that the Plea is not good Harris argued for the Defendant for three reasons 1. Because by the Lease this was included vide 21 H 6. 61. grant of Conuzance c. gives power to make a Steward tempore E. 1. Fitz. 41. 2 E. 2. Bar 237. grant to fish in a Pond yet he cannot make a Trench 2. The Coles are the Inheritance and the bettering of them is the bettering of the Inheritance 3. For the profit of the Common-wealth 14 H 8. 18. 20 Eliz Dyer 361. Altams case Trench to make a Meadow the better is no wast vide 22 H 6. 6. digging of certain Loads of Gravell for the amending of the Land vide 12 H 4 5. And for telling this ought not to be answered any other way then by justifying of the Imployment and the Plaintiff may reply upon the sale if he will and the case is long debated 5 E 4. 10. vide Dyer 37. Malenders case And the last day of this Term the Lord Hobart declared that we were all of opinion that the Plea is not good for there though the Lease be of Mines and by vertue therof the Lessee might open new Mines as in Sanders case Coke lib 5. fol. 12. there it shall be intended of new Mines which in themselves is wast if it had not been by speciall words And the digging of a Mine is an impairing of the Inheritance and a great benefit to the Lesses and therfore if Lessee for years build a new house if he cut Trees off the same Lands for the making therof it is wast 17 E 2. Fit wast 118. And no more then one may make a Brick Kilne and burn Brick or a Lyme Kilne and burn Lyme with wood growing upon the ground and sell the Brick or Lyme no more may the Defendants in this case cut down wood for the making and supporting of these Mines for Coles which they sell vide 41 E 3. 17. And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Edmonds Case MEmorand That at the Assises holden at Winchester in Lent 15 Jac. one William Edmonds was indicted of Burglary because that he Burglariter and feloniously did break the house of one Richard Heydon in the night at Ramsey Burglary and the Iury gave a speciall Verdict We find that Richard Heydon and Christian his Wife were both in Bed and at rest in an upper Chamber in the Mansion house of the said Richard Heydon and that the said William Edmonds then was and yet is the Servant and Apprentice of the said Richard and that he then lay in another Chamber of the said house remote from the Bed-chamber of his said Master and Dame and that there was a Door with a Latch at the Stairs foot of the said Bed-chamber of the said Heydon but none at the Stair-head being the entrance into the said Bed-chamber of the said Heyedon We find that the said William at the said time in the Indictment drew the Latch of the Stair-foot door and opened the said door being then latched and went up the Stairs and entred into the Bed-chamber of his said Master with an intent to murther the said Heydon and that he did then and there with an Hatchet with an intent to murther his said Master strike and grievously wound him and gave him fifteen wounds on the head and other parts of his body And if upon the whole matter c. And this speciall Verdict was shewn by the Lord chief Baron Tanfield unto all the Iudges of Serjeants Inne in Chancery Lane viz. Iustice Warburton Crook Baron Bromely Iustice Dodderidge Houghton Winch and Hutton And they all besides Winch which doubted agreed that it was Burglary and afterwards in the same Term at a meeting in Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet it was shewn to Mountague Hobart and Denham which concurred Mich 16 Jac. Staffords Case FAlse Imprisonment was brought by Sir John Stafford the Defendant justifie Matter of Record tryed by the Country that Bristoll is an ancient City and that time wherof memory c. there hath been a Court holden there before the Sheriffs c. and justifie that there was a Plaint levied and Iudgment and that the now Plaintiff was taken in execution The Plaintiff replyed Quod non fuit aliqua querela levata according to the custom and requires this Quod inquiratur c. And it was tryed at Bristoll and found for the Plaintiff and damages twenty six pounds And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that this being matter of Record viz. the entry of the Plaint in a Court of Record it shall be tryed by the Record and not by the Country And it was adjudged that the tryall was good because that it is not meerly Record but whether it was according to the Custom And Non prosecutus est ullum breve is tryable by the Country Quaere if the King grant by Patent to hold plea under forty shillings if it be a Court of Record Sir Walter Rawleys Case MEmorand that on Friday the 23. of October upon conference between all the Iustices of England whether a privy Seal was sufficient it being directed to the Iustices of the Kings Bench to command them to award execution against Sir Walter Rawley which was attainted of Treason at Winchester Mich. 1 Jacobi How Prisoners which are attainted of Treason set at large shall be brought to execution before Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer or how they should proceed before execution be awarded It was resolved by all that he ought to be brought to Bar by Habeas Corpus to the Lieutenant of the Tower and then demanded if he could say any thing why execution should not be awarded for the proceedings against him being before Commissioners they are delivered only into the Court of Kings bench or they might have remained in a Bag or a Chest and no Roll made therof and so long time passing it is not a Legall course that he should be commanded by a privy Seal or great Seal to be executed without being demanded what he hath to say for he might have a pardon or he might say that he is not the same person As if one be Outlawed of Felony and taken he shall not be presently hanged but he shall be brought to Bar and so demanded c. And upon this resolution a privy Seal came to the Iustices of the Kings Bench commanding them to proceed against him according to Law And therupon a Habeas Corpus was awarded and Octob 28. he came to the Bar being brought by the Lievtenant and there he was demanded of whether he had any thing to say why c. and there he shewed that the King had imployed him as Generall of a Voyage and hath given him power De vita membris upon others And whether this did amount to a pardon or no he knew not The Attorney-generall said that the King pardoned no Treasons by any Implication but it ought to be by speciall words Then he said
Yelverton and I were opinion that the Debt is gone for it is at the suit of the King and Iudgment is given for the King And there shall be an answer to the King And we relyed upon the cases vouched by the Lord Coke but Iustice Harvey and Crook to the contrary And upon conference with all the Iustices of Serjeants Inne it was resolved that this action was at the suit of the party for he might be Non-suited vide 25 H 8. Br. Non-suit that the Informer may be Non-suited vide 6 E. 2. Fitz Non-suit 13. when the Iury come again to deliver their Verdict the King cannot discharge them and be Non-suited and the King cannot discharge this action And his Attorney reply not as in an Information Clotworthy versus Clotworthy Amendments Debt SImon Clotworthy brought an action of Debt against John C. Cosin and Heir of Bartholmew C. And the Imparlance Roll is Quod cum praedictus B. cujus consanguineus heres idem Johannes est viz. filius Johannis Clotworthy fratris praedicti B. C. And upon the Plea Roll upon which Iudgment is given this space was perfected and Iudgment for the Plaintiff and now the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and it was moved to be amended And if the Imparlance Roll shall be amended which is the foundation of the subsequent Rolls is the question For it is commonly holden that the Plea Roll shall he amended by the Imparlance but not e converso Hil. 18 Jac. Rot. 67â— Walker versus Worsley Amendments WAlker brought an action of Debt against Worsley Debt as Son and Heir of Thomas W. in the Imparlance Roll which was entred Mich 18 Jac Rot 576. the words which bind the Heir were omitted viz. Ad quam quidem solutionem obligasset se Heredes suos but they were in the Plea Roll And after Iudgment that was assigned for Error in the Kings Bench and it was amended in the Common Bench by the Court vide there that it was by the fault and mis-prision of the Clerk who had the Obligation and so amendable by the Statute of 8 H 6. cap 15. 1. Hil. 9 Jac. Rot. 516. Govard versus Dennet GOvard against Dennet and Iudgment and the name of the Attorney viz. Henry was omitted in the Imparlance Roll and it was in the Plea Roll Henry and after Error brought it was amended Mich. 16 Jac. Rot. 581. Arrowsmith's Case THe Imparlance Roll Trin 16 Jac Rot 1727. Debt for three hundred pounds against Arrowsmith for part sur emisset and the other part sur in simul computasset And in the Imparlance Roll both parcells did not amount to three hundred pounds but wanted six pounds therof and after Error brought it was amended Pasch 12 Jac. Rot. 420. Godhow versus Bennet REplevin by Godhow against Bennet divers spaces in the Imparlance Roll were supplyed in the Plea Roll after Verdict Hil. 12 Jac. Rot. 420. Parker versus Parker THe Imparlance Roll was Mich 12 Jac Rot 547. Parker against Parker in Trover and Conversion the Imparlance Roll wanted the day and year of the possession and conversion but the Issue Roll was after the Verdict and motion in Arrest of Iudgment amended Mich. 2 Car. Crocker versus Kelsey JOhn Canterson and Agnes his Wife Tenants in speciall tail had Issue a Son Lease made by Feme in speciall tail viz. John and John the Father died John the Son levied a Fine with Proclamations to the use of himself in Fee Agnes leased to John Herring and Margaret his Wife Lessors to the Plaintiff for one and twenty years rendring Rent c. by vertue wherof they entred Agnes died John the Son entred and afterward the said John Herring and Margaret his Wife entred And the said John the Son made his Will in writing and by that devised the Land to Kelsey the Defendant and another in Fee and died John Herring and Margaret leased to Crocker the Plaintiff who entred and being ousted by Kelsey brought Ejectione firmae And this speciall Verdict being found Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and now affirmed upon Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber Mich. 2 Car. Franklin versus Bradell FRanklin a Woman servant brought an action upon the case upon a promise against John Bradell Consideration in an Assumpsit ex post facto And count that wheras she had served the Defendant and his Wife and done to them loyall service the Defendant after the death of his Wife in consideration of the service which the Plaintiff had done to the Defendant and his Wife promised to pay her thirteen shillings four pence upon request and alledged request and non-payment And after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment upon the Book of 13 Eliz. Dyer that this is no sufficient consideration because that it is not alledged that the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant had served him Also it was not sufficient because that it was done after the service performed And it was answered that it was a good consideration and that the service was to the benefit of the Defendant And therfore in consideration that the Plaintiff had married the Daughter of the Defendant he promise to pay twenty pounds it is a good consideration and so in consideration that you have been my surely to such a man for such a Debt I promise to save you harmlesse And in consideration that the Plaintiff was Baile for the Defendant he promised to give him a Horse this is good And in consideration that I.S. being a Carpenter had well built my house I promise to give him five pounds And Iudgment for the Plaintiff Hil. 2 Car. Hearne versus Allen. Entred 22 Jac Rot 1875. Oxford 1. RIchard Hearne brought an Ejectione firmae against John Allen Ejectione firmae for two acres of Land in Langham upon a Lease made by Anne Keene which was the Wife of Edward Keene and upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was found Richard Keene was seised of an house in Chippin-norton Devise and of two acres of Land there in Fee and of two acres of Meadow in Langham in Fee used with the said Messuage which were holden in Socage And by his Will in writing dated the 20. May 30 Eliz. he devised the said house Cuni omnibus singulis ad inde pertinentibus vel aliquo modo spectantibus to Tho. K. and his Heirs for ever And for want of Heirs of him the said Thomas then to one Anne K. the Daughter of the Devisor and her Heirs for ever And for default c. then to Iohn K. his Cosin and his Heirs for ever And by the same Will devised his Goods and all his Lands to Eliz. his Wife during her Widow-hood and died Elizabeth his Wife entred Thomas the Son entred upon the Wife and disseised her and having enfeoffed one Edward K. in Fee died and Tho. K. also died without Issue Edward K. by his Will devised
And the proof therof see Coke lib 6. fol 19. Gregories case and Dyer 236. a. Then the principall and sole point will be if this Offence will be by the act of 33 H 8. cap 10. made presentable and punishable by the Iustices of Peace at their six weeks Sessions and it was unanimously agreed that it is not First because the preamble of the act recite that the Offences recited therin escape punishment and for their more speedy and effectuall punishment and repeat the particulars but therin name not Brewers by expresse words and it cannot be intended that the intent of the Statute was to give them at their six weeks Sessions to intermeddle with things not determinable at their generall Sessions And it was objected by Aâ—tho that Lambert and Crompton had put it as an Article of their charge To which it was answered that it was in some respect inquirable at Common Law viz. Misdemeanors in Bear-brewers Conspiracies and agreements to sell at such prises and the making of wholsome Beer Also it might be that they â—ake the Law to be upon the Statute of 23 H 8. that the Sessions being a Court of Record was within this act that saies in any Court of Record And then if it be not suable by Information before the Iusticeâ— of Peace the consequence is plain that the Statute of 21 Jac. cap 4. extends not therto and the Statute of 37 of H 8. makes not any thing in this case but tolls the six weeks Sessions and makes it inquirable at the generall Sessions Ideo Iudgment for the Informer June 19. An. 22. Jac. MEmorand That upon a Conference at Serjeants Inn in Fleet-street it was resolved and agreed by the Lord chief Iustice Sir James â—ea the Lord Hobart Baron Bromley Baron Denham Iustice Hutton and Iustice Jones That any one may erect an Inn for lodging of Travellers without any allowance or License Resolutions concerning Innes and who may keep an Inne and how they may be suppressed as well as any one before the Statute of 2 E 6. might have kept a Common Alehouse or as at this day one may set up to keep hackney Horses or Coaches to be hired by such as will use them And all men may convert Barley into Mault untill they be restrained by the act of Parliament made for that purpose And as all men may set up Trades not restrained by the Act of 5 Eliz. which directeth no man that hath not been bound or served as an Apprentice by the space of seven years or by restraint of setting up Trades in Corporations by such as be not free by the like reason all men may use the Trade of Inne-keeping unlesse it could be brought to be within the Statute of 2 E 6. which hath never been taken to be subject to that Statute in point of license And vide that an Hostler is chargable to the party which is his Guest for the restoring of that which is lost in his House and that by the Common Law of the Realm vide 11 H 4. fol 45. see also 11 H 4. fol 47. That in an action upon the case brought by the School-master of Glocester for erecting another School to his prejudice adjudged that no action lies and also it is there said that if I have a Mill and another erect another Mill by which I lose my Custom no action lies unlesse he disturb the water And it was said by the chief Iustice that it was so resolved before by the Iudges and that Iustice Doderidge Iustice Haughton and Iustice Chamberlain were of the same opinion and so now was my Brother Crew the Kings Serjeant who went the Circuit of Surrey Kent and Essex but the chief Baron Tanfield was of a contrary opinion And it seemed to him that Innes were licensed at first and Originally by the Iustices in Eire but nothing could be shewne to that purpose But all the Iustices were of a contrary opinion and said that that was the ground that begot the Patent and Commission to Mounperson viz. That the King might licence them if the Iudges might And it was said by the Lord chief Iustice that there was not any such thing in the Eires but because that strangers which were aliens were abused and evilly intreated in the Inns it was upon complaint therof provided that they should be well lodged and Inns were assigned to them by the Iustices in Eire The second question was if an Inn be erected in a remote and inconvenient place so that it is dangerous to Travellers and there harbour men of bad same which are apt to commit Robbery whether that might be suppressed And as to that all agreed that it is a common Nusance and may be suppressed and that to be by Indictment and presentment to which the party may have his Traverse The third question was whether when one which had erected an Inn be a man of bad behaviour and such a person as is not fit to keep an Inn how it should be aided and helped And it was agreed by all that upon Indictment or presentment therof he may have his Traverse and if he be convicted then to be suppressed viz. that he which had so misdemeaned himself should not keep it as an Inn nor use it But that it being an Inn it may be used afterwards by another Fourthly how and by what way or means the multitude of Inns might be prevented by being suppressed or redressed upon complaint or how the number might be stinted This Point seemed to be difficult and to contradict the resolution upon the first question And therfore it was agreed that they should advise concerning it and the best way is that they be strictly inforced to keep the Assise and not to suffer any to tipple in their Inns and by this way they would desist from their Trade Mich. 4 Car. Mackerney versus Ewrin RIchard Mackerney brought an action upon the case against Jeffrey Ewrin and count Case That whereaâ— one I. S. was indebted to the Plaintiff in seven pounds four shillings for pasture feeding and Oates for an Horse kept in the Stable of the Plaintiff Consideration in an Assumpsit The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff at his request would deliver the Horse to him to the use of the said John S. promised to pay the said seven pounds four shillings And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff Serjeant Callis moved in Arrest of Iudgment that it is no good consideration for the Plaintiff had not any property in the Horse and he is not is do any other thing then the Law injoyn him to do As if I lose my goods and another find them and in consideration that he will deliver them to me I promise to pay him two hundred pounds that is not sufficient matter to ground an Assumpsit therupon But if a Taylor had made a Sute of Apparell for I. S. and I. D. request him to deliver it
if Rent he reserved at the time of the Distresse and it be refused and a Distresse taken that is Tortious 30 Ass 36. 20 H 6. 31. 48 E 3. 9. 2 H 6. 4. And in this case it was said that Reddenda singula singulis that the demand shall be used when the Penalty of the Rent comes in question and not for the Rent And though it be reserved payable at another place thal changeth not the Rent but it is issuable out of the Land and distrainable upon the Lands And lastly it hath been divers times adjudged that the Rent is payable upon the Land 1 Jac Rot 1818. Nich and Langford Skinner and Amery Borman and Bower In Replevin between Nich and Langford Trin 16 Jac. Rot. 954. Between Skinner and Amery vide before between Crawley and Kingswell Trin 3 Car Rot 2865. Rent reserved payable out of the Land And although that the Iudgment is by confession after demurrer yet it was for the reason afore recited Iudgment for the Defendant The Lord Audley's Case Wilts JUratores pro Domino rege super sacramentum suum present Quod Martinus Dominus Audley nuper de Fountell Gifford in Comitatu Wilts Aegideus Broadway de Fountell Gifford praedict in Comitatu praedicto generosus timorem Dei prae oculis suis non habentes Indictment for Rape sed Instigatione Diabolica moti seducti vicessimo die Junii Anno regni Domini nostri Caroli dei Gratia Angliae Scotiae Franciae Hiberniae fidei defensoris sexto Apud Fountell Gifford praedict Comitatu praedicto vi armis c. in super Annam Dominam Audley Uxorem praefati Domini Martini Audley in pace Dei dicti Domini Regis ibidem Existent insult fecerunt Et praedictus Aegidius Br. praedictam Annam Dominam Audley vi armis contra voluntatem ipsius Annae ad tunc ibidem violenter felonicae rapuit ac ipsam Annam ad tunc ibidem contra voluntatem suam violenter felonice carnaliter cognovit contra pacem Domini Regis nunc coron dignitat suas contra formam statuti in hujusmodi casu edit provis Et ultim Juratores praedicti dicunt super sacramentum suum praedict Quod praedictus Martinus Dominus Audley praedicto vicesimo die Junii An. sexto supradicto Apud Fountell Glifford praedictam in Comitatu praedicto felonice fuit presens auxilians Confortans abettans procurans â—adjuvans manutenens praedictum Egidium Br. ad feloniam praedictum in forma praedicta felonice faciend perpetrand contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc Coronam dignitatem suas ac contra formam statuti praedicti Wilts IUratores pro Domino Rege super sacramentum suum present Quod Martinus Dominus Audley nuper de Fountell Gifford in Comitatu Wilts Deum prae oculis non habens nec naturae ordinem respiciens Indictment for Buggery sed instigatione Diabolica motus seductus primo die Junii An. Regni Domini nostri Caroli c. sexto Apud Fountell Gifford praedictam in dicto Comitatu Wilts in domo Mansionali ejusdem Martini Domini Audley ibidem vi armis in quendam Florence Fitz-Patrick Yeoman insult fecit cum eodem Florente F. ad tunc ibidem nequit Diabolice felonice contra naturam rem veneream habuit ipsumque F. ad tunc ibidem carnaliter cognovit peccatumque illud Sodomiticum detestabile abominandum Anglice vocat Buggery inter Christianos non nominandum ad tunc ibidem cum eodem Florence F. nequit Diabolice felonice contra naturam Commisit perpetravit in magnam Dei Omnipotentis displicentiam ac totius humani generis dedecus ac contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc Coronam dignitatem suâ—s contra formam statuti in hujusmodi casu edit provis The like Indictment for the same Offence with the same person 10 June the same year at new Sarum in the Mansion house of the said Martin c. Memorand That these Indictments were sound 6 April An. 7 Car. at new Sarum by vertue of a Commission before Edward Lord Georges Nich. Hide Knight chief Iustice ad placita c. Thomas Richardson chief Iustice de Banco John Denham Knight one of the Barons c. Edward Hungerford Knight Walter Vaughan Knight Laurence Hide Knight Thomas Fanshaw Knight by Letters Patents Ipsius Domini Regis pro eis quibuscunque tribus vel pluribus eorum inde Confect ad Inquirendum c. Memorand That the 25. day of April An. 7 Car. A Commission was made for the Arraignment of the said Lord Audley upon the said severall Indictments by his Peers in which the Lord Coventry Lord Keeper of the Great Seal was made high Steward And the Peers were in number twenty seven And he pleaded Not guilty And one question was propounded to the Iudges which did attend viz. The Lord chief Iustice of the Kings Bench the Lord chief Iustice of the Common Pleas the Lord chief Baron Baron Denham Iustice Jones Iustice Whitlock Iustice Harvey and Iustice Crook If the Wife might be produced as a Witnesse against her Husband Where a Wife may give Evidence against her Huâ—band And it was resolved that in case of a common person between party and party she could not according to the opinion in Cokes first Institutes fol 6. but between the King and the party upon an Indictment she may although it concerns the Feme her self as she may have the Peace against her Husband Buggary sans Penetration Also it was reported to the Lords by the Lord chief Iustice when they were demanded whether this matter of Fact being as it was proved that Pollution and using of a man upon his Belly Sodomitically without penetration was Buggery by the Statute of 25 H 8. the Lord Richardson was of a contrary opinion upon the Conference yet his opinion was involved in the generall But as he said to me their opinions we delivered only upon this case and upon these examinations if the Lords gave credit to the matter in fact that it was Buggery but they gave not a generall opinion that may be a rule in other cases but upon the foulnesse and abominablenesse of this Fact And afterwards the Lords were not unanimously resolved that it was Buggery but this Point was resolved that they ought to believe and give credit to the Law as the Iudges had declared it And it seems that they could not give a speciall Verdict upon this tryall for it never was seen Also the Commission determines after Iudgment given And the Staff of the high Steward shall be broken And after long debate they seriatim laying their hands upon their hearts as the Mannor is said that he was guilty of Rape beside the Lord North. And for the Buggaries twelve of the Lords acquitted him and fifteen found him guilty and so he had Iudgment And at
shall be indicted shall not have Councell And the Attorney Generall was commanded to report our opinion to the King And this hapned to be demanded upon the generall inconvenience that might after ensue in the Case of the Earl of Bristoll to whom the King had allowed Councell Mich. 3 Car. MEmorand That the fifth of November at Serjeants Inne in Fleet-street there assembled the Lord Hide Lord Richardson Lord Walter Iustice Doderidge Baron Denham Iustice Hutton Iustice Jones Resolves concerning Souldiers Iustice Whitlock Iustice Harvey Iustice Crook Iustice Yelverton and Baron Trevor to consider of a Case which was propounded which was One receives Presse-money to serve the King in his Wars and is in the Kings Wages and with others is delivered to a Conductor to be brought to the Sea-side and with-draweth himself and runneth away without license The Question was if it were Felony And time being given before to advise concerning it all agreed besides Yelverton and my self that it was Felony And the sole question is if a Conductor be a Captain within the 7 H 7. cap 1. and the 3 H 8. cap 5. And they said that it is not necessary that he should be such a Captain as is to lead and command them in the War or that hath skill to instruct But such as hath the leading of them by agreement between the Deputy Lievtenants and them and that ought to provide for the Billeting of them and to carry them to the place of Randesvous And one part of a Captain is to conduct although that Conduxit be properly to hire a Souldier yet this name Conductor with whom it is so agreed by Indenture to conduct the Souldiers is a Captain within the intent of those Statutes and if it should not be so these Statutes which are for the defence of the Realm shall be of little force But it was agreed by them that if these Conductors which are so called of late times be hired to carry them but to one place and there another Conductor to receive them this is not within the Statute And it ought to be such a Conductor that can give license upon just cause to proceed It was said that they used to send Captains into the Country but then they were so chargable to the Country and full of disorder that upon complaint of the Iustices of Peace about 43 Eliz. this course was invented viz. That the Deputy Lievtenants should provide for them that were pressed for Coats and Conduct and they sent their Souldiers to a place appointed to be delivered to certain persons whom the Queen appointed to receive them And it was said that though this Case as it is propounded might be cleer yet there are many Circumstances which ought to be proved and that are loft to the discretion of them before that he should be tryed It was unanimously agreed that if one takes Presse-money and when he should be delivered over he withdraw himself that is not Felony although he is hired and retained to serve But my Brother Yelverton I were of opinion that this new name newly invented is not Captain within these penall Statutes which ought to be taken strictly vide Plowden 86. that penalties which concern life shall not be taken by equity but if they be within the words of the Statute then they shall As to kill his Mistresse is within the words for Mistresse is Master Another reason was that the Statutes provide punishment for Captains which want of their number or which pay not their Souldiers within six daies after they have received their pay upon pain of forfeiting all their Goods And the Statute did not intend other Captains in this point then was in the former and latter part therof But admitting that a Conductor is such a one to whom the Souldiers are delivered by Indenture with all Covenants usuall viz. To pay to them their Wages and to convey them to their appointed place and that he may give license to depart yet they agreed that it is the better and clearer way that they should be made Captains and so named in the Indentures for the King may change the Captain at his pleasure and then it should be no question It was agreed that 7 H 7. cap 1. extends only to them who are retained and pressed to serve the King upon the Sea or upon the Land beyond the Sea And the Statute of 3 H 8. cap 5. adds only the Land here And the Statute makes departure without license from the Captain Felony and the Statute 3 H 8. without license from the Lievtenant And the Statute of 7 H 7. makes the tryall to be in the County where they shall be taken before the Iustices of the Shire as they may try other Felonies within their Commission The Statute of 3 H 8. makes their tryall before the Iustices of the County where they are taken and this being a new Felony and made tryable against the Common Law which appoint tryals by Iurors of the County where the Fact is committed and appoint a speciall Iudge viz. Iustices of Peace that is only tryable before them and not before Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer who cannot try any thing but that which is done in the same County But this if all be not done in that County where they are taken makes it tryable only before the Iustices of Peace of the County where they are taken In this point all were not resolved but required longer-time vide 2 Inst 56. Sir Richard Champions Case A Writ of Covenant is prosecuted Jan 23. returnable Oct. Purisicat A Fine of Oct. Puris where the Caption was Feb. 14. 1. The Dedimus potestatem is tested 23 Jan the Iudge certifie the Concord takes Febr. 14. which is two daies after the Term at which time the Writ of Covenant is not depending the Fine is haec est finalis Concordia facta in Oct. Purif And after it is recorded in 15 Pasch and yet adjudged a good Fine vide the Statute of 23 Eliz. 3. Dyer 220. b. Carels Case Mich. 4 Car. Jones versus Powell JOhn Jones Plaintiff against James Powell Defendant in an action â—â— on the Case for a Nusance count That the Plaintiff 10. August 1 Caroli was and is and for forty years last past hath been possessed for divers years yet during of a Messuage Nusans 1. in which he and his family did by the time aforesaid dwell And by all that time hath been Register to the Bishop of Gloc. and kept his Office there that the said Defendant the tenth day of August and ever since hath held in possession another house over against the Plaintiffs And they being so possessed the Defendant the said 10. of Aug. erected a Brew-house and a Privy in the said house and burned Sea-coles in the said Brew-house so that by the Smoke stench and unwholsome vapors coming from the said Coles and Privy the Plaintiff and his family cannot dwell in the said house
and prayed Iudgment for he said the ancient Books were many for Iudgment conditionally but some to the contrary viz. when the Heir is vouched within the same County and is within age there Iudgment presently against the Tenant with a Cesset executio And when the Heir enter into the Warranty and is taken to render the Dower there is Iudgment against the Heir and that the Tenant shall hold in peace But he said that Mich Ashburnham against Skinner 38 39 Eliz. Rot. 1208. Mary Ashburnham brought Dower against Skinner who vouched the Heir of the Husband in the same County who presently entred en le garranty and said that he had no Assets there the Iudgment was given presently against the Tenant with a Cesset executio And after the Issue was tryed and found that the Heir had not Assets and the Wife had Execution but it was said that Error was brought therupon yet the Feme continued the Possession Henden said that the Tenant otherwise shall lose the benefit of his Warranty vide 13 H 4. Judgment 241. The Court adjudged this case for the Demandant upon view of the said President of 38 39 Eliz. And as this case is the Demandant upon necessity ought to have Execution because that the Tenant which ought to have the benefit of the Warranty made default And if it was so that the Vouchee was dead the Tenant shall not have any other Voucher for the Dower ought not to suffer delay And likewise when Iudgment is given against the Tenant with a Cesset executio all is one as a conditionall Iudgment against the Tenant for if Assets be found then Quia compertum est c. with Iudgment against the Heir and that the Tenant shall hold in peace It was objected that Iudgment ought to be conditionally at first and not to give one Iudgment against the Tenant and afterwards if Assets be found another Iudgment against the Heir but that is no inconvenience Some say that when such Iudgment is given against the Tenant with a Cesset executio there if Assets be found the Demandant shall not have execution against the Heir but against the Tenant and he shall have ad valentiam Quaere Potter versus Browne Case Words NIcholas Potter brought an action upon the case against Browne for these words spoken of the Plaintiff He is as arrant a Theef as any is in England and he broke up the Plummers Chest with other mens Tools which stood in my Lord of Suffolks house and took money out of it The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and Verdict for the Plaintiff And upon the motion of Henden to Arrest and Richardson to have Iudgment The Court resolved that the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment The first reason is because that there is not any affirmative directly that he is a Theef but as arrant a Theef as any is in England And avers not that there is any Theef in England And the Law will not presume any thing that is evill Iniquum in lege non presumitur And as Lacies case was He is as great a Theef as any is in Warwick Goal He ought to aver that there was a Theef there at the time of the speaking of the words And it is the same reason in this case Then the latter words are ambiguous and admit of a double interpretation and the better shall be taken Querens nil capiat per breve Mich. 22 Jac. Methell versus Peck MEthell brought an action upon the Case against Peck and count Case that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff had paid to one Playford forty pounds to the use of the Defendant Where the request of a collaterall thing shall be alledged and by his appointment he assured upon request to deliver an Obligation in which he and another should be obliged to the Plaintiff in a hundred pounds And that the Defendant Licet saepius postea requisitus did not deliver the said Obligation upon Non assumpsit pleaded Verdict for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Hitcharn that the Plaintiff had not alledged any sufficient request by shewing such a day and such a place which is issuable And being collaterall matter the request is part of the substance of the action But where it is upon Debt or Contract and not severed from the duty then a Licet saepius requisitus is sufficient But the Court were of opinion that the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment and yet they agreed the diversity when a Request shall be alledged as part of the thing to be performed and when it is but implyed in the Debt For when it is collaterall there it ought to be alledged and for the time it is sufficient viz. Postea but the place of the Request is omitted And if Issue had been tendred therupon it might be supplyed afterwards where it shall be tryed where the action was brought And Non assumpsit allowes the request as if the Defendant had pleaded concord and satisfaction the Request is not to be proved in Evidence vide 10 H 7. 16. But it is said that this Judgment was reversed in the Kings Bench because that the Request being upon Collaterall matter which was the cause of the Action it is materiall Mich. 22 Jac. Ejectione firmae AN Ejectione firmae brought and counted upon a Lease at Haylesam of Tenements there The Defendant pleads that Haylesam ubi tenementa praedicta jacent is within the Cinque-Ports Ubi breve Domini Regis non currit and plead to the Iurisdiction The Plaintiff reply Town shall be intended al the Town that the Tenements are in the County of Lancaster absque hoc that the Town of Haylesam is within the Cinque-Ports wherupon the Defendant demur and adjudged no cause of demurrer For Haylesam is all Haylesam and the Court will not intend any Fractions in the Town viz. that part shall be in the Cinque-Ports and part without as it was affirmed the truth was but that ought to come upon the shewing of the Defendant an his Bar vide 50 E 3. 5. Sir William Ellinghams case Defend respond oust THE FIRST YEAR OF KING CHARLES Termino Pasch Hitcham versus Brook SIR Robert Hitcham Serjeant at Law and to the King Case brought an action upon the case against one Brook a Iustice of the Peace and which had been Sheriff of Suffolk and count that he for divers years last past had been one of the Kings Serjeants and had demeaned himself well and loyally in the discharge of his duty and had gained good opinion and had acquired by his practice a good Estate for the maintenance of him and his Family The Defendant said Words I doubt not but to prove that the Plaintiff hath spoken Treason Innuendo Treason against the King Verdict was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that these words are not actionable First because no time is alledged
and Iudgment against the Plaintiff 8 E 4. 3. 21 E 4 2. Lit. 264. b. 20 E 4. 17. If the Debtee makes the Debtor and others his Executors the Debt is discharged Mich 9 Car. Banco Regis Rot 373. Anne Dorchester Executrix of Anne Row Dorchester and Webb Plaintiff against William Webb in Debt upon an Obligation of five hundred pounds the Defendant demanded Oyer wherby it appears that the Defendant and one John Dorchester were obliged joyntly and severally in the said Obligation The Defendant plead in Bar that the said John Dorchester made the Plaintiff his Executrix who proved the Will and had Goods sufficient in her hands to pay the said Debt The Plaintiff reply that before the death of the said Anne Row the Obligee she had fully Administred all the Goods of the said John Dorchester Demurrer and Iudgment for the Plaintiff And in this case it is not shewn that the said Francis and Peter or any of them proved the Will of the said Obligee or that they administred his goods or that they had any goods of the Obligor to administer at the time of the death of the Obligee as it ought to have been shewn And the said Francis Executor of the Obligee and also of the Obligor refused to be Executor to the Obligee and never Administred and never meddled with the Goods of the Obligee and so the Debt is not released in Law as by the said Case and former Iudgment appears This case had been often argued by Serjeant Hedley and of the other part by Serjeant Hitcham and affirmed that once Iudgment was given for the Defendant but it yet depends Trin. 12 Car. MEmorand Vpon Petition exhibited to the King by the Prisoners of quality which were in execution in the Fleet Liberty may not be given to Prisoners by force of a Habeas Corpus Kings Bench and Marshalsey to have liberty in the time of Infection and for preservation of their lives to have liberty by Writs of Habeas Corpus to go into the Country upon security to be given to the Warden and Marshall for their return The King out of his great care of their safety referred their Petition to the Lord Keeper Coventry and that he with the advice of the Iudges should consider by what way it might be done And the eighteenth day of June we attended the Lord Keeper at Durham-house And therupon conference and consideration of a former Resolution which was at Reading in Mich. Term last before the said Lord Keeper where were present all the Iudges besides my self That these abusive Habeas Corpus were not lawfull and that the Warden and Marshall were then called and warned that they should not suffer their Prisoners to go into the Country as they had used to do by colour of such Writs This which followes was subscribed WEE are of Opinion that the Writ of Habeas Corpus is both Ancient and Legall But as the Writ doth not so no Rule can Authorize the Keeper of the Prison to give liberty to his Prisoner by colour of such Writ but the same is an abuse against Law and an Escape in the Keeper if he let the Prisoner go by such Writ We find that neither in the twenty fourth year of Eliz. when the Term was Adjourned to Hertford Nor in the 34. of Eliz. in which year it was Adjourned to Hertford Nor in the 35. of Eliz. in which year it was Adjourned to St. Albans Nor in 1 Jac. in which year the Term was Adjourned to Winchester Nor in the first of King Charles in which year it was Adjourned to Reading In all which years there were great and dangerous Infections of the Plague there was no such course to set Prisoners out of Prison by Habeas Corpus but we find it a Novelty begun of late years But We think that if the danger of Infection shall grow so great as it shall be found necessary to provide for the safety of the Prisoners who may at all times provide for themselves by paying their Debts and yeilding obedience to Justice then a course may be taken that some certaine house may be assigned for the Warden of the Fleet in some good Town remote from the Infection and the like for the Marshall of the Kings Bench in some other Town where they may remove such Prisoners as have been Petitioners to his Majesty and there keep them as Prisoners Sub arcta salva Custodia as they should be kept in their proper Prisons and not to be as House-keepers in their own houses and by this means they will have the like to avoid the Infection as other Subjects have and not make the Infection a cause to abuse their Creditors or delude the course of Justice John Bramsion 1. Richard Hutton 2. George Crooke 3. George Vernon 4. Francis Crawley 5. Humph. Davenport 6. William Jones 7. Thomas Trevor 8. Robert Barkley 9. Richard Weston 10. To Sir John Bramston Knight Lord chief Justice of England My very good Lord I Have acquainted his Majesty with your resolution and your Brethren about Writs of HABEAS CORPUS his Majesty doth exceedingly approve the same And hath commanded me to let you know that his Majesty would not recede from that which you have certified And praies you and the rest of my Lords the Judges to observe it constantly attending to that resolution under your hands Hampton Court 19 June 1636. Your Lordships assured Tho. Coventrey C. S. Mich. 14 Car. MEmorand That 28. Aprilis 14 Car. Iustice Hutton argued in the Exchequer Chamber in the Case Adjourned thither upon a Scâ—re facias by the King against Hampden for Ship-money in which he was of opinion that as well for the matter as for the form upon divers exceptions to the pleading Iudgment should be given against the King Afterwards viz. 4. Maij. Thomas Hanson Batchelor of Divinity and Parson of Creake in Northamp came to the Court of Common Bench Iustice Hutton and Iustice Crawley then being there giving Rules and Orders and said Words against Justice Hutton I accuse Mr. Justice Hutton of high Treason for which he was committed to the custody of the Warden of the Fleet by Iustice Crawley and after by the direction of the King he was indicted in the Kings Bench and convicted and fined to five thousand pounds to the King And Iustice Hutton preferred his Bill against him there and recovered ten thousand pound Dameges Lord Digbies Case MEmorand That in the Parliament holden primo Car. It was resolved by the Iudges upon conference concerning the Lord Digby That when any Peer shall be proceeded against for Treason that ought to be by Indictment and that being done Where tryall of Treason by the Statute of 3 Jac. cap. 4. shall be and how then the King is to appoint a Peer to be Steward for the time and then to proceed to Arraign him or otherwise to transmit this Indictment by Certiorari to the Parliament and there
to proceed vide 10 E 4. 6. 1 H 4. 1. vide Coke Lit fol 261. b. Or otherwise to prefer a Bill in the Parliament which ought to be passed by both houses and then it is Attainder by Parliament and so it was done 5 R 2. 54. But in this Case it being that part of the Treason objected against him was supposed to be done Oust le mere and made Treason by the Act of 3 Jac cap 4. that cannot be tryed but by Indictment to be taken before the Iustices of Assise and Gaol-delivery where the party was taken or before the Iustices of the Kings Bench and Law Custome Statute or usage to the contrary notwithstanding And so it cannot be tryed by the Statute of 35 H 8. cap 2. in what place or Shire that the Kings Bench shall be for this Statute had for this Treason prescribed a speciall form of Tryall and the place where he shall be taken shall be expounded the place where he is misprisoned as upon the Statute of Soldiers And he which is charged to have two Wives living shall be tryed in the place where he is taken which is the place where he is imprisoned vide 2. Inst 49. Trin. 12 Car. Quaeries concerning Aliens QUaeries upon the Statutes of 1 Riz cap 9. 1 H 7. cap 2. 14 H 8 cap 2. the Decrees in the Star-chamber made 20 H 8. and confirmed 21 H 8. cap 16. 22 H 8. cap 8. 32 H 8. 16. and other Statutes concerning Aliens and the Statute of 5 Eliz cap 4. 1. Whether the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap 4. doth repeal the former Statutes concerning Aliens taking Apprentices Iourny-men and Servants 2. Whether Aliens made Denizens may use any handycraft within the Realm otherwise then as Servants to the Kings Subjects Memorand That on the seventh day of July We met at Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet Mr. Attorney-generall being there and We debated the matter and upon perusall of the Statute of 1 R 3. cap 9. and the other Statutes And upon some mis-recitall of the Statute 1 R 3. by the Statute 32 H 8. cap 16. And upon differences of the Printed Statute from the Parliament Roll as was supposed upon shewing of an old Book of Statutes which was in French and brought by my Brother Crook and upon the intricacy of the Statute We could not resolve on the suddain upon these Questions at this time nor unlesse the Parliament Roll might be seen But upon perusall of the Statute of 5 Eliz cap 4. We all resolved and agreed That all Aliens and Denizens are restrained by the Statute of 5 Eliz cap 4. That they may not use any Handycraft mentioned in the said Statute Resolves upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 4. concerning Aliens unlesse they have served seven years as Apprentices within this Realm according to the provision of this Statute This was set down in writing by Sir John Banks his Majesties Attorney Generall present Sir John Bramston chief Iustice of England Sir John Finch chief Iustice of the Common Bench Sir Humphrey Davenport chief Baron Baron Denham Iustice Hutton Iustice Crook Baron Trevor Iustice Crawley and Baron Weston the other Iudges being absent viz. Jones and Vernon Hil. 12 Car. Souser versus Burton ONe Widow Souser brought an action of the Case against Burton for these words Thou old Witch thou old Whore leave oft thy witching or else thou shalt be hanged or burned if I can do it And upon Not guilty pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment And it seemed to Lord Finch Hutton and Vernon that the action lay not without shewing that she did any act of Witchcraft for which the pain of Pillory and Imprisonment for two years should be inflicted and the second time Felony And that the words Words Thou art an old Witch or go away thou old Witch are usuall words and old Whore bears no action And as to say Thou shalt be hanged if I can do it it is not possible that he could do it But Iustice Crawley doubted of it at first because that it was alledged that it had been adjudged in the Kings Bench that an action lies for calling one Witch But afterwards he said that he had spoken with the Iustices of the Kings Bench of their reason who said that they adiudged no such thing unlesse that he spoke further that the party had done any act of Witchcraft punishable by the Statute Hugles versus Drinkwater AN action of Account by William Hugles against Thomas Drink-water for receit of eighteen pounds In Account payment by appointment of the Plaintiff is no plea before the Auditors where the Issue was Ne unques receivor by the hands of one William Appowell to the use of the Plaintiff the Defendant plead Ne unquer receivor per manus c. and found or the Plaintiff And the Defendant before the Auditors plead that he by the appointment of William Appowell had paid it to one John Marsh for the Debt of the Plaintiff and therupon Demurrer And adjudged a bad Plea and against his former Issue And the said Appowell by whose hands he received the said summ had not any power to appoint the Defendant to pay it to John Marsh to whom the Plaintiff was indebted and if that had been pleaded in Bar of the Account to have been done by the appointment of the Defendant it had been a good Bar vide Dyer 29. 196. after ne unques receivor and the truth was that he had been Receiver and had paid it over by the appointment of the party and yet by this Plea be hath lost the advantage therof An. 2. Car. MEmorand That the 19. day of May An 2 Car. all the Iudges being assembled at Serjeants Inn in Chancery Lane by the commandment of the King the Attorney Generall propounded In what cases a prisoner arraigned shall have Councell that the King would be satisfied by our opinion Whether any person which is arraigned of Treason of Felony ought by the Fundamentall Lawes of this Realm to have Councell And We all una voce answered That when any one is indicted of Felony or Treason or any other such offence the party ought not to have any Councell unlesse it be upon matter in Law as where he demand Sanctuary or plead any speciall matter and that is agreed by Stamford fol. 151. Also this extends as well to Peers of the Realm as to others vide 1 H 7. 23. and the 9 E 4. 2. and so it was agreed by all that although the party shall have Councell in an Appeal of Murther yet if he be non-suited and the party be arraigned upon the Declaration then he shall have no Councell Also it was resolved that when the party who prosecute suppose that the Grand Iury will not find the Invictment and therfore requires that the Evidence should be given publickly to the Iury at Bar which is sometime done yet the party who