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
Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon a new Statute and after divers terms Hall died and after the Plaintiff was non-suited without mention made of his death Tadcaster brought two Scire facias against Hobs and upon two Nihils had Iudgment Hobs brought an Audita Querela alledging the death of Hallowell before Scire facias and before Capias and it was adjudged that the Audita Querela well say and Hil 4 Jac Rot 975. between Timberley and Calverly Scire facias brought against the Bail and he pleaded that the Principall died before Capias returned against him And Iudgment upon argument given against the Plaintiff The like Iudgment between Iustice Williams and the Sureties of one Vaughan Hil. 19 Jac. Rot. 312. or 3125. Walrond versus Hill London Debt WAlrond brought an action of debt upon an Obligation of three hundred pounds against William Hill with Condition that if Thomas Harris and Elizabeth his Wife One bound to levy a Fine before such a day who shall do the first act before the end of Easter Term next shall levy a Fine before the Iustices of the Common Pleas by due course of Law to the use of the Plaintiff that then c. the Defendant pleaded that before the end of the said Easter Term the Plaintiff did not purchase any Writ of Covenant pro fine leuand wherupon a Fine might be levied according to the course of Law The Plaintiff replyed that the fifteenth of April the said Thomas for money enfeoffed another of parcel of the Land that was to be conveyed by the Fine And that the said Thomas and Elizabeth his Wife have not any Estate or Interest in the said parcell so conveyed wherof they may levy a Fine And upon this Replication the Defendant demurred And upon argument at Bar by Serjeant Harvey for the Plaintiff and Serjeant Henden for the Defendant the first question was If the Bar be good Intant que le Defendent est oblige That Thomas Harris and Elizabeth his Wife shall levy a Fine he ought to procure that to be done at his perill semble al 4 H. 7. 3 H. 6. Condition that John S. a stranger shall take Alice D. to his Wife before Mich. If I. S. refuse the Obligation is forfeited And therfore it was urged that he ought to procure a Writ of Covenant at his perill But the Lord Hobart held that the Plaintiff ought to procure the Writ of Covenant to have made himself capable of the Fine And he put this case if I. S. be obliged that I. D. shall enfeoff I.N. the Obligee such a day I. N. ought to be upon the Land or ought to make a Letter of Attorney to receive the Livery or otherwise the Obligation is not forfeited And when a Covenant is to levy a Fine he which is to do the first act c. vide Palmers case Coke lib 5. fol 127. 4 E. 3. 39. 18 E. 3. 27. 11 H. 4 18. 21 E 4. 2. The second question was whether this Obligation be ferfeited being that the said Thomas Harris had made a Bargain and Sale of part of the Land to another before so that he was disabled at the time to levy a Fine And we all agreed that the Condition was impossible and is all one as if he had disabled himself afterwards as in Maynes case Coke lib 5. 21. where the Covenant was to make a new Lease upon surrender of the former Lease there if he which ought to make the new Lease disables himself to make a new Lease and to accept of the Surrender by granting the Reversion for years he ought not to do the first act viz. Surrender but the Covenant is broken And in this case it is all one as if one who had granted the Reversion for years or for life Covenant that he upon Surrender will make a new Lease he had broken this Covenant being disabled at the time And it was said and agreed by the Court that the Fine to be levied ought to be an effectuall Fine which might operate to convey the Land according to the Covenant Burnell and Brook One case was vouched in this case to be between Burnell and Brook where the Condition was that he should acknowledge a Iudgment and a good Bar that the Plaintiff had not purchased an Originall Writ for he ought to make himself capable of Iudgment acknowledged to him vide 34 E. 1. Fitz Debt 164. A Condition that if he present the Obligee to a Benefice that then c. Though the Obliges taken Wife by which he is disabled to take it put he ought to present and offer him to the Ordinary to refuse him Vide 28 E 4. 6. where parcell of the Land was recovered yet Debt lies for entry Damages recovered in a Court of ancient Demeasn which case was then vouched but it is not much to the purpose And afterwards we all agreed that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment Hord versus Cordery A President was shewn which was thus IN the County of Wiltes Richard Hord Clerk Vicar of Chute Case brought an action upon the Case against William Cordery and Bridget his Wife and Dorothy Cox Conspiracy for one malicious confederacy of charging the Plaintiff with the felonious Raye of the said Dorothy Cox and procured him to be examined before Sir Anthony Hungerford a Iustice of Peace and therupon was bound in a Recognizance to appear at the next generall Sessions of the Peace at Devises and from thence was bound over to the Assises And there the Defendants An 15 Jac before Sir Thomas Flemming and Tanfield Iustices of Assise preferred one Bill of Indictment of their malice aforesaid and by the procurement of the said William and B. the said Dorothy shewed to the grand Inquest whether it were true or false And the Iury perceiving the malice and the falsiâ—y did not find it to be true and gave their Verdict by Ignorance Vpon Not guilty pleaded by William and Bridget and non informatus by Dorothy the Iury found for the Plaintiff and after a Writ of Error An 15 Jac and 20 marks costs for the delay Ego vidi recordum est bien pleivement aver que il ne ravish le feme est ent Hil. 10 Jac. Rot. 92. 1. 1. Trin. 20 Jac. Hawkins versus Cutts HAwkins brought an action upon the case against Cutts Case and declared that he was of good Fame c. and for the space of eight years last past had used the Art and Mystery of a Baker Pandopatoritae and had gained his living by buying and selling the Defendant said of him He is a Bankrupt Knave And not guilty Words it was found for the Plaintiff And in Arrest of Iudgment it was moved that it is not shewn that he was a common Baker neither had used the Trade but used the Art and Mystery of a Baker And there is as Serjeant Hobart said as much skill
font and twenty years that then I. S. shall have the Land and it shall be good vide Dyer 33. Coke lib 10.46 Lampets case But Tuesday the eleventh of February the Lord Hobart by our direction because that we were streightned of time and Howell was so importunate for Iustice that we could not argue delivered the opinion of the Court that Iudgment should be given for the Defendant And he declared that as to the point of a Fee-simple which he called the mounting of one Fee-simple upon another we now declared no opinion But we all without difficulty resolved that this release of Noy be it a Condition or not had discharged it And as to him it is an Interest used by the Devise but not executed untill it happen And therfore in Lampers case there the Release discharged it for there he had no Title executed but vested and commenced and so may have Noy Howell the Plaintiff in this case and it is not like to an Heir in the life of the Father for be is a stranger and he hath no Title at all and yet his Release with Warranty bars him and here this Release is accompanied with Warranty of which nothing was spoken Also as to Noy it is a Condition according to the words of the Will and therfore sans question that Noy had barred himself The Vacation after Hil. 20 Jac. MEmorand That on Munday the seventeenth of February at Serjeants Inn upon the assembly of all the Iustices to take consideration upon the Statute of 35 Eliz. cap. 1. for the Abjuration of Sectaries the Atturney-generall and Serjeant Crew being there Resolutions upon the Statute of Eliz. cap. 1. concerning Sectaries after the perusall of the Statute and the Continuances therof it was first upon debate considered whether this Statute was in force or discontinued and upon the perusall of the Proviso in the Statute of Subsidy and upon reasoning the matter these Points were resolved 1. If a Parliament be assembled and divers Orders made What shall be said a Session of Parliament and a Writ of Error brought and the Record delivered to the higher house and divers Bills agreed but no Bills signed That this is but a Convention and no Parliament or Session as it was An. 12 Jac. in which as it was affirmed by them which had seen the Roll it is entred that it is not any Session or Parliament because that no Bill was signed vide 33 H 6 Brook Parliament 86. every Session in which the King signes Bills is a Parliament 2. It was agreed that if divers Statutes be continued untill the next Parliament or next Session and there is a Parliament or a Session and nothing done therin as to continuance all the said Statutes are discontinued Beriatim Jones Chamberlain Hutton Denham Haughton Dodderidge Winch and Bromley declared their opinions that this Statute is discontinued And that the Statute of Subsidy is a Parliament and that every Parliament is a Session but not e converso for one Parliament may have divers Sessions as the Parliament 1 Jac had four and ended An 7 Jac. vide 33 H 6. Br. Parliament 86. And that this Proviso is not to any other purpose but to continue their proceedings in the same Estate as if this Act had not been made and if this Proviso had not been then this Statute had been discontinued by this act of Subsidy but when this ends and is determined then is the Session ended then it is a Session scilicet a Parliament which ought to be pleaded at the Parliament holden c. and all the Commissions of Subsidy are accordingly and the Proviso call it a Session Then this being done the Lord chief Baron did not deliver any opinion for he said that he had not considered the Statute and afterward it was desired that the Lords would deliver their opinions and therupon the Lord Hobart declared his opinion accordingly That it seemed to him that it was a Session and that it was not safe to meddle with such Law and that he would never refuse to declare his opinion with his Brethren After the Lord chiefe Iustice Ley made a long discourse concerning the purpose and intent of Parliament scilicet That it was not their purpose to destroy so good Lawes and therfore it was not any such Session as was within the intent of the preceding Parliament which was that these should determine when it is a Parliament or Session in which good Lawes are made And Doderidge said that it was fit to see the Commission and that that which hath been said was not to bind any one but every one spoke what then he was advised of and peradventure might change upon better consideration And afterwards upon Tuesday on an Assembly of the two chief Iustices the chief Baron Iustice Haughton Baron Denham Hutton Chamberlain and Jones the Attorney-generall brought the Commission de 12 El. June 1. and that had these words Pro eo quod nullus Regalis Assensus nec responsio per nos praestat fuit nullum Parliamentum nec aliqua Sessio Parliamenti lata aut tent fuit They have power to adjourn this Parliament thus begun And the Commission to dissolve this Parliament 38. Feb. An. 19 Jac. had the same words saving that he recite that he had given his Royall assent to an act of Subsidy by which was intended that it should not be a Session And upon view of the Commission the Lord chief Iustice moved that the King was mistaken in this that he had given power to dissolve this Parliament which had not any Session and if it be a Session then he had no power to dissolve it and then it is as it were a recesse and a Parliament cannot be discontinued or dissolved but by matter of Record and that by the King alone and if the Parliament yet continue then this Statute also continue during the Parliament by the Proviso but that would not serve for first it is against the intent of the King and against his Proclamation And also the case is truly put in the Commission as to the matter in fact and he is not mis-informed but mistaken in the Law and then the Commission for the dissolving is good semblable to the Lord Shandoi's Case and other Cases vide in Cholmleys case But because that all the Iudges were not at this Conference therfore it was deferred untill the next Term and in the interim the Grand Secretary and the Attorney-generall were to inform the King that the Statute is obscure and had not been put in ure and that we could not agree Mich. 20 Jac. Rot. 2805. Bawtry versus Skarlet Sussex JOhn Bawtry Clerk Case brought an action upon the case against Benjamen Skarlet one of the Attorneys of this Court by Bill and count In consideration that the Plaintiff will confesse Judgment the Attorney promise to defer the entry of the Judgment c. that wheras one William Carter Trin. 20 Jac.
this Arraingnment the Iudges assistant sate with their heads covered as the ancient use hath been But the Serjeant at Armes was commanded to make Proclamation That the Iudges and all the Lords not being his Peers and all of the Privy Councell should be covered and others not And this was only in relation to the precedent usage and the right which appertain to the Iudges For in Parliament they being called by Writ use to be covered as oft as the Lord Chancellor or Keeper of the Great Seal which is Speaker puts on his Hat But now it is used that they put not on their Caps untill they have been requested by the Lord Speaker And when they are called into the Star Chamber or to Errors in the Exchequer Chamber they set covered with their Caps Pasch 7 Car. Risam versus Goodwin Mich. 5 Car. Rot. 2512. IN a Writ of Scire facias brought by William Risam against John Goodwin and Richard Peat Administrators of Thomas Cammon the Case was such The Court of Common Bench award not execution upon a Judgment given in grand Sessions in Wales The now Plaintiff William Risam recovered against Thomas Cammon a hundred pounds Debt and ten shillings Costs at the Grand Sessions holden at Carmâ—rthen and execution awarded and Nulla bona returned And upon Surmise that the said Thomas Cammon was dead and that the now Defendants had taken Letters of Administration a Scire facias issued against them and Nichil returned and after a Writ of Execution and that afterwards being returned by the Sheriff of the County Nulla bona testatoris a Writ issued to the Sheriff of the County of the Town of Carmarthen who returned Devastavit And because that the now Defendants had not Goods within the said County or within the County of the Town of Carmarthen or Jurisdiction of the Grand Sessions the Plaintiff procured a Certiori to the Justices of the Grand Sessions who certified the Record to the Chancery and by Mittimus it came to the Common Bench with directions Quia executio judicii praedicti adhuc restat faciend Mandant quod at the prosecution of the Plaintiff Vos fieri faciat de more secundum legem consuetudinem regni nostri Angliae fuit faciend Wherupon a Writ of Scire facias was awarded to the Sheriff of Hereford against the said Defendants to which they appeared And after many Imparlances they demurred upon the insufficiency of the Writ of Scire facias And this case was argued by Berkley for the Plaintiff and by Henden for the Defendant And the Cases put by Berkley were F N. B 243. a. b. 39 E. 6. 3 4 Ass in ancient Demesne and for the Damages surmised that he had nothing within ancient Demesne 21 E 3. 49. 21 H 7. 33. 8 Ass 27. 30 H 6 7. 3 H 4. 15. 1 Justitutes 59. in Frankalmoigne That Wales is parcel of England 1 E 3. Jurisdiction 45. 22 H 6. 58. 47. E 3. 6. 3. E 3. Quare Impedit 38. 35 H 5. 30. 19 H 6. 12. 52. vide the Statute of 34 H 8. for Wales and Writs of Error Henden argued to the contrary and his first reason was 1. That this Court of the great Sessions is an inferiour Court 2. The Record it self comes not but a Transcript 3. The Statute of 34 H 8. hath appointed the Execution and that should be pursued 4. This Innovation is perillous and never put in practice And he relyed upon the diversity When Iudgment in a peculiar inferiour Court comes into the Kings Bench or into this Court by Writ of Error and is affirmed then the Superiour supplies it and add strength to the Iudgment But when Iudgment is given in a Court of a Corporation and that is removed by Certiorari and sent by Mittimus that shall not be executed there vide 45 E 3. 25. Formedon in London vide 14 E 3. Tryals 23. 15 E 3. Record 35. New Book of Entries the last case in Writ of Error vide 8 E 3. 10. 26 H 6 8. 3 H 6. 16. 7 H 4. 8. 14 H 4. 25. H 5. 11. And he relyed upon 21 H 7. 35. and the case of 39 H 6. 3 4. and the case of ancient Demesne 7 H 9. 18. 37 H 6. 16. Dyer 369. And upon this Case the Iudges consulted and agreed that the Writ was insufficient And so Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff But it was said that upon this Iudgment so sent to this Court the Plaintiff might bring an action of Debt and so have execution But to make this Court an Instrument to serve an inferiour Court and to extend their Iurisdiction by this way as it were by a Windlace it is not lawfull Hil. 7 Car. Napper versus Sanders Pasch 6 Car. Rot. 1148. IN an Ejectione firmae brought by Robert Napper against Henry Sanders upon a Lease by Deed indented made by John Napper and Elizabeth his Wife and Francis Sanders upon Not guilty pleaged Remainder where it shall be said Contingent the Iury gave a speciall Verdict wherupon the Case was such Margaret Sanders seised in Fee makes a Feoffment to the use of her self for life without impeachment of Wast and after to the use of the Feeoffees for eighty years if one Nicholas Sanders and Elizabeth his Wife should live so long and if the said Elizabeth survive Nicholas her Husband then to the use of the said Elizabeth for life without impeachment of Wast and after the decease of the said Elizabeth to the use of Postumus Sanders Son of the said Nicholas and Elizabeth in tail And for default of such Issue to the use of Elizabeth Wife of the said Iohn Napper and Dorothy Sanders and the said Francis Sanders one of the Lessors and to the Heirs of their bodies remainder to the right Heirs of Margaret the Feoffor And there was a clause in the said Indenture that the intent of the Estate for years to the Feoffees was that the said Elizabeth Sanders might have the profits and not Nicholas her Husband who was a Prodigall Margaret Sanders dies and Dorothy dies without Issue the Feoffee enter Elizabeth Sanders dies Nicholas is yet alive and Posthumus dies without Issue Iohn Napper and his Wife and the said Francis entred and were possessed untill the Defendant as Son and Heir of the said Margaret entred and ousted them Et si super totam Materiam c. And the sole question was whether the remainder in tail to Posthumus and the remainder in tail to Elizabeth and Francis were contingent or executed And it was resolved by all the Court that the remainders were not contingent in the Estate for life which was to come to Elizabeth Sanders the Wife of the said Nicholas but were vested presently And it was agreed that the Estate for life if she survive her Husband was contingent and when that had hapned being by way of Limitation of an use it shall be interposed when the Contingent