waste and also of the demesnes of the sayd Mannor and that the Beasts of the sayd Defendant escaped into the sayd place in which c for default of inclosure and so demands Judgment upon which the Plaintiff demurrs in Law In the agreement of which it was agreed by Hutton and Haughton the Serjeants which argued it whether a man by prescription is bound to make fence against Commoners as it is agreed in the 22 H. 6. 7. 8. 21 H. 6. 33. But the doubt which was made in this case by Haughton which demurred was for that that the Lord which by the prescription ought to inclose is owner of the soyle also against which he ought to inclose and so he ought to inclose against himself and for that he supposed that the pleading should have been that there is such a custome there and of time out of minde that the Lord shall inclose against the Common insomuch that by that the Copy-holder would bind the Lord and upon that it was adjourned c. Pasch 12 Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Sir Henry Rowles against Sir Robert Osborne and Margeret his Wife IN Warrantia Charte the case was Sir Robert Osborne and his Wife levyed a Fine of the Mannor of Kelmersh with other Lands in Kelmersh to Sir Henry Rowles against all persons and this is declared for the Lands in Relmersh to be to the use of Sir Henry Rowles for life with diverse Remainders over and for the Mannor no use was pleaded to be declared at all and then a Writ of Entry in the Post was sued against the sayd Sir Henry Rowles which vouched Sir Robert Osborne and his sayd wifeâ— and this was declared for the sayd Lands to be to the use of the sayd Sir Henry Rowles for his life with other Remainders over which were declared upon the Fine of the Lands in Kelmersh only and of the Mannor of Kelmersh no uses were declared upon the Recovery also and upon this Recovery pleaded in barr the Plaintiffe demurred and it was argued by Dodridge Serjeant of the King for the Plaintiffe that the Plea in Barr was not good insomuch that it doth not appeare that the warranty which was executed by the Recovery was the same warranty which was created by the Fine and also the Fine was taken for assurance against the Issue in tayle and the Recovery to Barr the remainders and so one shall not destroy the other and for the first he sayd that a man may have of another severall warranties and severall causes of Voucher and all shall be together for warranty is but Covenant reall and as well as a man may have severall Covenants for personall things as well he may have severall reall Covenants for one self same Land as if the Father infeoff one with warranty and the Sonn also releases to the same Feoffee with warranty or if the Father infeoff one with warranty against him and his Heires and the Sonn release with warranty against all men the Feoffee may vouch one and Rebut against the other so of Warranty of Tenant in tayle and release of an Ancestor collaterall with warranty in Law and expresse warranty as it is agreed in 31 Ed. 1. Fitzh Voucher 289. And upon that he concluded that a man may have severall warranties of one selfe same man and the one may be executed and the other remaine notwithstanding that it be for one selfe same Land and he supposed the effect of these warranties are as they are used for if that may vouch generally and bind himselfe upon the Fine or upon his owne warranty or upon the warranty of his Ancestor notwithstanding that the voucher be generally as it is 31. Ed. 3. Warranty of Charters 22. So if he be vouched as Heire though that it were speciall but if he be Heire within age otherwise it is for that is a good Counter Plea that he was within age and so praied that the word might demur during his nonage 17.
is a stranger and doth not know if these Defendants are Executors or Administrators as it is said by Danby 9 Edw. 4. 13. And he conceived that the plea is good that the Defendants have not goods besides the goods which do not amount c. And divers presidents were cyted by him to this purpose as Trin. 18. Eliz. Rot. 1405. between Blanekson and Frye Hillary 40 Eliz. Rot. 902. Smalpeeces case and Trin. 44 Eliz. Rot. 1900. between Goodwin and Scarlet in all which the pleadings were all one with the plea in question and no exceptions taken to that and infinite other presidents may be shewed in the point for which cause he demanded Judgment for the Defendants Coke cheife Justice seemed that in an action brought against one as Executor he may plead that Administration was committed to him for such intent that the dead dyed Intestate and demands Judgment if action without traverse that he was Executor and with this agreed 1 Ed. 4. 2. a. 20 H. 6. 23. And so if the Ordinary be charged as Executor he may plead that he administred as Ordinary without traverse that he was Executor but only shewed that the party dyed Intestate and the Plaintiff ought to reply that he made a Will and the Defendant proved that and traverse that he dyed Intestate and with this agreed 9 Edw. 4. 33. and 1 Edw. 4. 11. And if an action be brought against Executor of his own wrong hee may plead that administration is granted to such an one and the Party dyed Intestate and demand Judgment if action for he shall not be charged for more goods then came to his hands But if a man administer of his own wrong and after rightfull administration is committed to him yet he may be charged as Executor of his own wrong insomuch that Right of action is attached in him But this seems for the goods that he hath administred before rightfull administration committed unto him And he cyted 14 Eliz. Dyer 305. b. where in debt brought against one as Executor which pleads never Executor nor ever administred as Executor and the Plaintiffe replies that he administred as Executor of the Will c. and so to Issue And in Evidence the Defendant shews Letter of administration to him committed of goods of the dead by which he administred them and before that he did not administer and this seems there to be good Evidence but the Book was Quere of that and for that he would rather plead that in abatement of the Writ and so the Book inclined also And he conceived here that the medling with the goods here by the Defendant as Administrator made him Executor of his own wrong insomuch that it was for Funeralls and when it is a work of Charity and the other is to preserve them And the Defendant hath not conveyed himselfe to be Executor insomuch that he said that administration was committed to him by an Arch-Deacon and he doth not say that Administration of right belonged to him to commit insomuch that hee hath but a sub-ordinate Jurisdiction And the Common Law doth not take notice that he nor no other but the Ordinary hath such power and for that the power of all which have such subordinate and peculiar Jurisdiction is pleaded that ought to be shewed as it seems by 1 Ed. 4. 2. a. b. 22 H. 6. 23. And the rather when this is pleaded by the Administrator himselfe which ought to have notice of that and make title to himselfe and if so it be then he conceived that the Recovery by Hornego was void and so all the goods confest remain as Assets Also he conceived that if the Executor allow a Writ to suffer Judgment to be had against him upon a Writ which is abateable he shall not have allowance of that but this shall be returned as Devastavit as in 10 Edw. 3. 503. a. If the Tenant vouch when he might have abated the Writ he shall lose the benefit of his Warranty So here and Com. Manwells case 12. a. 22 H. 6. 12. 〈◊〉 Also he conceived if a man be charged as Administrator where he is no Administrator he cannot plead that he never administred as Administrator but he ought to traverse the Commission of Administration as it appears by 21 H. 6. 23. And it seems also to him and by 9 Edw. 4. 33. that if a man be an Executor of his owne wrong and after administration is committed to him and he is charged as Executor after administration committed that the Writ shall abate otherwise if administration be committed hanging the Writ So if a man be made Executor and hee not knowing of that Iues letters of Administration he shall be named Administrator and if after when he hath notice of the Will he proves it then he shall be impleaded by the name of Executor for in such manner as the power is given to him by the Bishop he shall be charged and it seemes though that he plead where he is Administrator and is sued as Executor or otherwise in such manner that hee might have abated the Writ or suffer Judgment yet the Writ shall abate and he intended also that Executor of his owne wrong might pay debts due to another and shall be discharged and shall not be charged with more then he hath in his hands And if two Executors are joyntly sued and one confesse the action this shall bind him and his companion also for so much as he hath in his hands But if an Executor of his own wrong confesse the action this shall not prejudice him which is rightfull Executor and so he conceived that judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff Warburton Justice conceived that the Barr is good notwithstanding that he did not shew that the Arch-Deacon had power to grant Administration insomuch it is no Inducement and the Defendant doth not relie upon it as Littleton saith in Trespasse where the Defendant pleades that it was made by two and the Plaintiff releases to one and if the Defendant pay due Debts it is not materiall whether he have Authority or not though that it be in another respect As if a man be Indicted of man-slaughter and aquitted and after is Indicted of Murder by the same man he may pleade another time aquitted insomuch that these are matters of substance But here it is but of forme and then if it be not shewed it is not materiall But the matter upon which he relied was insomuch that the Action was brought against two Executors and one hath confessed the Action And he intended without question that if this shall bind his companion and for that he will not dispute the other questions but declares his opinion cleerely that the Plaintiff ought to have Judgement against both these Defendants upon the confession of one and this shall bind his companion Wynch Justice conceived that the Plea is good by Administrator without traverse insomuch that it is to the Writ as it
defects and with this agreed the expresse Booke of 11 Edw. 3. Fitz. Ayde 32. and so he concluded that it should not be granted Warburton Justice doubted and insomuch that the granting of ayde where it is not grantable is no error but otherwise of the denying of that where it ought to be granted he would be advised But he conceived that the cause for which ayde is granted is not the feeblenesse of the Estate of him which prays it onely but to the intent that they may joyne together and one defend the other for Tenant for life may plead some Plea which he in reversion may plead saving the joyning of Issue in a Writ of Right and he had a Manuscript of the 11 Rich. 2. where Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder for life was and the first Tenant for life had ayde of them both in remainder and so concluded Coke cheif Justice that aid ought not to be granted in this Case insomuch that he which is the first Tenant hath greater Estate then he in Remainder for his Estate in Remainder is more Remote and uncertaine and to the Book of 11 R. 2. He agreed that the ayd was granted of all in Remainder but there they in Remainder had Estate tayle and he sayd that ayd is to be granted in two Cases in personall Actions to maintain Issue and when Tenant for life prays in ayd of him in Remainder or Reversion without which they cannot answer nor plead nor Issue cannot be deduced but so it is not here for the first Tenant for life may answer and plead to the Issue as well without him in Remainder for life as with him for if Tenant for life Remainder in tayl Remainder in fee if the first Tenant for life be impleaded he shall have ayd of him in Remainder in tayl otherwise if the Reversion had been to the first Tenant for life with a mesne Remainder in Tayle 41 Ed. 3. 42 Ed. 3. 10 Ed. 3. And 11 Ed. 3. Receit 118. Tenant for life Reversion for life Remainder in fee was he in Reversion for life shall be received upon default of the first Tenant for life and if he will not then he in Remainder in fee shall be received and yet he shall not have Wast as it appears by 24 Ed. 3. for this destroyes the first Estate but the receit maintains and preserves it and he sayd that the 11 Ed. 3. Ayd 32. before cited rules this case and so of 4 H. 6. And so he concluded and insomuch that Warburton doubted of it it was adjourned Trinity 10. Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Yet Rowles against Mason See before 57. WINCH Justice argued that the Defendant is not guilty and that the Plaintiff shall take nothing by his Writ for he conceived that the verdict is uncertaine insomuch that it is not found that Livery and Seisin was made upon the Lease for three lives of the Mannor but onely one Memorandum that it was made in the house of the Lord but it is not found that this House was parcell of the Mannor but after it is found that the Lessee by force of this was seised by which it is implyed that it was very well executed and this being in speciall verdict would be very good he conceived there were two principall matters in the Case First Upon the Bargaine and Sale of Trees if they be re-united to the Mannor or remaine undivided Secondly Upon the two customes the which he conceived depend upon a question for the first warrants the second And to the first When a man devises a Mannor for three lives and by the same Deed in another clause bargaines and sells the Trees and then insues the Habendum and this is of the Mannor only and limits Estate of that for three lives without mention of the Trees hee conceived that the Trees passe before the Habendum absolutely and it is not like to a Bargaine and Sale of a Mannor with Trees or Advowson appendant and here the purpose and intent appeares that they shall pass together and as appendant But in the first case they shall passe as a Chattell immediately upon the delivery of the Deed before any livery made upon this to pass the Mannor and if Livery had never been made yet he shall have the Trees see 23 Eliz. 379. 18 Dyer Where a man devises and grants a mannor and trees Habendum the Mannor for one and twenty yeares without mention of the Trees and yet by Windham Periam and Meade against Dyer the Lessee cannot cut and sell the Trees for there was all in one sentence that is the grant of the Trees and the Demise of the Mannor see the 8 Coke Pexells Case how a Grant shall be construed and where that shall be intended to pass Inheritance and where to pass but a Chattell where a man grants a Chattell and ten pound yearly to be payd and in 7 Ed. 4. If a man hath Inheritance and a Lease in one Town and he by one and the same Deed gives Grants Bargaines and sells all to one Habendum the Inheritance to him and his Heires this is no forfeiture of the Lease insomuch that the Fee doth not passe of that so in the Principall Case Fee-simple passeth in the Trees and Free-hold in the Mannor and he conceived that by the Demise over the Land and Trees are not re-united and this he collected out of Herlackendens Case 4. Coke and 12. Eliz. Bendlowes a man made a Lease for anothers life and bargaine and sold the Trees to him for whose life Lessee dyes he for whose life becometh occupant of the Land he shall have severall Estates one Estate in the Land and another Estate in the Trees and so in Ives Case 5 Coke 11. a. Lessee takes a Lease first of Land except the woods and after takes a Lease of the Woods and Trees and they remaine distinct and though that after there are generall words in the Lease that is of all Meadowes Pastures Profits Commodities c. That is not materiall for these shall be referred to all such things which belong to the Land and so he concluded this point that the Trees remain severall from the Land and do not passe to Hoskins by the Demise of the Copy-hold only and so he cannot take advantage of the forfeiture otherwise he did not doubt but that the particular Sum might take advantage of the forfeiture Secondly for the customes he conceived that the first that is that the Copy-holder for life might nominate his Successor and is good and so for the second that such Copy-holder may cut and sell all the Trees growing upon his Copy-hold and he conceived that the validity of the custome ought to be adjudged by the Judges and the Truth of that by the Jury and when it is found true by a Jury and that it hath such antiquity that exceeds the memory of man then this obtaines such priviledge as the
awarded good because it comes in Lieu of Goods which they had as Executors and shall be Assets in their hands as the Goods should have been and for that it is well brought in the Detinet only And they said that in the principall case it shall be mischeivous if the Action shall be brought in the Debet and Detinet for it may be the Rent reserved is of more worth then the Profits of the Land will amount unto and that the Executors or Administrators have no other Assets now shall be the Executor or Administrator be charged with his own proper Goods which shall be mischeivous and the case of 10. H. 7. 5. and 6. that is direct in the point was often times cited and all these three things which were of councell with the Defendant informed the Court that they were of Councell with Hargrave when the Judgement given in the Kings Bench was reversed for Error in this very point and for this cause because the Action was brought in the Debet and Detinet where it should be in the Detinet only And so they praied that the Judgement should be hindered But by the whole Court except Yelverton And so it was adjudged that the Action was well brought as it is and especially for the reasons given in Hargraves Case 5. Coke 31. And to that which hath been said by Yelverton Justice that in all cases where Executors are charged by the name of Executors or Administrators that there the Action shall be against them in the Detinet only Flemming cheife Justice answered that â—rue it is in all personall things where they are named as Executors Action shall be in the Detinet But as it is an Action of Debt for Rent reserved upon a Chattell reall and an Executor is as an Assignee in Law and so charged as privy in Estate and not meerely as Executor and if he have no more Assets then the Rent which he is to pay he may plead nothing in his hands against all the World and to that that hath been said that the Executor hath been charged of his own Goods If the profits be not more then the Rent or the Rent more then the profits to this he said that in this case where the Executor hath the Tearme and hath not any other Assets that they may wave this Tearme And in Action of Debt brought against him for the Rent may plead to the occupation and that recover The reason of the diversity between this case and the case of 28. H. 8. Dyer 14. is plain for in an Action of Debt against the Termor himselfe Non habuit nec occupavit is no Plea for there was a contract between them and for this privity of contract is the Lessee charged though he did not occupy But in the case of an Executor the privity of the contract is gone and so may be a difference But yet it seemes if he have Assets sufficient to pay the Rent he cannot wave it And to the case 14. H. 4. 28. that hath been cited that doth speake nothing how the Action should be brought And the Justices have seen the record of Hargraves case and the Reversall of that And they said the same error which was in Hargraves case is in this case and for that bring your Writ of Error in the Exchequer chamber if you will for we so adjudge And then it was moved that the Lord Rich was Tenant in Tayle of part of the reversion and Tenant in Fee-simple of the other part and so it seemes that he ought to have two Actions because he hath as two reversions But it was resolved by all the Court that if a man have a reversion of part in Fee-simple and of the other part in tayl and makes a Lease for yeares rendring a Rent he shall have but one Action both being in the hands of one But otherwise it had been if the reversion had been in severall hands they should not Joyne in Debt and for that Fenner put this case two Coparceners are of a reversion and they make partition now the Rent is apportioned and they shall sever in Debt But if one dies without Issue and the part discends to the other Parcener now he shall have but one Action of Debt againe and so it is if a man makes a Lease of two Acres rendring Rent and after grants the reversion of one Acre to J. S. and of the other Acre to J. N. now they shall sever in Debt for this Rent but if J. S. and J. N. Grant their reversions againe to the first Lessor he shall have but one Action of Debt and so the exception dissalowed by all the Court and the Judgement given for the Plaintiff according to the Verdict Yates and Rolles THe case was this J. S. covenants by Indenture with J. N. I. D. and A. B. to enter Bond to pay ten pound to J. N. and J. N. dies and his Administrator brings a Writ of covenant and the question was insomuch that this ten pound was to be paid to J. N. if his Administrator shall have Action of Covenant or if the Action shall survive to the other two and it was moved by Stephens that the Action shall be well brought by the Administrator for this shall be taken as a severall covenant and this now is in nature of a Debt and enures only to him which shall have it also the payment of the money which is the effect of the covenant shall be to him only Ergo the Damages for the not performing of it shall goe to him also and by consequence to his Administrator But it was adjudged insomuch that this was a joynt covenant that this shall survive to the others and not well brought by the Administrator So also resolved that insomuch that the words are that he would enter Bond and doth not say to whom that this shall be intended to the Covenantees and though that the Solvendo is but to one of them yet that is very good as an Obligation made to three Solvendum to one of them is good by Fenner and by Williams Obligation to two Solvendum ten pound to one and ten pound to another both ought to joyne in Debt upon this Obligation and Judgement for the Defendant Sammer and Force THe Case was this The Lord of a Copy-hold Mannor where Copy holders are for life grants Rent-charge out of all the Mannor one Copy-hold Escheats the Lord grants that againe by Copy the question was If the Grantee shall hold it charged or not and by the whole Court but Fenner he shall not hold it charged because he comes in above the Grant that is By the custome the same Law of Statutes Recognizances or Dowers but the 10. of Eliz. Dyer 270. by the whole Court that he shall hold it charged but this hath been denyed for Law in a Case in the Common Bench between Swaine and Becket which see Trinity 5. Jacobi But to Coke Justice it seemed that
every Knight and that diverse of those Fees were received and this office being litigious were delivered to be detained in Deposito and to be delivered to him which was Officer and the plaintiff brought an Action by the name of Chester as Officer and recovered those Fees and this was resolved good Seisin and also that Seisin after the grant of the Office and before the investing of the Patentee by the Marshall was good for the Investing was but a ceremony it was also resolved that where an office extends to all the parts of England and that here an Assise doth not lie in any County though that the dissesin were made in one County but the Assise be brough for the profit of the office in one County and not for the office it selfe 43. Ed. 3. Feoffments and Deeds That by Grant of the profits of a Mill and Livery the Mill it selfe passes so that taking of the profits is dissesin of the office also it was objected that the Demandant was no officer for though that he hath a Patent of it yet he was not Invested nor Installed in the office which appeares to the Marshall and for that he was no Officer and so hath no cause to have Action And that this is an office which is incident and annexed to the office of Earle Marshall and though that he be not Earle Marshall yet there are Commissioners have his power and authority and for that the Investing and Instalment of the Plaintiff in the said office appeares to the said Commissioners but it was resolved cleerely by all the Justices that the Demandant was Officer by the Kings Grant without any Installation or Investing and that this without that all the Fees and Profits of the office appertayning to him and that the Investing and Installation was but a ceremony in the same manner as if the King hath a Donative and gives that to another the Donee shall be in actuall possession by the gift without any Induction or other ceremony But admitting that the office were annexed to the office of Earle Marshall then it was agreed that the Commissioners cannot give it as the cheife Justice of the Common â—ench hath divers offices appertaining to his place and he may dispose of them But if he die the King in time of vacancy nor the most ancient Judges cannot give or dispose of any of them being void as it appeares by Serrogates Case Eliz. Dyer And so the cheife Justice is made and allwaies hath been made by Patent and so are the other Justices and for that they cannot be made by Commissioners and so the cheife Justice of England hath all times been made by Writ and for that cannot be made by Patent nor by Commission And so in the case at the Barr though that the Commissioners have the power and authority of the Earle Marshall yet they are not Earle Marshall it was also objected that the Fees were not due to the Plaintiff for that he did not attend But to that it was answered and resolved that the Fees were due to the office and for that non attendance of the office was no forfeyture of the Fees And upon these resolutions the Recognitors found for the Demandant according to the direction of the Court. Trinity 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Godsall GODS ALL and his Wife The Proclamations of the Fyne were well and duly entred in the Originall remaining with the Chirographer But in the Transcript with the Custos brevium was error and it seemeth that this notwithstanding the Fyne was good but the Transcript was amended Trinity 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench The Town of Barwicke THE King which now is by his Letters Patents Incorporated the Mayor Bayliffs and Burgesses of Barwicke and granted to them the execution of the Returne of all Writs And after a Writ of Extendi facias was directed to them and they made no returne of that and upon this was the question if that shall be executed by them or by the Sheriff of Northumberland And it seemed to Nicholls Serjeant that argued for the Plaintiff in the extent that desired execution and the returne of that that they ought to make execution and returne for it seemes to him that this was English and that this appeares by the Act of Parliament by which the Incorporation was confirmed and so it appeares also by the Letters Patents of the King by which the Incorporation is made for if it were not English neither the Letters Patents nor the Act of Parliament are sufficient to make Incorporation of that and also they certified Burgesses to the Parliament of England And the Kings Bench sent Habeas Corpus to it and for the not returne of that inflicted a Fyne upon the Corporation See 21. Ed. 3. 49 and 1. Ed. 4 10. But Hutton Serjeant seemed to the contrary and that they ought not to make execution for he said it is a part of Scotland and not part of England and it was conquered from that and it was a Sherifwicke and hath the same priviledges of ancient times which they now have by their new Grant See 24 Ed. 1. and 2. Ed. 2. Obligation c. That one Obligation dated there shall not be tryed in England and also that it is not within the County of Northumberland nor part of it nor the Sheriff of Northumberland cannot meddle in it see 2. H. 7. 31. 26. H. 6. 23. and it is adjourned It seemes that Jacob and James are all one name for Jacobus is-Latine for them both but Walmesley conceived that if he be Christened Jacob otherwise it is as if one be Christened Jacob and another James then they are not one selfe same name Note that Coke cheife Justices said that if Commissioners by force of Dedimus potestatem take a Fine of an Infant that they are Fynable and ransomable to the value of their Lands and that this shall be sued in the Star chamber Trinity 7. Jacobi 1609 In the Common Bench. Robinson RObinsons Case A man devises Lands to his Wife for life the remainder to his Son and if his Son dies without Issue not having a Son that then it should remaine over and it seemed that this it a good Estate tayl and it was adjudged accordingly If a man makes a Lease for three yeares or such a small Tearme to his Son or Servant to try an Ejectione Firme or if it be made to another Inferion by a Superior which cannot countenance the Suit it shall not be intended Maintenance nor buying of Tytles which shall be punished Trinity 7 Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. NOte an Attorney of the Common Bench was cited before the High Commission and committed to the Fleet for that he would not swear upon Articles by the Commissioners ministred and Habeas Corpus was awarded to deliver him and a Prohibition to the Court of high Commission see 1. and 2. Eliz. Scroggs case
charge to the King and to the Common Wealth and the execution of Writs may be prejudicall and penall to the Sheriff himselfe And for that he may well provide that he shall have notice of every execution which are most Penall And also in all the Indenture now made he doth not constitute him to be his under Sheriff but only for to execute the Office and for these reasons he seemed the Obligation is good and demands Judgement for the Plaintiff But it seemes to all the Court that the Covenant is void and so by consequence the Obligation as to the performance of that void but good to the performance of all other Covenants And Coke cheif Justice said that the Sheriff at the Common Law was elligible as the Coronor is and then by the death of the King his Office was not determined and also it is an intire Office and though the King may countermand his Grant of that intirely yet he cannot that countermand by parcells and also that the under Sheriff hath Office which is intire and cannot be granted by parcells and this Covenant will be a meanes to nourish bribery and extortion for the Sheriff himselfe shall have all the benefit and the under Sheriff all the payn for he is visible the under Sheriff and all the Subjects of the King will repaire to him and the private contracts between the Sheriff and him are invisible of which none can have knowledge but themselves And Warburton sayd that in debt upon escape c. are against the Sheriff of Notingham he pleaded Nihil debet and gives in evidence that the Bayliff which made the Arrest was made upon condition that he should not meddle with such executions without speciall warrant of the Sheriff himselfe and his consent but it was resolved this notwithstanding that the Sheriff shall be charged in and in the principall case Judgement was given accordingly that is that the Covenant is void Note that the Sheriff of the County of Barkes was commited to the Fleete for taking twenty shillings for making of a warrant upon a generall Capias utlagatum for all the Justices were of opinion that the Sheriff shall not take any Fees for making of a warrant or execution of that Writ but only twenty shillings and foure pence the which is given by the Statute of 23. H. 6. for it is at the Suit of the King But upon Capias utlagatum unde convictus est which is after Judgement it seemes it is otherwise A man grants a Rent to one for his life and halfe a yeare after to be paid at the Feasts of the Anunciation of our Lady and Michaell the Archangell by equall portions and Covenants with the Grantee for the payment of that accordingly the Grantee dies 2. Februarâ—… and for twenty pound which was a moyity of the Rent and to be payd at the anunciation after the Executors of the Grantee brings an Action of Covenant and it seems it is well maintainable And Coke cheife Justice sayd That if a man grants Rent for anothers life the Remainder to the Executors of the Grantee and Covenant to pay the Rent during the Tearm aforesayd this is good Collective and shall serve for both the Estates and if the Grantee of the Rent grant to the Tenant of the Land the Rent and that he should distrain for the sayd Rent this shall not be intended the same rent which is extinct but so much in quantity and agreed that when a Rent is granted and by the same Deed the Grantor covenants to pay that the Grantee may have annuity or Writ of Covenant at his Election Michaelmas 7. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. Waggoner against Fish Chamberlain of London JAMES Waggoner was arrested in London upon a Plaint entered in the Court of the Maior in Debt at the suit of Cornelius Fish Chamberlain of the sayd City and the Defendant brought a Writ of Priviledge returnable here in the Common Pleas and upon the return it appears that in the City of London there is a custome that no forrainer shal keep any shop nor use any Trade in London and also there is another Custome that the Maior Aldermen and Commonalty if any custome be defective may supply remidy for that and if any new thing happen that they may provide apt remedy for that so if it be congruae bonâ— fidei consuetudo rationi consentiae pro communi utilitate Regis civium omnium aliorum ibidem confluentium and by Act of Parliament made 7 R. 2. All their customes were confirmed and 8 Ed. 3. The King by his Letters Patents granted that they might make By-Laws and that these Letters Patents were also confirmed by Act of Parliament and for the usage certified that in 3 Ed. 4. and 17. H. 8. were severall acts of Common Councell made for inhibiting Forrayners to hold any open shop or shops or Lettice and penalty imposed for that and that after and shewed the day in certain was an Act of Common counsell made by the Mayor Aldermen and Commonalty And for that it was enacted that no Forrayner should use any Trade Mistery or occupation within the said City nor keep any Shop there for retayling upon payn of five pound and gives power to the Chamberlain of London for the time being to sue for that by Action c. in the Court of the Mayor in which no Essoyn nor wager of Law shall be allowed and the said penalty shall be the one halfe to the use of the said Chamberlain and the other half to the poor of Saint Bartholomewes Hospitall And that the Defendant held a shop and used the Mistery of making of candles the seventh day of October last and for that the Plaintiff the ninth day of the same month then next insuing levied the said plaint And upon this the Defendant was Arrested and this was the cause of the taking and detaining c. And upon argument at the Bar by Serjeant Harris the younger for the Defendant and Hutton for the Plaintiff and upon sollemne arguments by all the Justices Coke Walmesley Warburton Danyell and Foster it was agreed That the Defendant shall be delivered and not remanded And the case was devided in to five parts The first the custome Secondly the confirmation of that by Act of Parliament Thirdly the grant of the King and the confirmation of that by Act of Parliament Fourthly the usage and making of Acts of common councell according to this Fiftly the Act of common councell upon which the Action is brought and upon which the Defendant was Arrested And to the first which is the custome it was also said that this consists upon three parts That is first if any custome be difficult Secondly if it be defective Thirdly if Aliquid de novo emergit The Mayor Aldermen and Commonalty Possunt opponere remedium and that there are foure incidents to that remedy First it ought to be Congruum Retione
47 Edw. 3. 17 Edw. 4. and 21 H. 7. that have been remembred to the contrary is only that it is reason that the Plaintiff should have the same process which was at the Common Law and there was not any such processe as Capias in debt at the Common Law and 21 H. 7. may be understood that the Elegit was not returned and so no record of that And 50 Edw. 3. a man may recover in Debt and pray Elegit and after brings Debt upon the Record but it doth not lye And he agreed to the Book of 23 H. 6. For there the Defendant was bound in an Obligation to make satisfaction of Debt and hee dyed in Prison and this cannot be satisfaction according to the Condition And in the Case of Fitz. Nat. Brev. the same doubt of that and this was the more strong case then the case at the Barr and if he doubted of that is the cause that he doubts also And cyted Williams and Cuttis case Rot. 88. in the point where the reason of the Judgment was for that that the Plaintiff had his plain and full satisfaction and saith that it was apparent difference between that and Blunfields case for there was 2 Defendants and here if one dyes there shall be no satisfaction and so these reconciled And so if a man be taken upon a Statute Merchant and dyes in execution that shall not be satisfaction for this is speciall processe given by statutes And 14 H. 7. 1. If a man being in Execution escape he shall not be taken againe and in the 14 H. 7. in debt upon an Obligation Capias profine was awarded and the Defendant taken by that And the Plaintiff prayed that he might be in Execution for his debt also and could not for that he had sued Fierifacias and it doth not appear if the Sheriff have that executed or not And so he concluded that the Judgment should not be revived by the Scire facias against the Executors and that Judgment shall be given for the Defendants in the Scire facias Walmsley Justice accordingly He specially observed the forme of the Writ which suggests quod executio adhuc restat facienda c. And to that the Defendants in the Scire facias plead that Capiás was awarded at the suit of the Plaintiff and upon that the Defendant was taken in execution and there dyed by which it appears that the words and suggestion of the Writ was answered directly and upon that the strongly relyed and then said that there were 3 ways to have Execution that is by Fieri facias Capias and Elegit And there is a speciall order to be observed in the suing of that for a man may have Fieri ficias and if the Defendant have not goods may have Elegit or Capias But if he make his Flection to have Capias he cannot have Fieri facias nor Elegit or if he sue Elegit he cannot have a Fieri facias nor Capias In 33 H. 6. and 44 Edw. 3. which have been cyted the Plaintiff sues Elegit and after that would have sued Capias supposing that he had not accepted the Elegit but of the other part it was said that the Sheriff had made Execution of it the which he could not contradict it And if the Plaintiff had Fieri facias and goods delivered to him in Execution and the Writ returned he shall not have a second Execution and so if Elegit executed and returned 14 H. 7. 15 H. 7. and said that Executions are tickle things for if the party escape he delivers himselfe out of Execution and the Plaintiff shall not have other Execution against him for that he hath had one Execution 2 Edw. 4. And so if a man sues a Writ of Priviledg out of Parliament and by that is delivered out of Execution he shall not be taken again And so if a man be delivered upon a Writ of Error for when the Party hath made his Election to take processe against the body it was his folly that he made such Election for though that death be the act of God yet for that that statutum est omnibus semel mori and for that God hath done no wrong for he hath but performed his Eternall Decree and for that it is not the act of God only but the folly of the party to make such Election and the Book of 47 Edw. 3. by Percy is but his opinion and more other Books are against that and 〈◊〉 H. 6. Danby and Prisot are against Lacon and though that the death of the Party in Execution is no satisfaction in rei veritate yet in Law it is satisfaction for that that the party hath no other remedy the Writ in the Register is certiorari ad faciendum in omnia singula que secundum legem consuetudinem fieri c. And there is not any Law nor Custome to warrant any such Course and here is not any other proceedings upon it But if he may have a Writ of Scire facias ostensurus quare satisfactionem habere non debet then it may be that the Defendant's ought to give another answer but for that that there is not any such Writ it seems that Judgment shall be given for the Defendants Coke chief Justice seemed the contrary and he agreed with Foster and he said that it is vexata et spinosa questio for the Books vary and great arguments have been made of both parts There are three things considerable 1. Reasons 2. Authorities 3. Answers of Objections And for the Reasons First he considered in whom the default is for which the Plaintiff shall lose his Debt 2. That the Debt remains after the body is taken in Execution 3. If the body taken in Execution be satisfaction 4. If the dying in Execution be a discharge 5. The Mischiefs if so they shall be And to the Objections First Escape which is the wrong and act of the Party it is no satisfaction nor discharge and here is the act of God and election of the party 2. Execution by Elegit If Lands be extended upon that this is no satisfaction And so if he be delivered by a Writ of Error and so in this case And for the first the fault was in Jackeson for he did not keep his day in the Condition and upon this was sued then he pleaded a false plea and upon that Judgement was given against him in all which actions the default was in the Defendant and no default in the Plaintiff for he took the Body which is the visible execution not in satisfaction but to satisfie and the Defendants have not pleaded fully administred but confesse that they have Assets and there is more reason that the Plaintiff shall be satisfied then the Executors keep the goods to their own use for it is Summa Injustitia nocentem habere totum lucrum innocentem totum damnum Second reason was that it is no satisfaction for the Defendant to dye
whole Court for they said that the Demand must be made at the place of payment although it be of the Land FIeld versus Hunt Mich. 5. Jacobi Hunt in VVorcester Court obtained a Judgement after a Verdict in Debt upon a Contract for twenty Sheep and after it was removed by a Writ of Error into the Kings Bench and generall Errors assigned but upon opening the Errors it was shewed the Court that there was no Declaration in VVorcester Court for the Declaration was thus Raphael Hunt complains against H. Field of a Plea that he render to him twenty pounds which he owes unto him and unjustly detains and whereof the same Plaintift by M. his Attorney whereas the said Defendant c. and by Fennor VVillams and Cook it is no Declaration for Default of this word Dicit and the sense is imperfect and although Yelverton objected that a Declaration is sufficient if it be good to a common intent and Quer. being writ short it may be Queritur and then it is and whereof the same complaines but the Court held that would not help for it is not certain to whom the word Idem should refer whether to the Plaintiff or Defendant and of the two it should rather refer to the Defendant which is the next Antecedent and the Court held it matter of substance which is wanting and therefore naught but if it had been 4. and whereof the same Raphael quer being writ short it had been good for because the party Plaintiff is certainly named and then Quer. could have no other sense then Queritur and Judgement reversed which mark HArrison versus Fulstow Mich. 5. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought Action of Debt for fourscore and six pounds in the Common Pleas against T. Harrison and the Capias was continued accordingly against T. Harrison but the Plur. capias was against William Harrison which was the very name of the Defendant and that was but for fourscore and five pounds which varied from the first Entry and William Harrison appeared upon the Exigent and the Plaintiff declares against William and he pleads and they are at Issue by the name of William and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and Judgement accordingly against William and upon a Writ of Error it was assigned for Error that the Original did not maintain the Proceedings for the Original is against Tho. and the Proceedings against William and the Plaintiffs Counsel would have excused it because the Judgement being against William and the Original against Tho. as it is certified it cannot be the Original against William and so the Judgement against William being without Original it is aided by the Statute after a Verdict but the Court held it to be Error for there is great Difference between no Original and a naughty Original for the want of an Original is helped but not a vitious Original and Judgement was reversed for upon Diminution alleadged that this Original was certified as the Original in that Suit or else there was no Obtulit at all LOthbury versus Humfrey Mich. 5. Jacobi Lothbury and his Wife Administratrix of VV. R. brought an Action of Debt as Administrator upon an Obligation of forty Marks dated 4. April 38 Eliz. made by the Defendant to the Intestate 1. the Defendant pleades that Ridge the Intestate October the first Jacobi made his Will and made the Defendant his Executor and devised the Obligation and the Money therein contained to one H. Son of the Defendant and died after whose Death the Defendant takes upon him the burthen of the Executorship and administers divers Goods of Ridges and that he is ready to aver this to which Plea the Plaintiff demurrs generally and adjudged for the Plaintiff for the Defendants Plea is not good without a Traverse that Ridge died intestate For the Action is brought as Administrator and they count upon a dying intestate and that being the ground of the Action ought to be traversed as it is 9 H. 6. 7. Debt brought against one as Administrator of J. and counts that J. died intestate the Defendant pleads that J. made his Will and made him Executor and held no Plea without a Traverse and the same Law 7 H. 6. 13. Debt brought against one R. Executor of R the Defendant pleads that R. died intestate at such a place and held no Plea for if the Plaintiff maintain that R. made the Defendant Executor and the other say that R. died intestate at such a place this makes no Issue and therefore the Defendant ought to traverse that R. died intestate without that that he made him Executor and 4 H. 7. 13. the very Case in question is adjudged that such a Plea in Barr is not good without a Traverse to wit to say without that that R. died intestate according to the 3 H 7. 14. and this was agreed by the whole Court without Argument CHeyney versus Sell Mich. 5. Jac. Cheyney as Executor of Cheyny brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Sell the case was that the Testator had put himself as an Apprentice to Sell for seven years and Sell bound himself to pay to his Apprentice his Executors or Assignes 10 l. at the time of the end or determination of his Apprentiship the Apprentice serves six years and then dies and it was moved by Towse that the Money was due at the time of his Death because then his Apprentiship ended for he said if a man make a Lease for one and twenty years to another and oblige himself to pay to the Lessee ten pounds at the end and expiration of his Term and within those years the Lessor infeoffes the Lessee so the term expires and the ten pounds should be paid instantly but Cook denied that Case because the Lessee hastened the end of his terme but he said that if a man lease Land to another for seven years if the Lessee should so long live and the Lessor oblige himself to pay ten pounds at the end of his terme and he die within seven years there he was of opinion the Money was presently due upon his Death but in the principal case the whole Court held the chief Justice being absent that the Obligation was discharged and that the Money should notbe paid WIllot versus Spencer Mich. 9. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt for Tithes of Wood upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. and Forster argued that Judgement ought not to be given for the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff did not shew in his Plaint that he was Parson for he ought to bring his Action according to that name that he claimed the Tithes by and this ought to be expressed in the Queritur and therefore if a man bring his Action to recover any thing as Heir Executor or Sheriff he ought to name himself so in the Queritur 30 H. 6. 9 H. 4. but Towse said the same Exception was taken between Merrick and Peters and disallowed Fleming Justice said
that if it had been by Writ he must have shewed it but need not it being by Plaint if the truth appear in that and if a man bring his Action as Assignee he need not shew it in his Plaint if the truth appear in the Declaration but it is otherwise in an Original and a Plaintiffe in Kings Bench as an originall but not in all things and if the Plaint be incertain the Defendant in that Court shall plead in Abatement of the Plaint as to an Original in the Common Pleas and at last two Presidents were shewen one between Champion and Hill and the other between Merrick and Wright that were allowed without naming of the Plaintiff Rector in the Queritur and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff by the whole Court Note it was agreed by all the Court of Kings Bench Mich. 5. Jac. and hath many times been ruled that if a man sell his Tithes for years by word it is good but if the Parson agree that one shall have his Tithes for seven years by word it is not good by the opinion of Fleming Cheif Justice because it amounts to a Lease and he held strongly that Tithes cannot be leased for years without a Deed. COb versus Hunt Hill 5. Jac. Cob sued a Prohibition in the Common Pleas against Hunt Parson of D. in Kent and suggests a Modus demandi as to part of the Tithes demanded against him in the Spiritual Court and as to the residue suggests a Contract executed and performed between him and the Parson in satisfaction of the residue and because he proved not his Suggestion within six Moneths Hunt the Parson had a Consultation and Costs assessed by the Court to fifty shillings and Damages fifty shillings by the Statute of the 2 E. 6. they shall be doubled but in truth no Judgement was given to recover them because these words Videlicet Ideo considerat fuit qd recuperet was omitted yet Hunt thinking that all was certain and perfect brought an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas for the Costs c. and declared of all the matter above and that the Damages were assessed upon which it was adjudged that he should recover c. and that the Costs were not paid Per quod Actio c. And had a Judgement against Cob by Non sum informat and thereupon Cob brought his Writ of Error as well in the Record and Processe c. of the Prohibition as of the Record and Processe in the Action of Debt for the Costs and assigne the general Error but Yelverton assignes two Errors in special first that there was no Judgement in the Prohibition for Recovery of the Costs but onely an Assessement of Costs without any more which is not sufficient for the Assessement of Costs onely is but matter of Office in Court but no Judgement of Court to binde which was confessed by the whole Court The second Error was that no Costs ought to be assessed or adjudged in the Cause above because the Prohibition is grounded solely upon the Modus decimandi which needs proof and upon the Contract between the parties which requires no proof and the Suggestion being intire and part of it needing no proof they could not give any Costs for that is onely where the whole matter in the Suggestion needs proof and therefore the mixing the Contract with the manner of Tithing priviledges the whole as to the matter of Costs but they might grant a Consultation as to that part of the Suggestion which concerned the manner of Tithing but not for the rest which was granted by the whole Court and so both the Judgements were reversed which mark MArkham versus Mollineux Hill 1. Jac. Mollineux sued out an Original in the Common Pleas in an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Markham by the name of John Markham Alderman de D. and all the mean Processe are continued against him by the name of Alderman Markham he appeared and the Plaintiff declared against him by the name of Markham of D. Esquire and afterwards the parties were at Issue and it was found for the Plaintiff and Judgement entred and it was reversed by Writ of Error because it did not appear that that Markham was the same Markham against whom the Original was prosecuted and the Processe continued but it seemed rather that he was another person by reason of his severall Additions of Alderman and Esquire which mark OLiver versus Collins Pasch 6. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon the Statute for not setting forth of Tithes and shews that he is Parson of the Parish Church of Little Lavar in Com. Essex and that the Defendant had so many Acres within the Parish of Little Lavor sowed with Wheat whereof the tenth severed from the ninth part came to eight and twenty pounds and shews that the Defendant at Little Lavor aforesaid took and carried away the Wheat without setting forth the Tithes contrary to the Statute by reason whereof he forfeited threescore Pounds and upon Nil debet pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Judgement first that the Statute was mis-recited for whereas the the Plaintiff declared that the 4. Novemb. 2 E. 6. it was inacted it was said that there was no such Statute for the Parliament commenced 1 E. 6. and continued by prorogation untill the 4. Novemb. 2 E. 6. and therefore the Plaintiff was mistaken in that but that Exception was not allowed for there were an hundred Presidents against it and in respect of the continual use in that form as the Plaintiff had declared the Court said that they would not alter it for that was to disturb all the Judgements that were ever given in that Court. And secondly it was objected that the matter was mis-tried and there ought to be a new Triall because the Venire facias was of Parva Lavar whereas by their pretence it ought to have been of the Parish of Little Lavar to which Yelverton made Answer that the Triall was well enough for by that Action no Tithe is demanded nor recovered but the Defendant is onely punished for his Contempt against the Statute in not setting forth his Tithe and the wrong done to the Plaintiff complained of is laid onely in the Village of Little Lavor and not in the Parish for all the places in the Declaration where the Parish is named are onely matter of Conveyance and inducement to the Action and not of the substance for the substance is onely that where the wrong and grievance is done to the Plaintiff and that arises onely in Parua Lavor which was granted by the whole Court upon a grand Debate at severall Dayes and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff and the like Judgement was given between Barnard and Costerdam in an Action upon the same Statute upon the last point for the Venn and this hath been twice adjudged but in Costerdams Case which concerned the Earl