Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	offence_n	peace_n	session_n	2,850	5	9.9973	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43467	Reports and cases taken in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh years of the late King Charles as they were argued by most of the King's sergeants at the Commonpleas barre / collected and reported, by that eminent lawyer, Sir Thomas Hetley Knight, sergeant at law, sometimes of the Honourable Society of Grayes-Inne, and appointed by the king and judges for one of he reporters of the law ; now Englished, and likewise of the cases, both alphabetical.	Hetley, Thomas, Sir.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.	1657 (1657)	Wing H1627; ESTC R10743	229,000	204

that every Inhabitant should pay 6 d. and some 7 d c. And because that that was not the proof of the suggestion Atthow prayed a consultation and by the Court upon that reason it was granted But it was agreed that if the modus was alleged 20 s. and proved 40 s. it is good because it is but to intitle the Court to the jurisdiction but in the principal case no modus is proved for it is meer incertainty More afterwards Farrington against Kemarre FArrington brought an information against Kemarre upon the statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 4. for selling of Beer for more than the Iustices assest And upon the issue of not-guilty joyned he had a verdict found for him against the Defendant Atthow moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Court had not Iurisdiction for that the Statute 21 Jacob. cap. 4. It is enacted That all informations which may be before the Iustices of peace nisi prius Assize Gaol delivery Dyer and Terminer shall be before them and not elsewhere And he said that an information for this matter may be before the Iustices of Peace c. But he argued upon the statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 10. 17 H. 8. cap 11. that they may inquire of Vagabonds c. Victuals and Victuallers and Inneholders So that the point is whether it was an offence within the Statute of 33 H. 8. For if there be an Information it is given by express words But that statute does not oust the Iurisdiction of this Court but the Subject had his Election until the Statute of 21 Jac. which confirms such Informations So that the question is whether now Brewers be within the word Victuallers or Beer within the word Victuals And I conceive that béer is victuals and Brewers are Victuallers which I prove by common experience and by another Statute There is no Statute in England but make informations against Brewers before the Iustices of Peace And they are all erroneous if they be not within the word Victuallers For by 23 H. 8. A remedy is only given against them by an action of debt bill c. in which no protection Essoyn or wager of Law shall be allowed but at the Courts of Westminster Then they ought to be upon that Statute of 33 H. 8. And Lambert and Crompton are much deceived For it is an article of their Charge to enquire of Brewers But another statute viz. 2 E. 6. cap. 15. The Brewers are called Victuallers The words are If any Butchers Brewers Bakers Poulterers Cooks Coster-mongers c. conspire to sell their Victuals c. And what victuals shall be sold by a Brewer but Beer And there the whole Parliament were mistaken if Brewers were not Victuallers And for that he concludes that because that that offence at the making of 21 Iac. was punishable by Information before the Iustices of the Peace For that by this Statute this Court shall not have Iurisdiction But Hitcham on the contrary The Statute of 21 H. 8. says That for offences of Brewers they shall be inquired of by the Courts of the King That it is meant the four Courts at Westminster is clear And when one Statute is made which confirms a sute at the four Courts of Westminster yet if by a second Statute you will alter that you ought to have precise words And if you bring that within the word Victual you abrogate the Statute by general words against the wisdom of Parliament before which provided that those offences should not be inquirable in the Country and then the Statute of little force Et loquendum ut Vulgus It is improper to say that a Brewer is a Victualler for they are such who sell in specie And in the Country if it he inquired whether it be an Alehouse or a Victualling house It is said that this is he who sells victuals which is for the sustenance of a man by the Statute of 2 E. 6. you will say a Brewer there to be a Victualler for in every Statute the intention ought to be respected For if it goes to Cost ermongers it is more clear in reason that Brewers shall be within that and Corn and Beer are the chief things which conserve a Common-wealth And for that within And the Statute extends to them for conspiracy for inhauncing the prizes For they take their Courts to be within the Courts of the King For those words were not explained until Gregories Case Co. lib. 6. And being one time within their charge they observe their old tract Henden argued and divided his matter into thrée parts First He shewed how that Statute consists upon the Statute upon 23. 33. 37 H. 8. And it is clear upon 23 H. 8. what informations ought to be in those Courts 7 Eliz. Dyer 23. b. 37 H. 8. repeal 33. Only for a particular thing viz. of the time to enquire of those Offences by the Iustices and makes them inquirable at the Sessions Secondly Whether the Statute 33. took this thing from 23 H. 8. And he thought it did not Neither by the intention of the scope of the Act nor by the words First the intention of the Statute was not to inlarge the power of a Iustice of Peace but to provide that some things should be duly executed Which appears first by the Title and then the Preamble And if they have not particular Statutes they cannot meddle with that by the general words By which it follows that they had not power for Victuallers Now the 35 H. 8. cap. 3. provides that Victuals shall be sold and at what prices then when that Statute of 33 H. 8. came within 8 years certainly there was a respect to that And the Statute before concerning Victualls only is that Victuallers might contain Brewers For to say generally that Victuallers should be Brewers shall be absurd 8 Rep. Bonhams Case A Brewer is a Trade and may be intended under general words But it shall be alwaies secundum subjectam materiam As some Statutes which punish the selling of Victuals at anj unreasonable rate and Beer there is not Victual And by 2 E. 6. cap. 15. There is not an express name of a Brewer Which imports that it was not contained within the general word Victualler 2 E. 3. 6. Where there is a Common price for certain things to be sold at reasonable prices Where Brewers c. are named 28 H. 8. Hostlers Brewers and other Victuallers c. Then these Statutes prove that you ought to have Brewers expresly named If you will have them taken as Victuallers But posito that Brewers are within the general words of 33 H. 8. yet the power of this Court is not taken away by the Statute of 21 Iac. In the Kings Bench. An Information was upon the Statute of Vsury which was inquirable before the Iustices of Peace at the time of the making of 21 Iac. And the Question was Whether Informations are taken by 22 Iac. in Case of Vsury from the Courts

said Goe not to such a one c. it is actionable without question Slander of one in his Trade will bear an action And so all being connexed alike it ought to be intended that he killed him in respect of his skill In Cases of Defamation Sir George Hasting's Case Thou didst lye in wait to kill me with a Pistoll were actionable So if one touch another in respect of his skill in that that he professes it will maintain an action c. And Yelverton to the same purpose for there is a difference between a Profession and a particular Calling As if words are spoken of one that is a Iustice of Peace he ought to shew that he was then a Iustice of Peace for he is removable and may be changed every Quarter Sessions But as to a Calling the Calling of every man is his Free hold 43 E. 3. Grant of an Annuity to one pro consilio and he professes Divinity Physick and Law there the grant is pro consilio generally for Physick if that be his usuall Profession And it is intended that a man alwayes dyes in his Calling If he said to I. S. Thou art a murtherer it shall not be intended of Hares for the Iudges are not to search so far for construction Loquendum ut vulgus intelligendum et sapiens If one sayes of a Merchant Put not your Son to him for hee 'l starve him to death These words are actionable for that that it comes within the compasse of the disgrace of his Profession And so of a School-master Put not your Son to him for hee 'l come away as very a dunce as he went Harvey If one sayes of a Iudge He is a corrupt Iudge it cannot be meant of his body to be corrupt but it shall be intended of his Profession Peitoes Case before HEnden for the Defendant the Case is thus A Rent is granted for life out of Lands which descend to the Heir and he makes a Lease of parcell of the Land to the Grantee for years who surrenders the term Whether the Rent shall revive or suspend during the term And it was said by him it shall revive First For that that it is the act of him who is lyable to the Rent to accept the surrender And there is a difference where there is a determination barely by the act of the party there it shall not be revived For the first 21 H. 7. 9. Tenant in Tayl of a Rent is infeoffed of Land and he makes a Feoffment of Land with a warranty to B. with Voucher as of land discharged of that Rent And so it is 19 H. 6. 55. Ascue put this Case Grantee of a rent in Fee and Donee in Tayl of Land infeoffs the Grantee who grants that over and afterwards the issue in Tayl recovers in a Formedon yet the rent shall not be revived But if it had been the joynt act of the parties as so by surrender it should have been revived First It is clear that if a Chattell personall be suspended by Sute it shall be gone for ever As if a Feme marries the Obligor 11 H. 7. 25. unless suspension be in anothers right if it be by the act of the party there it shall be revived As if a Feme Executrix marry with the Obligor and he dyes the suspension is determined and they are revived against the Executors 7 H. 6. 2. In one Gascoines Case Lessee surrenders to the Lessor upon condition the rent be suspended but if the Lessor enter for conditions broken the Rent is revived Which in effect is our case A rent is granted to the Daughter and the land descends to her and her other Sister who make partition The Rent is revived for it is the joynt act of both parties Plow 15. If a man had a Rent and disseises the Tenant of the land and after the Disseisee re-enters Where there is a revivor of the land there is a revivor of the Rent for the disseisin was the cause of the suspension and that now is gone Secondly Because that when the Lessee for years surrenders the term is determined to all purposes and the Lessor is in of his Estate is Fee and there is a diversity of surrender in respect of a stranger for to a stranger it may have Essence after surrender But as to himself it is otherwise extinct And he cannot say that it had any Essence 5 H. 5. 12. But in respect of a stranger it ha's continuance as if an Executor surrenders yet it shall be assets And all acts done upon Lessee for ltfe before surrender shall have a continuance after And so he prayed Iudgement for the Avowant But more after Wakeman against Hawkins IT was said That if an Executor was sued in this Court by Originall he shall not put in Bayl. But if he be arrested in an inferiour Court and removed by Habeas corpus he ought to put in Bayl. Stamford and Coopers Case STamford and Coopers Case was thus I. S. acknowledges a Statute to Cooper the 22 January and afterwards he confesses a Iudgement to Stamford the 23 of January next ensuing the Statute And it is extended And Stamford brought a Scire fac against Cooper to wit now because he ought not to have the land by Elegit And the Question was whether the Iudgement by relation shall defeat the Statute And it was resolved That the Iudgement shall have relation to the Essoin day which is the 20 day of Ianuary for that is the first day of the term legally and the fourth day after is the first day of the Term open Dyer 361. Pla. 10. A Release was pleaded after the last continuance and it bore date the 21 of Ianuary which was after the day of Essoin de Octab. Hil. And for that nought because that it came late for it ought to have been after the last continuance and before the last day c. 33 H 6. 45. Nisi prius was taken after the day of the return and before the fourth day after and adjudged nought because that the day of the return which is the Utas is the first day of the term and the fourth day after but a day of Grace and that is the difference If a man be obliged to pay money the first day of the Term he shall not pay it but upon the fourth day after for that is the first day in all common acceptance But in all legall proceedings the first day is the Essoin day And so it was adjudged 16 Eliz. And in the Kings Bench it was in one Williams Case A Iudgement was given the 20 of Ianuary and a Release of all Errours the 21 Ianuary and adjudged that that bars the Iudgement given the 20 Ianuary although it was not entred the fourth day after A Iustice in the Kings Bench examined an Infant upon inspection the Essoin day and found him to be under age and would not permit him to confess a Iudgement although that he would

that there was a conference of a Bill of Costs laid out by him c. and does not say laid out by him as Attorney And the whole Court seemed to be of the same opinion But it was adjourned If it had been said that habente colloquio primo die c. he spoke it should have been good But habito implies time past Hitcham against an Attorny of this Court HItchsm Chief Sergeant of the King brought an Action upon the Case against James Cason an Attorney of this Court And he declared that he was now Sergeant to the King and so was to his Father and that the King made him Iustice of Peace for his County of Suffolk and that he for many years theretofore and yet did exercise the Office of a Iustice of Peace And that the Defendant on purpose to disgrace him and to make him to be removed from being a Iustice of Peace in the Court openly spoke these scandalous words In a matter wherein I was questioned at the Quarter Sessions in Suffolk Mr. Sergeant Hitcham being there was Witness Judge and Party and did there oppresse me And moreover he said In Articles there presented against me he did me injustic●… and hath contrived those Articles And moreover he said Mr. Sergeant Hitcham bound my Son Finch to the Quarter Sessions and there indicted him and was Witness Judge and Party and counts to the dammage of the Plaintiff 1000 pound The Defendant to some of the words in the Declaration pleads not guilty to the residue he justifies and says that the Plaintiff was made a Iustice of Peace 1 Apr. 1 Car. And as to the words In a matter wherein I was questioned in the Quarter Sessions in Suffolk Mr. Sergeant Hitcham being there was Witness Judge and Party And all but the last words That the Plaintiff at the Sessions 8 Sept. 2 Car. at W. in Suffolk quosdam falsos Articulos scribi fecit exhibuit et produxit And recited all the Articles being in number eleaven Hil. 5 Car. Com. Banc. And that after the exhibiting the Articles in open Court The Plaintiff there said that they were true and counselled the Clark of the Peace to read them and then said he should be tryed upon them But the Plaintiff denied that and said that he would proceed now no further upon them but took the Articles and carried them with him by which the Court was dispossessed of them And would not proceed against him upon them And upon the last words scil Mr. Sergeant Hitcham bound my Son over to c. He said that his Son was bound to appear at the Quarter Sessions And caused an Indictment to be preferred against him Because he being elected Constable refused to take his oath or to execute his office And upon that Indictment the Sergeant gave evidence to the grand Iury and they found the Indictment And upon that Iudgement was given that he should be amerced that estreated And upon this bar the Plaintiff dumurred Finch for the Plaintiff And first he answers to the Exceptions which were taken before to the Declaration c. First that it did not appear by the Declaration that the Plaintiff was Iustice of Peace at the time of the speaking of the words To that he answers That is sufficient in the Declaration to shew that he was a Iustice of Peace at the time For it is per multos annos jam ultime elapsos et adhinc est and that the Declaration coming in M. 5 Car. If it was per multos annos ulterius c. It was at the time of the speaking For it was Paululum before the Action commenced And also the Defendant says in his Bar that the King made him a Iustice of Peace and that he was not a Iustice of Peace at the Sessions And although that he was not a Iustice of Peace at the Parlance Yet the words are actionable which charge him with Injustice when he was c. Secondly It was objected that part of the words were not alleged to be spoken of the Plaintiff But the Declaration is That in a matter c. Mr. Sergeant did c. which is directed to the first words But the subsequent words are induced such like afterwards Ad tunc ibidem the Defendant said And he did me injustice c. And although the first words were laid to be spoken of the Plaintiff yet the last words not But and he did me c. which ought to be taken That they were spoken of the Plaintiff For it is ad tunc ibidem upon the same Communication And also the Defendant cleared that For he justifies those words as spoken of the Plaintiff Thirdly It was objected that the words themselves are not actionable In Actions for words it is as in Wills The best argument will be from the words themselves yet we can borrow light from other words in the same Will Which I will recite The proverbial Verse Quid de quoque viro cui dicas saepe caveto Quid c. Some words declare all malice which are not actionable of some persons they may be spoken of quo some only actionable being spoken of such a man 4 H. 8. The Duke of Buckingham hath no more conscience than a Dog Those words upon the Statute of Scandala magnatum are actionable 10 Iac. the Earl of Northamptons Case It was resolved in the Starchamber that to publish false rumors of any of the Peers of the Realm was punishable at the Common law And if one heard such words and reported them again it is punishable But not in a Common persons case But this difference there was resolved That to say of Commons person generally that he heard so is not actionable if he name the person If one says of a Merchant he is a Banckrupt it is actionable not of the Defendant If one said of the Defendant he is an Ambidexter it is actionable not if of a Merchant It is a general rule that slander of every man in his profession is actionable Much more of the Plaintiff in his profession being a Iustice of peace For the words themselves if they be taken together or asunder are actionable The ground of the speaking was that there was a communication of Injuries done to him by the Plaintiff but take them asunder Trin. 7. Car. Com. Banc. and none of them but with the circumstances here will bear an action First that he was a Iudge Witness and party That is against the Law to be Iudge and party They who are Duellists are Iudges and parties and Executioners Iudge and party is as much as to say he is partial and he did oppresse me That shews that he was not Iudge and party fairly But they have objected that this word oppresse is incertain for he may be oppressed with overwait or hunger and cold But this case cannot have any such such sence But here it is intended the perverting of Iustice But this case was

offences Therefore his sentence was That his Name should be put out of the Roll and thrust over the Bar and committed to the Fleet Which was executed accordingly 20 H. 6. 37. 41. E. 3. 1. Which Cases prove the same Iames and Thoroughgood against Collins IAmes and Thoroughgood brought Trespass against Collins And the Case was this A man makes his Testament and gives to 5 men their heirs and assigns certain Houses in Fleet-street c. All of them to have part and part alike and the one to have as much as the other And whether the Defendants were Iointtenants or tenants in Common was the Question and it was adjudged and resolved that they were Tenants in Common And the same Case in 2. 3 Phil. Mary in Bendlows Reports is adjudged so And also in Lucan and Locks Case in the Kings Bench It was afterwards remembred and agreed to be good Law Ratcliff Case Advise to two and his Heirs in Ioynt-tenency by the whole Court against the opinion of Audley It was said by the Court that an Officer of the Court ought to be answered in any action de die in diem Quod nota c. Beguall against Owen BEguall brought a Writ of Partition against Owen before the Iustices of Assise at the grand Sessions in Anglesey And the Defendant pleaded the general issue The Plaintiff prefers a Bill in English and says that Owen is Tenant in Common with him and that divers of his VVitnesses which can prove his Title are so aged that they cannot come to the Sessions and desires a Commission to examine the Witnesses concerning the Title in perpetuam rei memoriam And Henden moved for a Prohibition For that that Cause would be dangerous for the Subject that such Testimonies taken in his absence should be for tryal of his Title Secondly That that examination before the Tryal is against the Statute of 26 H. 8. And although they have it in Chancery yet it is not so here But it was denied by the Court For there was never seen such a President Of a Prohibition to a grand Sessions And by Yelverton They have it in Chancery and if it be not prescribed in what manner they shall have it it should be as in the Chancery Hutton That Commission is not prejudicial to the Subject although a Prohibition be grantable For such Testimonies are not used but after the Witnesses are dead And a man cannot preserve them alive and perchance his Title rests upon their Testimonies Iane Heeles Case IAne Hee le Administratrix of her Husband brought an action of Debt upon an Obligation made to her Husband the Testator The Defendant pleads a Recovery by the Testator upon the same Obligation and that he was taken in execution and that the Sheriff suffered him voluntarily to escape The Plaintiff replies Null tiel Record of the Recovery Vpon which there is a demurrer Davenport That the Iudgement was but a conveyance to their matter in Bar and it ought not to be traversed But it was said by the whole Court That the Iudgement in it self is a good bar if it be not reversed 6 Rep. 45. Higgins case The execution upon that is not but a consequence upon the Iudgement And without the Iudgement Escape is not material for to make the traverse good And so Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Issues If the King by his Letters Patents grant to the Corporation all Issues within any places The issue that the Corporation it self shall forfeit shall be excepted by intendment of law For otherwise it would be a defrauding of Iustice For then the Corporation would never appear Which note in the Case of Dean and Chapter of Ely Provender against Wood. PRovender brought an action upon the case against Wood For that the Defendant assumed to the Father of the Plaintiff upon a mariage to be solemnised betwéen the Plaintiff and the Daughter of the Defendant to pay him 20 l. And it was agreed by Richardson and Yelverton nullo contradicent That the action well lies for the same And the party to whom the benefit of a promise accrews may bring his action Mrs. Rowes Case MIstris Rowe was arrested by a capias corpus ad satisfaciendum by a Bayliff in Middlesex within the Bars in Holborn which is within the liberty of London And Hitcham the Kings Sergeant prayed a Supersedeas For that that the arrest was false And the Court agreed that a Supersedeas cannot be granted For a Supersedeas it cannot be alleged Executio erronice emanavit but there the Execution is well granted And if it be returned by the Sheriff generally It ought to be intended well served although that the Affidavit be made to the contrary But in this case a Corpus cum causa shall be granted Booth against Franklin BOoth Farmor of a portion of Tithes for 5 years without Deed demises a Farm which he had in the same Parish to Franklin for years and afterwards he libells against him for tithe of that Farm And Franklin said he was not Farmour And Henden prays a Prohibition for that First That the Lease for Tithes is without Deed but he may be discharged of his own Tithes without Deed As was adjudged before in this Court Secondly the Lessee is not to pay tithes for that Farm For although the Parson makes a Lease of the Glebe for years he paid tithes But if a Layman who had the impropriation leases the Glebe the Lessee does not pay tithes But the Court denied the case of the lease of the Parsonage impropriate And said that the case of Perkins and Hinde was adjudged to the contrary in that very point And also if he purchase other lands in the Parish which are discharged of tithes in his hands and he demises them yet the Lessee pays him tithes And the opinion of the Court was If one contract with the Parson for discharge of the Tithes of his lands for years and demises his lands to another yet he shall not have tithes but the discharge runs with the land But if one take a lease of his Tithes by deed and makes a demise of his land he has tithes of the Lessee And the direction was that the Lessee of the Farm ought to shew expresly in the Ecclesiastical Court that the Farmour had not a Lesse by Deed and a Prohibition was granted And it shall be admitted that the words of the libell being Firmator conductor occupator was good Ralph Andrews against Bird. ANdrews brought an action upon the Case against Bird and declares that Bird sued a Trespass in this Court against him and upon not guilty pleaded the issue betwéen the aforesaid Ralph Andrews and Robert Bird was tryed at the Assises c. And that there Andrews shew'd in evidence a Deed of feoffment concerning his Title and the verdict passed for Andrews And afterwards Bird spoke these words scilicet That Andrews procured the Deed to be forged And upon not guilty pleaded it

Iurisdiction of this Court it ought not to be received without Oath c. But if in Covenant or debt for money to be paid at another place he pleads payment accordingly or the Covenants performed in the place limited which was out of the Iurisdiction it ought to be received without Oath quod not Double delay BY the course of the Court double delay cannot be allowed as if the Defendant in debt plead that the Plaintiff is a Recusant convicted and had a special imparlance afterwards the Plaintiff conforms The Defendant cannot plead Outlawry in the Plaintiff Iohn Felton's Case MEmorand quod Thursday 29 die Novembr 1628. Iohn Felton was arraigned in the Kings Bench for the murther of George Duke of Buckingham And the Iustices of the Common Bench demanded of the Serjeants of the King who were present in the Kings Bench what was done with Felton And Ashley answered That he had confessed the fact and that the ordinary sentence of death was given against him But they marvelled that for so notorious offence the sentence was not that he should be hanged in chains Yelverton That any other sentence than the ordinary sentence cannot be given But after that he is dead his body was at the disposition of the King which was not denyed by the other Iustices Turner against Hodges TUrner brought Trespasse quare clausum fregit against Hodges The Defendant said that loco in quo c. is Copyhold and that the Lord Dudley is seised of the Mannor of Sedgley and granted the Copyhold in Fee to Roger Turner and he makes a Lease to the Defendant Hodges for a year The Plaintiff replies that there is custom within that Mannor If a Copyholder makes a lease without licence of the Lord for a year and dies within the term it shall be void against the heir And upon the issue of Nul tiel record it was found for the Plaintiff And Atthowe prayed Iudgement and shews that the custom is good and not contrary to reason 4 rep 26. It was resolved that lessee of a Copyhold without licence for a year may maintain an Eject firm for his term is warranted by the Law by force of the general custom of the Realm But that ought to be intended by the custom within every Mannor within the Realm Whatsoever a Copiholder does is by Custom The Case here is that it shall be void by the death of the Lessor which is an Act of God That was that if Copiholder made a Lease for years and afterwards aliens that to be void against the Alienee would be unreasonable 39 Eliz. There was a Case referred to the Iudges out of Chancery which was debated in Sergeants Inne Littleton 59 b. Armesstrong Lord of a Mannor prescribes that a Copiholder upon the change of every Lord should pay a Fine But by all the Iudges it was ruled a void Custom For the Lord might change his Mannor every day But if it had béen That after the death of the Lord he should have a Fine That is a good custom For it is the act of God So in our Case the custom is void against his Heir which is by the act of God In some Cases a custom alters the nature of a Free-hold land 5 Rep. 84. Perrymans Case A Feoffment shall not be good untill it be presented in the Court of the Mannor a good custom If a free-hold estate may be controlled by a custom a multo fortiori a Copi-hold estate Barkley argued on the other side Although it be found for the Plaintiff Yet if the custome be void a void custome is no custome And for that it is said in the Earl of Lecesters case That a void custome cannot be confirmed by Act of Parliament And that is a void custome We ought to consider the nature of a Copyhold Inheritance By the Common law it is but an Estate at will But the Common law so takes notice to establish it by a custome That there may be possessio Fratris of it and he may have Trespass against his Lord. If Tenant at will be out-lawed his Estate is determined But Copyhold is not determined or forfeited by Out-lawry As it was adjudged 44 Eliz. So that the Law takes notice of it as of an other Estate of Inheritance Where an Heir after his death may enter as Heir at Common law and have Trespass because that it descends At Common law he had power to make a Lease for a year For it is not the custome of the Mannor that he may make such a Lease For then it is pleaded If a Copiholder makes a Lease for divers years without alleging a custome or Licence of the Lord he cannot maintain an Ejectione firm against his Lord but perhaps against a Stranger It may be then if it be the very Law if he may make a Lease for one year if this custome be good It will be contrary to the very liberty of the Estate 19 Eliz. Dyer Solomons Case Custom that Tenant in Fee-simple shall not make a Lease for more than 5 years is void So Littleton says That a Condition that the Feoffee should not alien was void And a Condition that Tenant in tayl should not suffer a Common recovery is void Because that it restrains that Liberty which is annexed to the Estate And for the difference between the Father and the Heir in our Case there is not any difference For the Heir is all one with Father and in loco patris For he might have Trespass by discent of a Copihold Sir William Herberts Case And then if the Father shall be bound by the Lease so shall the Heir Richardson said That Iudgement ought to be given for the Plaintiff Copihold as it is created by Custome so in all it is guided by Custome For at the Common law a Copiholder could not make a Lease for a year But because that it is a general custome of all Mannors in England For it is not but a meer Estate at will by the Common law Then this custome is not against the Liberty of the Estate For a Custome inables that the Lease and a Custome ought to destroy it upon a Contingency as here by the death of the Father For that the Lord may know his Tenant And therefore the Case is reasonable and not to be compared to the case of a Freehold in Dyer A Freehold may be restrained by Custom And yet a Freeholder may be restrained by custome As antient demesn which he passes by the delivery of a Turf or a pair of Gloves and it is not convenient for it is at the peril of him who takes the Lease Copyholder makes a Lease for a year But if he dye within the year his Heir within age it shall be void against the Lord. So that the Lord during the nonage shall have the Copihold to hold for his Services is a good Custome And so in our Case Hutton agreed That at the Common law it might be restrained by custome