Recusant may be seised after his death Thirdly if they shall be charged by the Statute of 1. Iac. as to the first it seems they are not wherein I shall endeavour to prove three things First that such land was not liable to debt by the Common Law Secondly that they are not liable to debts by the general words of the Statute Law Thirdly that they are not liable to debt by any word within the Statute of primo Iac. as to the first he observed that here is no fraud put in the case but that these lands and leases were never in the Recusant so that before that they were conveyed to the Defendants they were not liable to this debt and I alwayes observed that which the common law calleth fraud ought to be of such nature as shall be tortious and prejudicial to a third person and put him in a worse estate and condition then he was before and then he who is so prejudiced in some cases should avoid such conveyances by the common Law 22. Assises 72.43 Ed. 3.2 and 32. the Defendant in debt after judgement aliens his goods and he himself takes the profits yet the Plantiffe shall have them in execution so that if a man binde himself and his heirs in an Obligation and dies and assets descend to his heir who by Covin aliens those assets yet he shall be charged in debt for in these cases the Plantiffe had a lawful debt and such lands and goods before the alienation were liable and that former interest was intended to be defeated by those alienations and therefore they are void but of the other side where no former interest of the partie is wronged there no fraudulent conveyance was void at the Common Law and therefore if Tenant in Knights service had made a fraudulent Feofment to defraud the Lord of his wardship this was not aided by the Common Law until the Statute of Marlebridge for the title of the Lord was not prejudiced or wronged by this Feofment because it was subsequent to the Feofment also after the said Statute the Lord was without remedy for his release for it is agreed in 17. Ed. 3. fo 54. and 31. Ed. 3. Collation 29. and therefore at the Common Law if cestuy que use had bound himself and his heirs in an Obligation and died if the use descended to his heir none will say this use was assets to the heir and so was Rigler and Hunters case 25. Eliz. as to the second point it seems that the general words of a Statute shall be expounded according to the rule and reason of the Common Law and by the Common Law such confidence is not extendible therefore c. Westmin 2. cap. 18. which gives the elegit hath these words medietatem terrae and within those words an use was never extendible by that Statute 30. Ed. 3. because it was not an estate in him and so if a man be indebted for Merchandise or money borrowed and makes a gift of his lands and Chattels to defraud Creditors and takes the profits himself and flieth to the Sanctuary at Westminster or Saint Martins and there abideth by conclusion to avoid the payment of his debts it is thereby enacted that Proclamation shall be made at the Gate of the Sanctuary where such person resideth by the Sheriffe and if such person doth not thereupon appear in person or by Atturney judgement shall be given against him 2 Rich. 2. Stat. 2. cap. 3. 1. Rich. 3. cap. 1. and execution awarded aswel of those lands and goods given by fraud as of any other out of the same Franchise these words are more particular then the Statute of Westminster the second and yet it was doubted if it did extend to executions for debt as it appears by 7. H. 7. and 11. H. 7.27 and therefore in 19. H. 7. cap. 15. an Act of Parliament was made that execution for debts Recognizances and Statutes should be sued of lands in use As to the third it seems that that Statute doth not make lands in use liable to debts the words of the Statute are that the King shall seise two parts of the lands Tenements and Hereditaments leases of Farms of such offendors so that they are as general as the words of the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 18. and here those lands and leases were not the Recusants for he had but a confidence in them the first clause of the Statute doth not extend thereunto for two causes First in regard that it never was in the Recusant and this clause extends only to such conveyances which are made by any man which hath not repaired or shall not repair to some Church for the disjunctive words do not extend throughout that branch but to the last part thereof viz. that which cometh after the word and for otherwise this would extend to conveyances made at any time without limitation which should be against the meaning of the Act. Secondly this Branch provides what shall be done concerning the King touching the levying and paying of such summes of money as any person by the Lawes of the Realm ought to pay of else to forfeit c. and by the Statutes before made nothing was forfeited but for such time as is mentioned in the Indictment which in our case is but 6. moneths but out of this branch a strong argument may be made in respect that the Statute avoids all conveyances made by Recusants in trust by express words but saith nothing to conveyances made by others to the use of Recusants and therefore this Statute doth not extend unto it if Tenant by Knights service infeoffs his heir within age and dies the Lord may enter upon the heir without suing an action but if a Feofmenche made to a stranger there he cannot enter but ought to bring his Action according to the provision of that Statute because it may be to the use of the Feoffee but no such provision is made for the heir the Statute of 3. Jac. cap. 4. provides by express words that the King shall seise two parts of all the lands Tenements and Hereditaments Leases and Faims that at the time of such seisure shall be or afterwards shall come to any of the hands of the said offendors or any other to their use or in trust for him or her or at his or her dispose or disposition or whereby wherewith or in consideration whereof such offendors or their families or any of them shall or may be relieved maintained or kept c. the different penning of these Statutes proves the diversitie of the meaning thereof this Statute is a new Law which gives to the King this penalty which he had not before and in new manner for it appoints that the partie shall be convicted by Proclamation and that being so convicted he shall alwayes pay the said penaltie until his submission without any other conviction 3. Jac. cap. 4. and also limits a manner how this new penaltie shall be levied viz.
give money to a patron to make a promise to him c. and the incumbent payes it such an incumbent is Simoniacus by the Civil Law and so if the incumbent pay the mony not knowing it untill after the induction yet he is Simoniacus and by him if a friend gives money and the Parson is thereupon presented though the Parson if he knew not of the money given yet he shall be deprived of the benefice and this difference was certified by Anderson and Gawdey to the Councel table upon a reference made to them by the King touching the filling of benefices by corrupt means and the Statute of purpose forbears to use the word Simonie for avoiding of nice construction of that word in the Civil Law and therefore the makers of the Act sets down plainly the words of the Statute that if any shall be promoted for money c. so that by these words it is not material from whom the money comes and then in such cases for the avoiding of all such grand offences a liberal construction ought to be made as hath been used in such cases and therefore he remembred the large construction which was made upon the Statute of fines in the Lord Zouches case lib. Cook 3. and so upon the Statute of usurie it hath been adjudged that if money be lent to be re-paid with use above 10. l. in the hundred at such a day if three men or one man so long live in these cases all such bargains and contracts are void within the intent of the Statute as it hath been adjudged in the Common Pleas and so it is in Gooches case Cook lib. 5. upon the Statute of fraudulent conveyances and secret Ioyntures also upon the Statute of Simonie it was adjudged although some of the Common Pleas doubted of it in regard a father is bound to provide for his son and Rogers and Bakers case in this Court was an antient case and adjudged for the Plantiffe and as to the other point it is found by the verdict that the presentation made by the Queen to Covel is not revoked nor admitted which words implie that Covel is still living in case of a special verdict and therefore to argue to that point as if it were found that Covel was living yet he conceived that the presentation without institution and Induction is determined by the Queens death and therefore in 2. Ed. 3. a license of Alienation clearly is not good in the time of another King for the license saith which are holden of us c. and by the death of the King they are not holden of him Fitzherberts natura brevium contra 16 H. 8. the nature of a presentment is explained where an Infant would avoid his presentation and in the principal case the Bishop cannot make any admission upon this presentation of Covel after the Queens death for he cannot do that in any manner according to the presentation because that is determined by the Queens death and therefore it seems clearly there needs no repeal in such a case although it appears by some presidents that repeals have been used in such cases and as to the case 17. Eliz. Dyer 339. that proveth not that there ought to be any repeal for it appears there that judgement was given upon a reason altogether different from our case and that was because a presentation was obtained of the Queen a quare impedit depending by her of which suit she had no notice and for that cause her second presentation was void and that was the true reason of that judgement as it is also put in Greens case Cook lib. 6. and I was present Mich. 17. Eliz. when this case was adjudged and the sole reason which they gave for the judgement was because the presentation by intendment could not take away the Action attached by the Queen for then the Queens grant should enure to a double intent which the Law will never tollerate without express words purporting so much but in our case there is no such double intendment and therefore c. but if there had been an admission and institution pursuing the presentation of Covel although no induction yet peradventure in such case there ought to have been an appeal because in such case it is not only the Queens Act but of the ordinary also interposing which is a Iudicial Act also without question we are out of the Statute of 6. H. 8. for here is no grant made by the Queen and a presentation clearly is not within that Statute and for that other reason the presentation of Calvert is good without recital of the Queens presentation also clearly if there ought to be a repeal in the case yet it is not examinable in this Action of Trespass which is possessorie and for the profits only but it may be examinable in a quare impedit and as to Greens case Cook lib. 6. which hath been used as an authoritie in this case that differs much from our case for there the thing which made the Queens presentation void was contained within the very Charter of the presentation and therefore differed from our case wherefore he commanded judgement should be entred for the Plantiffe and so it was Halseys case touching Recusancy THe case in the Exchequer Chamber touching the payment of the Kings Majesties debt due for the Recusancy of John Halsey as Recusant convict deceased with the lands and goods bought in the name of John Grove and Richard Cox Defendant in this Court that John Halsey was indicted and convicted for Recusancy the 18. day of July Anno 23. Eliz. and so remained convicted without submission till his death who died the last day of March 3. Iac. and after his conviction viz. after the 40. year of the Raign of the late Queen Elizabeth did purchase with his own money divers leases for years yet to come of lands in the Countie of Worcester and Warwick in the name of Richard Cocks for himself in trust and likewise did with his own money purchase certain leases for years yet to come of lands in the County of Hereford in the name of the said John Grove all which purchases were in trust for the Recusant and to his use Margaret Field is his next heir who is no Recusant Iohn Halsey hath not paid 20. l. a moneth since his conviction nor any part thereof these lands and leases were seised into the Kings hands for the satisfaction of the forfeitures due for the Recusancy of the said Halsey 14. August 5. Iac. Thomas Coventrie argued for the Defendant the question is whether these lands which were never in the Recusant but bought in the name of the Defendants in manner aforesaid be liable to the payment of his Majesties debts by the said Recusant as above said or not there are three points considerable in the case First if lands purchased by the Recusant in the name of others in trust are liable to his debt Secondly if the land of a
and Hall the Dean and Canons of Windsor 22. E. 4. were incorporated by the name of Dean and Canons of the Kings free Chappel of St. George the Martyr within his Castle of Windsor adjudged the variance of the Kings and Queens free Chappel was material although the lease was made in the time of Philip and Marie And he vouched also 44. E. 3. fo 3. and 38. E. 3. fo 28. and he said that it seemed to him that this presentation by another name had gained an usurpation by the Provost in his natural capacitie also it seemeth that notwithstanding it is not found that Doctor Airie was presented instituted and inducced yet the special verdict is good enough to have judgement of his part but he agreed that if the truth of the Case had been discovered by the pleading then it ought to be precisely shewed that such exact finding is not necessary in a special verdict as in pleading and he vouched Allens Case 33. Eliz. Banco Regis where the Iury found that Tenant for life made a lease for years and found not the lessor living nor dead and yet in this Case he was intended living and he cited also Haydons Case Cook lib. 3. and Hunts Case 5. Ma. Dyer 153. and he voucht the Case of West against Munson in a writ of error in the Kings Bench wherein the first action being an Assise in the Common Pleas it was alledged for error that the Iury did not finde the Plantiff was disseised but only the Defendant disseised him and yet the judgement was affirmed Dodderidge the Kings Serjeant for the Defendant he agreed that the name of a Corporation is essential to be alwayes used in their grants for thereby they are distinguished from other Corporations but he conceived that in this Case here is a sufficient supplying of that part of the name which is omitted and he said that although the special verdict in one place mentions the name of Queens Colledge yet when they nominate the Corporation it cals them the Provost and Scholers of the Hall omitting the words Queens Colledge and then they finde that the Provost and Scholers by the name of c. and he said that in so much the Iury found precisely that the same Corporation made the demise it is not material by what name they made it and therefore he said that if a Iury finde that I. S. had made a feofment by the name of R. S. this is good enough as it was holden in Shotbolts Case 10. 11. Eliz. and so in 13. E. 2. fitz tit Bastardy pl. 25. a Iury found that two daughters were heirs and that the Defendant was born in espousals a non suit and so 20. Eliz Dyer 361. the Iury found that Executors received rents incident to the reversion and so assets in their hands and he cited also Dyer 372. to the second matter he thought that the omitting of the name precisely of Doctor Airie made the special verdict vitious and will inveigle the Iudges so that they cannot give Iudgement for it may be that Doctor Airie was presented by the same name of Corporation as the other presentee was for he said in truth the Case was so also the special verdict is vitious because they found not any time of the Presentation of Doctor Airie for peradventure he was presented by the said Colledge when he was Provost thereof and then his presentation is not good by 22 E. 4. and to this purpose he cited Heckers case in 12. H. 8. and one Fuljambes case in 6. E. 6. in Bendlows and then admitting that Doctor Airie should be intended an usurper if he shall avoid this lease it was also moved that if a Corporation by a false name present and admission institution and induction is made by a true name if this make a Plenartie and Boswel and Greens case Cook lib. 6. was cited See more after fol. The Maior of Lincolns Case Huddleston and Hills case IN an Attachment against the Maior of Lincoln and the Steward of the Court there being Colshil it was said that if a writ of error be directed to an inferiour Court they ought to execute it in all things although that their fee be not paid nor tendered to them and Mr. Man Secondarie to Roper said that the fee which is demanded by them ought to be indorsed upon the return of the writ of error so that the Iudges may judge of it if it be reasonable and divers presidents warrant that accordingly Huddleston and Hill against Bows an Elegit upon a judgement issued at the suit of Hill and after Hill died and his eldest son sued a scire facias upon the said judgement and holden that it lieth not If a man sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes of Headlands the Defendant may have a Prohibition but by some he ought to suggest that they are but small Headlands and that there is a custome of discharge in consideration that he paid Tithes in kinde of Meadows and in this case Williams said that if a man keep sheep in one Parish until Shearing time and then sell them into another Parish in this Case the Vendee shall pay the Tithe wool to the Parish where they were depastured in the greater part of the time of the growing of the wool See the Tithing Tavle the fifth question Skelton against the Lady Airie IN a Prohibition the Plantiff saith that was seised of the Mannor of Calthrop and also of the Rectory of Haughton Calthrop and that the land whereof the tithe is demanded is Coppihold and holden of the said Mannor and that this was also found by special verdict accordingly and that it had been always discharged of payment of Tithes and it was argued that the Prohibition did lie for it was adjudged Mich 34. 35. Eliz. that a perpetual union of the Parsonage and the land charged is a sufficient discharge of the Tithes and a prescription may be well enough to be discharged of the payment of Tithes as it appears by a Case put in the Arch-Bishop of Canterburies Case Cook lib. 2. George Crook of Counsel on the other side and he conceived that a perpetual unitie was no perpetual discharge and he said there was no judgement given in the Case cited before and he also said that the Iury in this Case found not a discharge of payment of Tithes but only a new usage to pay by unitie of possession and he cited 10. H. 7. or 6. where the manner of Tithing is set down also he cited the Bishop of Winchesters Case Cook lib. 2. and he cited the Prior of D. Case to be resolved in 40. Eliz. that a Coppiholder may prescribe to be discharged of Tithes by pleading that he was alwayes Tenant by Copie to a spiritual Corporation also he cited the Case of Pigot and Hern mentioned in Cook lib. 2. in the Bishop of Wintons Case fol. 45. and he said that it was adjudged in Sheddingtons Case that if a
it seems to me it is apparant by the Statute of the 26. H. 8. Cap. 10. which gives power to the King by his letters Patents to limit the time for importing of Wines against the Statute of 23. H. 8. Cap. 7. which was no more but a restoring of his power abridged before and so was the Statute of 31. E. 3. for otherwise the Parliament would never have given him Authoritie to contradict an Act of Parliament by his letters Patents or to revive these Acts Impositions are meerly a new custome and so are they stiled in the Margent of the Roll of the 3. E. 1. in this Court where it is Recorded that the King had assigned Merchants to receive using the same words which are used here half a Mark for every Sack of Wool and a Mark of every Last of Leather and that if the Merchant who is so appointed Transport any after that it shall be forfeited and out of this record I observe that three hundred Pelts make a Sack of Wooll from the 21. Ed. 1. unto the 28. E. 1. the customs for Wools was 40. s. a Sack and in 25. E. 1. the Imposition of Maletolt was repealed by Act of Parliament which Maletolt was an increase of Impost upon staple commodities and therfore was given to the King a great subsidie with this cause that it should never be drawn into president which shews that this Maletolt was rightly imposed otherwise the Parliament would never have given him so great a Recompence for the Abrogation of it but after in the 13. of E. 3. because it was a thing of so great consequence to the Crown it was revived and made 40. s. for Wool and Woolfels and 3. l. for Leather for denizens and double for strangers in the 14. Ed. 3. a Petition in Parliament to abate it and for a great subsidie it was released and in the 18. of Ed. 3. it was again revived and a new petition was made in Parliament and this petition was continued until the 36. of Ed. 3. and then it was abated and also by the 45. E. 3. it was again abated so that it seem that between these times it was revived but after it did not continue long for in 48. E. 3. it was again revived and for Wool the Impost was 50. s. et sic de singulis and in 1. R. 2. after it was answered to the King as it appears in the accompts here and in 5. R. 2. it was again suppressed by Parliament for a subsidie granted to the King with a saving of antient rights all these Statutes prove expresly that the King had power to increase the Impost and that upon commodities of the land and that he continually used this power notwithstanding all Acts of Parliament against it and so much for commodities of this land but for forrain commodities it appears by no Act of Parliament or other president that never any petition or suit was made to abate the Impost of forrain commodities but of them the Impost was paid without denial as for example for Wines in the 16. E. 1. as appears in this Court upon Record it was commanded to the Bailiff of Dover to levie and Gollece of every Tun of Wine of a stranger 4. s. and in the 22. E. 1.2 s. thereof was released at the suit of the French Ambassador in the 26. of E. 3. the King granted priviledges to Merchants strangers but there was given for it an increase of custome and this was answered as it appears upon accompt in the times of E. 1. and E. 2. the case of Allom was as it hath been recited by my brother Clark it is objected that the Merchant ought to have free passage upon the Sea but that both not conclude the King but that he shall have his Impost if he cometh into his Ports and here the question is for Merchandise after that they are brought into the Port but it is said that they cannot come into the Port but by the Sea that is true but if this reason should hold then the King could not grant Murage Pontage and the like because the common Channel to them is free and Average is for securitie aswel as Ports another objection that the Defendant here is not restrained but that is answered for if a pain be inflicted upon them who import this is an inhibition upon a pain to all another objection was that there was no consideration of the Imposition and if it be demanded what differences between the cases I answer as much as is between the King and a subject and it is not reasonable that the King should express the cause and consideration of his Actions for they are arcana Regis and no satisfaction needeth for if the profits to the Merchant faileth he will not trade and it is for the benefit of every subject that the Kings Treasure should be increased an objection was made against the form of proceeding because it was by the great Seal to the Treasurer and that he by the customers Peteret et reciperet and this could not be better as it was answered before it was objected that it should be by Proclamation and that needs not for it toucheth not all the subjects but only those who are Traders in Merchandising the best and aptest means to give them notice by the customers and it is alledged by the information expresly that he had notice It was lastly objected that there ought to be a quod damnum in the case before the grant that is not so for that shall be only when the King granteth any thing which appertaineth to his prerogative and not when he maketh Charters to his servants to levy his duties due to his Crown wherefore I think that the King ought to have judgement which was after given accordingly 6. Jac. in the Exchequer An Information against Sir Edward Dimock THe Bishop of Carlisle called John May in A. 26. Eliz. made a lease in reversion to Queen Eliz. of the Mannor of Horncastle whereof the Bishop was seised in right of his Bishoprick and this was for 4. years and it was acknowledged before Commissioners appointed for this purpose and the Bishop prayed it to be inrolled and this prayer is indorsed but not inrolled and in 37. Eliz. this lease was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter in the life of the lessor and in 44. Eliz. the successor Bishop leased this land to Sir Edward Dimock the Statute of the 43. of Eliz. hath a proviso that it shall not extend to any lease before made by the Bishop of Carlisle to Queen Eliz. then not inrolled and after the death of the Queen viz. 5. Jac. this lease in 26. Eliz. is returned and certified to be acknowledged and is then also inrolled and Sir Edward Dimock had entred and was in possession by vertue of his lease in the 3. Jac. and the information was for entrie and intrusion in 3. Jac. and upon the Bar all this matter was discovered and a
the said resolution and he said that the case concerning parcel of the land contained in S. the Deed come in question in Parliament in the 43. Eliz. and it was then commanded that the Deed should be inrolled and also he compared it to a case put in Shelleys Case that the heir shall have land as by discent from his father although that the conveyance be not inrolled in the life of the father also he said that the Queen dieth not as to her body politick to the third point he said that the confirmation need not to be inrolled for it passeth nothing and is but a bare assent and therefore differeth from the case of Patron and Ordinary and of a disseissee for the disseisee hath right to grant end the Patron and Ordinary have interest in R. but Bishops are seised in their own right and therefore their lease wants the approbation only of the Dean and Chapter and he vouched Cook lib. 3. the Dean and Chapter of Norwiches Case and the writ of Sine Assensu Capituli in the Register proveth it for the tit confirmation pl. 30. observes and Littleton in the end of his chap. of discontinuance saith that a parson may charge the Gleab by the assent of the Patron and Ordinary and the opinion of Brook in the case of the 33. of H. 8. tit confirmation pl. 30. agreeth to this opinion and so are some opinions in the 7. H 4. fo 15. 16. and he said that this point was adjudged accordingly in the first of Ma. but he had not the record thereof and therefore he would not insist upon it and he vouched 1. and 2. of Ma. Dyer fo 106. and Cook lib 6. fo 15. Hodges Case that the acceptance of the Patron is good enough to make a confirmation to the fourth point he said that the confirmation was good notwithstanding it be before the inrolment of the lease for the lease shall stay his operation until all the Ceremonies be used for the perfection of the estate and he vouched Littleton fo 122. and 6. E. 6. Dyer fo 69. where a parson made a lease to commence after his death the Patron and Ordinary in the life of the parson confirmed it and this is good and he vouched also Anne Maiowes Case Cook lib. 1. where the father confirmed the sons grant when he had but a possibilitie and yet good and he vouched Dyer 2. 3. Eliz. fo 194. where a grant was incertain and the inception was before the confirmation after makes it good and therefore he said if disseissor and disseissee bargain land although it be but a confirmation of the disseisee which may be well enough without inrolment of the Deed by a bare delivery yet this shall hinder the operation until the inrolment of the Deed which should pass the estate from the disseisor and by Cook lib. 5. Fitz. Case it appeareth that one part of the assurance shall stay his operation until another part hath his perfection and therefore he concluded that here the confirmation in judgement of Law should stay his operation until the lease be inrolled which passed the estate see the argument of Serjeant Nichols to the contrary and also the argument of Thomas Crew in Easter Term and Trin. 7. Jac. Pasch 7. Jac. in the Exchequer Catesbies Case Pasch 7. Jac. in the Exchequer TAnfield chief Baron said that in the year 31. Eliz it was adjudged in Goar and Peers Case if Tenant for life infeoffe A. and his heirs to the use of the feoffee and his heirs during the life of the feoffor that this is a forfeiture because these words during the life of the feoffor shall be but to the use limited and he put the case which Serjeant Nichols put at the Bar of the Lady Catesby which was that a man suffered a recovery to the use of William Catesby and Anne his wife and of the longer liver of them and of the Executors of William for forty years if one Elizabeth Catesby should so long live William Catesby dies and the reversion came to the King by forfeiture and he pretended that Elizabeth Catesby being dead the estate is also determined in regard that these words if Elizabeth shall so long live refer to all the estate but Curia avisari vult It was said by the chief Baron that if a man plead a deed in writing and the other partie do not pray Oyer the same Term he shall not have Oyer in another Term in the Common Pleas but in the Kings Bench Oyer shall be granted in another Term. It was found by office that Elizabeth Bowes was convicted of Recusancy in 35. Eliz. and that a lease for years was made unto her in the year 36. Eliz. in trust and that she had conveyed this lease over according to the trust and a question was demanded if the King shall have this term or not for her Recusancy and it seemed that he shall because she is not capable nor lyable of any trust and therefore the conveyance made by the Recusant was as if it had been without any compulsion by reason of the trust If a Coppiholder of the Kings Mannor pretendeth prescription for a Modus decimandi against the Parson the right of Tithes shall be tried in the Exchequer and a prohibition was granted to the Ecclesiastical Court in this Case Owen Ratliff was lessee for years of the King rendring rent and he assigned his Term to Sir Thomas Chichley in trust for payment of the debts of the said Owen Ratliff and after the Debts were paid Chichley resigned it but in the interim between the assignment and the resignment divers rents incurred to the King and the Barons agreed that these arretages in Law may be levied upon the land of Chichley notwithstanding the trust but because the Court was informed that the Executors of Ratliff had assets and continued farmer of the farm at that time they compelled him to pay it and being present in Court they imprisoned him untill payment made and allowed him his remedy by English Bill against Chichley and that by the agreement Chichley was to have paid the rents to the King The Earl of Cumberlands Case IT was found by diem clausit extremum after the death of G. Eearl of Cumberland that King E. 2. gave to the Lord Clifford inter alia the Mannor of Skipton in Craven to him and to the heirs of his body and found further the discent in a direct line until the time of H. 6. and that the first Donee and all others to whom it descended were seised prout lex postulat without determining any estate in certain in the Donee and they found that H. 6. by sufficient conveyance concessit Revertionem nec non manerium de Skipton in Craven to Thomas Lord Clifford to whom the estate given by E. 2. was descended and his heirs by force whereof the said Thomas was seised prout lex postulat and found the discent to the
therefore he had done well to shew the special matter as he had done and not to confess it as it is in the in formation nor to traverse the said demise because it is matter in Law 5. H. 7. and Vernons case Cook lib. 4. he needs not traverse absque hoc that the lease was made for and in satisfaction of Dower and to shew the special matter viz. that it was a conditional lease and so leave it to the Iudges for the matter in Law if it be a joynture or not also it seemeth to me that it is sufficient for the Bar to say that the Commission was not returned by Hammond and Porter for that is a Traverse to the information and it cannot be intended to be returned by any other of the Commissioners in regard that those two only did execute it for the taking of the acknowledgement as the information mentions but he said nothing in this case if this Commission may be returned by those Commissioners who took not the acknowledgement also by him and Snig Bromley absent sigillo suo ratificat is good enough without saying sigillo suo sigillat contrary to Baron Altham also the Defendants have shewed the time in their Bar when the first lease was intolled so that it is certain but it seems to me that admit the matter in Law was for the King yet upon this information we cannot give judgement for him for the information is for the mean profits incurred before the inrolment and this is clear that the King cannot have them without doubt admit that the Bishop had been living yet the inrolment cannot relate as to the mean profits although it should be admitted to be good to make the lease good at the time of the inrolment and so upon all the matter he agreed that judgement ought to be given against the King and so it was Tanfield chief Baron said that if a man take a lease of my land from the King by Patent rendring rent this is not an Indenture to compel him to pay the rent for the King had nothing to grant whereupon a rent might be reserved to him Altham Baron said that the King shall have the rent here as by estoppel between common persons but it was adjourned It was said by Tanfield chief Baron that a Collector of a fifteenth may levie all the Tax within one Township upon the goods of one inhabitant only if he will and that inhabitant shall have aid of the Court to make each other inhabitant to be contributory which was granted by the Court Bromley being absent Tanfield chief Baron said that if a man had judgement against A. upon an Obligation who dieth and another Obligee of the said A. assignes his Obligation to the King the Executors of A. satisfie the said judgement it is good against the King in respect the debt now due to the King was not upon Record before the death of the Testator which was granted by the Court. Levison against Kirk THis Term the case between Levison and Kirk which was opened the last Term was adjudged and the case was that Levison brought an Action upon the case in the office of Pleas against Kirk and declared that whereas the Plantiff was a Merchant and 13. Martii 40. Eliz. intended to go beyond the Seas to M. to Merchandise and the same day and year at D. he acquainted the Defendant with his determination and then in the same place appointed and trusted the Defendant being his servant to receive for him all such Merchandise and goods which should be sent over or carried or conveyed by the Plantiff in the same voyage and to pay for the custome of them and to dispose of them and convert them for the profit and commoditie of the said Plantiff and thereupon conveyed divers goods to the Defendant and that the same day and year the Plantiff took shipping and sailed to M. and that within five dayes following 20. pieces of Velvet were brought into the Port of S. consigned by the Plantiff to the Defendant in the absence of the Plantiff and that the Defendant on purpose to deceive the Queen of her custome and to make the Plantiff to allow custome unto him did take of the said goods so consigned and land them on the land at S. aforesaid the custome not paid whereby the Plantiff lost his goods as forfeited for default of payment of custome to the damage of c. and upon not guiltie pleaded a venire facias was awarded to the the Sheriff that he should cause to come 12. from the Venue of D. and those c. viz. from the place where the trust was reposed and from the place where the trust was broken and thereupon the Defendant was found guiltie and damages 50. l. and in Pasch Chibborn Serjeant moved in arrest of judgement that the Action did not lie for every fault against the servant although it be such a misfeazance for which the Plantiff receives prejudice and therefore if you will have an Action in this case you ought to shew a special trust reposed and a breach of that trust by the servent or otherwise an Action upon the case lieth not and that is not observed here for although that you shew that the Defendant being your servant was appointed and trusted for the goods to be consigned in the said voyage yet you did not shew that these goods were not consigned in the said voyage neither do you shew that he was such a servant generally used to be imployed in trading for your goods neither do you shew that you have allowed or delivered moneys to him to make him able to pay the custome and to say that by the sale of the goods themselves he may pay it himself and you appointed him to dispose them at his pleasure yet hereby you do not inable him thereunto for he ought to pay the custome before he sell them and them peradventure he had not money to discharge the custome wherefore there is no cause of your Action as this Declaration is and therefore he prayed that judgement may be stayed George Crook prayed that judgement may be given for although it bâ— not expresly shewed that the Plantiff continued beyond the Seas in the said voyage at the time of the coming of the goods to the said Port yet the intendment ought to be so of necessitie in regard it is shewed that within five dayes after his departure and in his absence these goods were consigned c. and his return cannot be intended in so smal a time and he vouched 21. E. 4. fo 13. also it is not material in the case to shew that the Master hath left where withal to pay the custome for here the Action is brought in respect of deceipt and fraud in the Defendant and this is inferred divers wayes the first that the Defendant ought to receive my goods Secondly that he should pay the custome Thirdly that he should dispose of them at his pleasure for
the profit and comoditie of his Master the Plantiff and it is shewed that he intended to deceive his Master and the Queen also and where a wrong is made to another in my name whereby I am damnified there I shall have an Action and if in this case the Defendant had left the goods in the ship then the Plantiff had suffered no loss and therefore his taking them out of the ship is the cause which occasions the loss to the Plantiff and therefore it is reasonable that he should render us damages and he vouched the writ of deceipt in F. N. B. and divers cases therein put and 21. E. 4. that if a man bring an Action in London and the Defendant to delay my Action brings a writ of priviledge be shall have an Action upon the case and he vouched the like case to be adjudged in the Kings Bench 40. Eliz. between Byron and Sleith upon an Action of the case brought by the Defendant because he sued a scire facias against a Bail in a Court where he ought Bromley Puisne Baron said that the Plantiff shall have judgement First it shall be intended that the Plantiff was beyond the Seas at the time in respect of the Minute of time between his departure and the landing of the goods Secondly he said that it needs not be expressed that the Master had left moneys wherewith to discharge the custome for it shall be intended in this case because the Defendant had taken upon him to meddle according to the appointment of the Plantiff wherefore c. and so he departed to the Parliament Altham second Baron agreed that the Statute for the paying of custome appointeth that if the goods of any man be laid upon the land the custome not paid that then the goods shall be forfeited and therefore here he shall not lose his goods by reason of this Act made by the Defendant so that if the Defendant be a meer stranger to the Plantiff without question an Action of Trespass lies for this taking then in the principal case by reason of this trust an action of the case lies and if a stranger drives my Cattle upon your land whereby they are distrained by you I shall recover against the stranger for this distress by you in an action against him for by reason of this wrongful Act done by him I suffer this loss and he vouched 9. E. 4. fo 4. a case put by Jenney Snig third Baron to the contrary I agree that if a stranger put in my Cattle to the intent to do hurt to me a Trespass lieth but here is an Action upon the case and that lies not because it appears not sufficiently that the Defendant was servant to the Plantiff to Merchandise but generally his servant and therefore an Action of Trespas rather lieth generally for in an Action upon the case he ought to hit the bird in the eye and here it is not shewed that the goods were for the same voyage nor that the Defendant is a Common servant in this imployment also the Declaration is not good because he doth not shew that the Defendant had moneys or means from the Master to pay the custome and he is not compellable to lay out money of his own besides he cannot dispose of the goods until the custome be paid wherefore c. Tanfield chief Baron there are two matters to be considered in the case First if here you charge the Defendant as your special servant or if as a stranger Secondly if as a stranger then if an Action upon the case or a general Action of Trespass lieth and as to the first if in this case you have shewed him to be such a servant as a Bayliff or Steward and he hath misbehaved himself in such a thing which belongs to his charge without any special trust an Action upon the case lieth but if he be taken to be your general servant then he is to do and execute all Acts and lawful commands and against this general servant if his Master command him to do such a thing and he doth it not an action upon the case lieth but yet this is with this diversitie viz. if the Master command him to do such a thing which is in his convenient power or otherwise not and therefore if I command my servant to pay 100. l. at York and give him not money to hire a horse an Action lieth not for the not doing of this command but if I furnish him with ability to do it and then he doth it not an action lieth well against him and in the principal case it is shewed that the Plantiff appointed the Defendant being his servant generally to receive c. and to pay all customes c. then it is examinable if the Plantiff sufficiently inabled this Defendant to do this command and the woâ—ds of the command seem to be all one as if he had commanded the Defendant to receive the Wares paying the custome and therefore the Defendant needs not to receive them if he had not money to pay for the custome and so it is not within the Plantiffs command to receive the Wares and then if he doth receive them not paying for the customes this is another thing then the command anâ— therefore it is no misfeazance as my particular servant but being my general servant he had done another thing then I commanded him whereby I receive some damage and by consequence is in case of a stranger for if my general servant who is not my horse keeper take my horse out of my pasture and ride him this is a thing which he doth not as a servant but as a stranger then as to the second matter the Defendant being as a stranger if an action upon the case or a general action of Trespass lieth for this is as if my general servant take my horse and rides him without my appointment a general action of Trespass lieth but if by reason of his riding my horse die an action upon the case lieth and so it is in the case here the Defendant had laid the goods upon the land by reason whereof they were forfeited it is collourable that an Action upon the case lieth but if a man take my goods and lay them upon the land of A. a Trespass or an Action upon the case lieth against him who took them by the better opinion but it is good to be advised and it was adjourned and at another day Altham Baron said that an Action upon the case or a Trespass generally did lie well enough and he vouched F. N. B. that if a Bailiff arrest one without any warrant I shall have Trespass generally or an Action upon the case at my election and so in the like case 18. E. 4 fo 23. Trespass or Action upon the case lies also by F. N. B. if Executors be outed by the Testators Lessor there they may have an Action upon the case if they will or Trespass generally and in
his successor may present anew and seemed to him no question and to this purpose he vouched 12. Eliz. Dyer fo 292. that he may repeale and it is not of necessity that this instrument which purporteth the repeale should be shewed to the Gardian of the Spiritualties and by the 19. Eliz. fo 360. in Coleshils case if it is said that when the King hath presented a Repeale by him ought not to be admitted after institution see for such matters in the Book also he vouched Dyer 339. Yattons case to prove that the King may repeale his presentation by a new presentation without mention made of the former except that the second presentation be obtained by fraud as there it is and he vouched Dyer 294. Goodmans case and so he concluded Damport to the contrary there are two points The first is the Patron and a stranger corruptly agree to present Kitchin whereupon he is presented if this shall be void against Kitchin 2. admitting that the Queen had title to present and she presents and dyes before admittance if the King may present a stranger without mentioning the other presentation to be repealed As to the first he said that at the common Law so if one be simoniacally presented yet this is not void untill the Presentee be deprived and if before this Statute such a corrupt presentment had been made the incumbent and ordinary being free then no presentment should ensue and he vouched the saying of Linwood an Author of the Civill Law to be accordingly but if money be given by the friends of the Presentee and after the King had notice thereof and assent then it is not punishable but pardonable at the discretion of the King and now by him the Statute provides no punishment for the person when the Patron only consents to the Simonie for he observed that after the said Statute of 31. Eliz. had appointed a punishment for the Patron then in the last part of this branch the words are the persons so corruptly taking c. shall be incapable of the Benefice aforesaid and so it seemeth that the intent of the Statute is not to punish any party but he that is to the Simonie and this is also explained to be so by other Clauses in the Statute for another Clause inflicts punishment upon him who is party to a corrupt resignation and so in all the clause those only who are partakers of the Crime shall be punished and to prove that such comstruction hath been made upon penall Statutes that he only shall be punished who had notice of the crime he vouched Littleton who saith that upon the Statute of Gloucester notice was requisite or otherwise no default also he vouched to this purpose the case of Pickering in 12. Eliz. Dyer fo 292. a Lay Person presents a Bastard to a Benefice who was admitted accordingly c. and in a suite thereupon issue was admitted to be taken if the Patron knew that he was a Bastard so if he had no notice thereof then there is no default in him and he vouched 43. E. 3. to this purpose 22. E. 4. tit consultation and he well agreed Closse and Pomcoyes case now lately adjudged which was that Sir George Cary being seised of aâ— Advowson granted the next avoidance to his second sonne and dyed and after the Sonne corruptly agreed with I. S. to procure the said I. S. to be presented to this Benefice and the second brother knowing thereof it was agreed that for the perfecting of the agreement the second Brother should surrender his Grant and interest to the elder brother which elder brother not knowing of the said corrupt agreement presented the said I. S. who was instituted c. all shall be void for he is presented here by reason of this corrupt agreement between the Patron who then was and the parson and the elder Brother was only used to convey a bad gift by a good hand and all had reference to the corrupt agreement with the assent of the Patron who then was but here in our case was no agreement assented unto by the Parson and this diversity also seems to be good that if A. hath the presentation and B. the nomination to a Benefice and the Presentor upon a corrupt agreement makes a presentation unknown to the Nominator here the Nominator shall not be preâ—udiced within this statute As to the second matter it seemes that by the demise of the Queen this presentation is not countermanded or repealed in Law and therefore he said that he would agree that if the Qeen had made such an Act which was only a bare Authority without interest this will determine by her death as it was ruled for a Letter of Atturney to execute livery of Dutchy Lands for this is a bare Authority and is a means to do a thing to her prejudice and he agreed that by implication or without cause a common person could not vary from his presentation as if a Feme sole present and intermarry this is not controuled by her marriage for it is a thing which is not to her prejudice and he vouched Cook lib. 4. Forse and Hemlins case and one Marke Ogles case proveth that the death of a Common Patron is no revocation of his presentation for if a man present and dye if it be a disturbance his Executors may have a Quare impedit and much more in the case of the King who dyeth but he well agreed that the King might have repealed his presentation and after have resumed it again which proveth that it is not a meere Authority but mixt with an interest for an Authority revoked cannot be revived but without Actuall repealing it is not to be avoided and therefore he vouched Sir Thomas Wrothes case in Plowden fo 457. That if the King grant to one licence to purchase Land in respect that by a means this doth acquire an interest to a party this doth not determine by the demise of the King although the Grant be not for the King and his Successors so here this presentation is a meanes to give an interest to the Party and therefore is not determined by the Demise of the King and he vouched 1. Ma. Dyer fol. 92. and so if it be a Licence dispensative this is not determined by her death and he vouched 3. E. 3. fo 29. cited in Sir Thomas Wrothes case see more after Mich. 7. Jacobi in the Exchequer Sir Daniel Nortons case IN Sir Daniel Nortons case it was agreed that where one Oglander was chargable to the King for 27. l. for an Amercement for which Processe issued out of this Court to Sir Daniel Norton Sheriff of Hampshire to levie it and his under Sherif being Chamberlain came to Oglander upon another occasion and Oglander said unto him Chamberlain you do owe vnto me 30. l. by bond I pray you pay me whereunto Chamberlain said you are to pay me 27. l. for an Amercement which I ought to Levy against you by
the Mannor of Caversfield rendring rent and that this rent was arrear and thereupon an Inquisition returned and a scire facias issued to Moil who occupied the land to shew cause wherefore the King should not have this land whereupon he pleaded as Ter-tenant and upon this plea the Kings Attorney demurred but it was misentred as see hereafter but for divers great imperfections aswell in the Kings Commission as otherwise the Defendant ought to have judgement as all the Barons agreed as by the arguments of every Baron upon mature deltheration appeareth but for the reasons of the Barons to the exceptions taken by the Councel see after for they are very good Bromley Puisue Baron whereas the Inquisition purporteth that the Iurors in the County of Bucks have found a foundation of a Priory in the County of Oxon. that is not good by course of Law for if a thing be local the Iurors of another County cannot finde it and here the Commission giveth power only to inquire of things in the County of Bucks and he vouched Plowden in the Earl of Leicesters case upon a Commission directed to White Lord and Maior c. also the Inquisition is that Thomas Banbury Nuper Prior was seised and made a conveyance as is affirmed that is not good also the word Nuper may be intended a 100. years before and so no certainty as appears in Wrothesly and Adams case in Plowden Altham 2d Baron there are three faults in the Commission First is to inquire of a Mannor and lands of the late Priory of Bister in Caversfield in the County of Bucks and by these words no power is given to inquire of any thing concerning the Priory which is in the County of Oxon. and the words in the County of Bucks do defer to all the sentence precedent and not to the word Caversfield only 19 E. 4. fo 16 7. H. 6. fo 8. if A. B. and C. be insula de D. it shall be construed that the word insula hath reference to all the three Towas but if it were in A. B. and C. insula and not in insula then it is otherwise a Commission to inquire of lands of the Prior of Bister is evil without question where Bister is and he said that this may be proved by Pages case Cook lib. 5. also the Commission doth not propose any end wherefore the Iury should be but generally to inquire of the lands of the Priory at the time of the dissolution so that it may be certified to the King by the Inquisition the first fault which is found is that the Priory was founded by the name of the Church of Saint Mary and Saint Egbert without saying the Prior and Covent of c. and without finding of the place of the foundation viz. Bister and this cannot be without assignmend of the place of the foundation viz. Bister also the finding is that one Thomas Banbury then Prior as is affirmed made a feofment c. and this is not good because it ought to be absolutely found or otherwise it is not material also the intent of the feofment is found to be made by the Prior but no livery is found thereupon as it ought although that livery shall be intended in the case of a feofment pleaded by a common person yet it ought to be found expresly in the case of a Corporation and the finding here and that by vertue whereof he was seised as the Law requireth doth not aide the case Snig Baron it seems to me that this Commission was only to inform if the matter had been sufficient to us to give judgement to the King but here being to intitle c. it is not good the Commission is to inquire for the King of the lands of the Prior and this meerly incertain without saying certainly of what Prior and therefore they have no power to inquire of the lands of the Priory also the Iury of the County of Bucks cannot inquire of the name of the foundation of a Corporation in the County of Oxon. for the foundation is matter Local but it seems to me here that the finding by vertue whereof he was seised prout c. shall be intended that livery was made being by a verdict Tanfield chief Baron here is not any demurrer being mis-entred and therefore we have power to proceed to any matter in Law for the purpose in this case was that whereas the Statute of the 27. H. 8. of lesser Monasteries under the yearly value of 200. l. giveth them to the King and this Mannor of Caversfield within this Statute is to be seised as is pretended in this case whereupon this Commission issued to inform the King of this Mannor as parcel of these Revenues for I deny that it is an office of intitling it is only an office of instruction for the Statute of 27. H. 8. dissolves the smaller Monasteries and vests them actually in the King and this is the difference from the Statute of the 31. H. 8. for this Statute is only an Act to Abolish the lands of dissolved Monasteries and therefore this Statute is only to inform for the Statute of 27. H. 8. had intitled the King and he said that the land shall be in the King without office so that it being but an office of instruction this may be good notwithstanding divers incertainties therein contained but the plain and apparant fault herein is because it is not to inquire what lands the Prior had at the time of the dissolution as it ought to be for the words are to inquire what lands the late Prior had but it seems to me in this case that the Iurors of the County of Bucks may inquire of the foundation in another County without doubt this being but to inform and not to intitle and this is not alike mischief to the party for otherwise all Commissions to inform would be quashed and I have seen a Record in this Court where a man of a good family was found to be the Kings Villain regardant to a Mannor in Norfolk and this was done by a Iury in Suffolk and therefore in such cases God defend but that a Iury may finde a matter local in another County also a gross defect is in the Inquisition viz. because it doth not mention that the Mannor of Caversfield came to the King by the Statute of the 27. H. 8. but that the Priory came to the King by that Statute and doth not say that this Mannor was part of the possessions of the Priory at the time of dissolution and for these last matters it is apparent that the Inquisition and Commission are vitious although it be not proper for us as the case is to adjudge it for here is no demurrer joyned for the demurrer is joyned as if it were upon an Information of intrusion and here is no intrusion laid to the charge of the Defendant and yet after the plea pleaded by Moil the Attorney prayed that he may be
in 1. Jacobi and no other conviction ever was and yet de facto he continued a Recusant untill his death and his Land viz. two parts thereof were seised in his life and the King answered of 200. l. thereof which incurred in the moneths contained in the Indictment and now a Writ is issued which supposeth the said Robert to be indebted to the King in 20. l. for every moneth be lived after 28. Eliz. untill 1. Jacobi for his Recusancy which amounted to 4000. l. which Writ also commands to enquire what Lands the said Robert Becket had at the time of his death and thereupon it was found that he had divers Lands c. and upon a Scire facias to the Terretenants to shew cause wherefore two parts of the Lands of the said Robert Becket should not now be seised for the debt of the Recusant aforesaid one Henry Becket as Terretenant or Tenant of the Premisses pleaded that the King is satiefied of all the 20. l. and for all the moneths that the said Robert was convicted to be a Recusant and he vouched the Constat thereof under the hand of the Deputy of the Pipe Office and for the residue he said that by 28. Eliz. cap. 6. it is amongst other things enacted that if any person which hath not repaired or shall not repaire to some Church Chappell or usuall place of Common Prayer but hath forborne or shall forbeat the same contrary to the Tenor of the Statute of 23. Eliz. cap. 1. and hath been heretofore convicted for such offence shall forfeit c. provided that it he hath made submission and been conformable according to the true meaning of the said Statute or shall fortune to dye that then no forfeiture of 20. l. for any moneth or for seisure of the Lands of the same offender from and after such submission and conformity or death and full satisfaction of all the arrerages of 20 l. monethly before such seisure due or payable shall ensue or be continued against such Offendor and traverseth without that that there is any Record besides this Writ to charge the said Robert Becket deceased of or for the summe of 4000. l. towards our said Lord the King c. and so prayeth to be discharged thereof Vpon which Plea the Kings Atturney Generall demurred and Coventry argued that the Plea is good he said that there are three Points to be considered First that if a man be convicted of Recusancy in 28. Eliz. for 10. moneths then passed and de facto continueth a Recusant untill his death in 1. Jac. without other conviction if now the King can claim 20. l. a moneth for more moueths then are contained in the Indictment whereupon he is convicted Secondly admit that the King may have the forfeiture for every moneth whereof no conviction was as well as if a conviction had been then if the King can seise the Lands for the payment thereof after his death no seisure being had for it in his life by the Stat. of the 28. Eliz. or if the power of seisure be altogether gone by the death of the Recusant Thirdly admitting that the King shall have more then is contained within the Indictment if the Debt it self be not gone by the death of the Recusant To the first Point there is no President to be found that any man convicted before 28. Eliz. was charged to the Payment of more then that which was within the Indictment and the words of the Statute of 28. Eliz. contained within this Clause which provides for the payment due since the Conviction do not inforce any construction to the contrary and in this Clause the words being do yet remain unpaid are not proper words but for a thing payable before this Statute for so many moneths whereof he was convicted of Recusancy and the words without any other conviction are to be understood for so much as was unpaid of that contained in the Indictment and the last Clause of this Branch of the Statute hath not the words without any conviction and the other Clause provides that by expresse words for the future time every person who shall be once convicted shall forfeit c without other conviction and it was resolved Hill 4. Jacobi in the Kings Bench between Grinstone and Oliver that the Statute of 28. Eliz. alters and adds three things to the Statute of 23. Eliz. 1. That all the money due for Recusancy shall be paid into the Exchequer 2. This limits a time for payment thereof yearly viz. in the four Terms of the year 3. This giveth a penalty viz. power to seise all the goods and two parts for non-payment but all that is only for that which was payable before the conviction and therefoâ—e the words in the Branch which contains our Case have apt words of construction that he shall pay all due for the paine of seisure for 23. Eliz. gives no seisure but imprisonment if payment be not made within three moneths after judgement and so in our case Conviction ought to precede the duty To the second Point it seemeth that the power of seisure within this Statute is gone by the death of the Recusant for before the Statute of 1. Jacobi the power for seisure was but a penalty that if the party fail in payment of 20. l. a moneth then c. and in all cases upon penall Laws if the party die before the penalty inflicted this shall not be inflicted at all and that this is but a penalty he vouched one Grayes case in 1. and 2. Jacobi to be adjudged accordingly Also the words in this Statute which give the seisure of Land appointeth a levying to be of the 3. part for the maintenance of the Offendor his Wife Children and Family and after his death he hath no Wife so that if it be demanded when the seisin must be the answer is then when a third part may be left for his use which cannot be but in the life of the Recusant Also it appoints that the seisure ought to be by Processe which ought to be in the life of the party by intendment Also the Proviso of the Statute of 28. Eli. saith that if any person shall dye no seisure shall insue or be continued aâ—d out case is within those words for in regard there hath been no seisure in his life therefore after his death no seisure ought to insue and the words which purport another semblance of construction viz. and satisfaction of all arrerages are to be understood only in case where there was a former seisure that is in the life of the party and have reference to the words to be continued and that the intent is so he said that the words are so that the Heir shall pay no more but so much as the Land was seised for To the third it seemeth that in this case the debt it self is gone by the death of the party At the Common Law a penalty shall never be recovered against the
was in a Formedon in remainder and it was moved now by Serjeant Harris if the partie against whom it was given may sue in the Exchequer Chamber by Bill or petition to the King in the nature of a writ of false judgement for the Reversal of that judgement Tanfield seemed that it is proper so to do for by 13. Rich. 2. if a false judgement be given in a base Court the partie grieved ought first to sue to the Lord of the Mannor by petition to reverse this judgement and here the King being Lord of the Mannor it is very proper to sue here in the Exchequer Chamber by petition for in regard that it concerneth the Kings Mannor the suit ought not to be in the Chancery as in case a Common person were Lord and for that very cause it was dismissed out of the Chancery as Serjeant Harris said and Tanfield said that he was of Councel in Pettishals case in the time of the Lord Bromley where it was debated at large if such a judgement ought to be reversed by petition in the Chancery in case where a Common person was Lord and at last it was decreed that it should be as in that case of Patshal and for the same reason here the King being Lord and therefore day was given till the next Term to shew their errours and Serjeant Harris said that the errors are in effect no others then were in the case 9. Eliz. Dyer fo 262. and in Godmanchesters case and it was adjourned Scot and his wife against Hilliar SCot and his wife Plantiffs against Hilliar for these words spoken of the wife viz. she would have cut her husbands throat and did attempt to do it Hutton Serjeant in arrest of judgement said that these words are not actionable for the will or attempt is not punishable by our Lawe and he vouched Cockains case Cook lib. 4. cited in Eaten and Allens case but by the Court an Action lies for the attempt is a cause for which the husband may be divorced if it were true and it is a very great slander and Baron Snig said that in the same Term a judgement was given in the Kings Bench and was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber upon a writ of error for these words He lay in the high way to rob me and therefore let judgement be entred for the Plan̄tiffe but it was adjudged in the principal case that for the words she would have cut her husbands throat no Action would lie Gooches Case A Coppyholder surrenders into the hands of the Customary Tenants to the use of Anne his Wife and after before any Court the said Coppyholder surrenders the Land into the hands of other Customary Tenants to the use of the said Anne for her life the remainder to Percie in Fee upon condition that he in remainder his Heirs should pay 20. s. per annum at Michaelmas for ever the first payment to commence immediacely after the death of the said Anne viz. at the next feast of St. Michael and this to be paid in the Church Porch or D. to the Church Wardens of D. in the presence of four discreet Parishioners or otherwise that a stranger should re-enter and at the next Court both these surrenders were present and the Steward admitted the said A. according to the second surrender and she dyed and now upon pretence that the rent of 20. s. was not paid by the Heirs of him in remainder the Heir of Gooch who made the surrender had entred and thereupon an Action was brought and upon the evidence the Jury to the County of Bedford now at the Bar These matters were moved by Serjeant Nichols That a surrender into the hands of Customary Tenants cannot be Countermanded and therefore the second surrender void and the admittance shall work to such uses as the first surrender was made as in Anne Westwicks Case Cook Lib. 4. And to prove that a surrender into the hands of Customary Tenants is not countermandable he said that it is not countermandable by death nor surrender Cooke lib. 4. in his Coppyhold Cases That a presentment in the Court may be after the death of the surrenderer and the admittance thereupon is good and he compared it to the Case of the delivery of a Deed as an Escroll which may be delivered as his Deed after the death of the Maker as it is in Jennings and Braggs case Cook lib. 3. which was not denyed by the Court Serjeant Dodderidge said that when a surrender is made upon condition that he shall pay a summe of money to a stranger these words make an estate conditionall and give power implyedly to the Heirs of the party who did surrender to re-enter for non-payment and the words which give power to a stranger to re-enter are meerely void neverthelesse the precedent words shall stand and make the estate conditionall Tanfield Littleton saies that such a re-entry is void for a re-entry cannot be limited to a Stranger Nichols Serjeant said that if a surrender be made that he shall pay so much money that this makes the estate conditionall and gives a re-entry to the Heirs of him who did surrender But when it goes further and doth not leave the condition to be carried by the Law in such case all the words should be void because it cannot be according to the intent as in the case of a reservation of rent the Law will carry it to the Reversion but if it be particularly reserved then it will go according to the reservation or otherwise will be void and so here Tanfield Admit that here was a conditionall estate by vertue of the Surrender last made and this condition is also to be performed to a stranger which generally ought to be taken strictly yet as it is here he who will take advantage thereof ought to prove a voluntary neglect in the party in the not performance of the Condition and inasmuch as there is no certain time appointed when the payment of this Annuall rent should be made but generally at Michaelmas next after the death of the said Anne thereby in this case the Chuch-wardens ought to notifie the death of the said Anne before the first day of payment by reasonable space or otherwise the condition is not broken and also it is appointed here to be paid in the presence of four discreet Parishioners by the party who should perform the condition yet by intendment he hath no notice who are discreet or who are not especially he being an Infant as in our case he is and therefore although the condition is to be performed to a stranger which generally ought to be performed strictly according to 12. E. 3. Yet this is to be intended only in such cases where the party had certain notice of all circumstances requisite for payment thereof and therefore he directed the Iury that for want of knowledge of such circumstances they should give a Verdict that the condition was not broken And Dodderidge
of 99. years is agreed to be given Secondly if there be such an imployment of this land as the Statute requireth admitting the lease was not given Thirdly if the livery upon the Queens Lessee for years be good and I hold that the Fee is not given to the Queen Secondly the land is not imployed c. admitting that it was given Thirdly that the Feofment here is not good and as to the case at Bar the Feoffees may enter I doubt not of that because there is not any thing found but that it was imployed to the uses intended for 99. years Secondly if it were not imployed according to the condition after 1. Ed. 6. yet they cannot enter for themselves were parties to the Art which did prohibit it as 34. H. 8. Dyer 52. the Queen gives licence that Belmelt shall be transported notwithstanding any Statute made or to be made if after it be prohibited the licence is determined because the Patentee himself was a partie to such Statutes Secondly it is said in Addams and Lamberts case that a superstitious devise or other estate upon condition is within the Statute because the Patentee was partie thereunto Thirdly it is said in the said case that a superstitious devise or other estate upon condition is within the Statute because it is penal and compulsorie for the maintenance of a thing prohibited by the Law and also there it is said that there is a proviso towards the end of that Act that it shall not be Lawful by reason of any remainder or condition for any man to claim any lands c. for the not doing or finding of any such Priest as to the other point which was moved at Bar I hold that the use doth not arise upon the words subsequent and if they do not re-enter that then the land shall go to the use of the four Feoffees to the intent aforesaid is not a mis-ordering nor an imployment Secondly these words to the intent do not raise any use but only a confidence and trust reposed in the Feoffees Doctor and Student 94. for the first point therefore he held that there is no superstitious gift of the Fee-simple and if there were it is not imployed c. and therefore it is not given by the Statute of 1. Ed. 6. to the Queen and touching that we are to consider the Statute Indenture and the Schedule and there is not a word that after 99. years the land shall finde a Priest but the money and the land is not given but the money as in the Dean of Pauls case 22. Eliz. Dyer 368. if land be given to finde a Priest with part of the profits thereof those profits are only given to the King by this Statute and not the land but that belongs to the Dean and Chapter also the Schedule is if then it may be lawful and therefore if it were not then lawful the money is not given and it is like to the case where I make a lease for 21. years if I do allow of it before Michaelmas and before Michaelmas do not allow of it this is a void lease and so if I give land to the use of Westminster School if the Dean will enter into a Recognizance c. and if he will not enter into a Recognizance it is no gift like to the case 15 H. 7. a grant of Annuitie if such a thing be done c. secondly as to the imployment the lease is only found to be imployed and the imployment of the lease is no imployment of the Fee which was not given until the Term was expired and if the gift be not superstitious the imployment ought not to be superstitious and yet as it is said in Adams case there ought to be an imployment to intitle the Queen as the case there is if one gives the Mannor of D. and S. to superstitious uses the Queen shall have the lands out of the hands of the Feoffee and if land be given to finde a Priest in the Church of D. for 20 years and after to finde one in S. for 21. years and before the expiration of the first Term the Statute is made it seems the Queen shall have only the first Term because there is no imployment of the second Term within the Statute 5. Ed. 4.20.15 Ed. 3. Execu 63. I agree those cases for land or rent issue from a seisin 30. Ed. 3.12 in a quare impedit 5. Ed. 6. Benlowes a devise to 8. to the uses and intent that the Feoffees with the profits shall finde a Priest whilst the Law of this Realm will suffer it and if the Law will not suffer it then to the use of three of the poorest of the Parishes adjoyning by all the Iudges this is not within the Statute and as to the last point it seems that the Feofment is good and the interest of the Queen is no impediment which if it be not then there is no question as Dyer 20. Eliz. 363. Tenant in tail makes a feofment the servants of the Lessee for years being upon the land and livery is made and after the Lessee for years agrees saving his Term this is a discontinuance 14. Ed. 4.2 3. and 4. Ph. et M. Dyer 139. possession shall not be gained from the Queen but by matter of Record 4. Assises 5.21 Assises 2.8 H. 4.16.1 H. 7. no livery upon the Kings possession it may be devised by the heir or conveyed by bargain and sale or by fine from him and the Kings estate in reversion doth not priviledge the estate in possession as it is 23. Ed. 3.7 a disseisor conveys land to the Queen who grants for life and the disseisee shall have a writ of entrie against the Queens Lessee for life by the opinion of Thorp Cook lib. 4.55 a disseisor makes a lease for life the remainder to the King a recovery of the land against Tenant for life will defeat the Kings remainder 7. Rich. 2. aide of the King 61. Tenant in tail grants the land to the King with warranty and the King makes a lease for life if the issue recover in a Formedon the Kings estate is defeated and I was of Councel in the Court of wards in a case which was Pasch 43. Eliz. betwixt Chackston and Starkey for the Wardship of the heir of Clifford and it was this the Ward at full age tendred his livery and had six moneths to sue it and within the six moneths made a Feofment and after died before livery sued in this case the livery and seisin was void and it is all one as if no tender had been made for the Queens possession was priviledged the second point was that one being in Ward to the King had a reversion in Fee expectant upon an estate for life and before livery sued made a Feofment in Fee this makes a discontinuance of the reversion notwithstanding the Kings interest which he had in reversion for the Wardship which case is like to the case
above mentioned of a lease for years and also it was there said that if Tenant for life be the remainder to the King for years the remainder to another in Fee and the Tenant for life makes a Feofment in Fee this drawes the Kings remainder out of him and so he held that here is no gift Secondly that here is no imployment and so the Feofment is made good Altham second Baron contra I will consider only two points First if it be a gift for years or for ever and I say that it is a gift for ever for here is no intent in the Donor to determine the superstitious use because he doth not limit any other use to which it should revert but only that the Priest should be maintained for ever and as that which hath been said that it was not imployed he answereth that out of the Book of 22. Assises 52. where 12. d. is reserved for three years and after 100. s. seisin of 12. d. is seisin of the 100. s. because it is issuing out of the freehold as the case is in Littleton in the Chapter of Atturnement Tenant for life the remainder in Fee the Lord shall not avow upon the remainder but shall have it by way of Escheat for all the estates together are holden of the Lord but if land be given to finde a Priest in D. and one is maintained in S. this is a mis-imployment but in our case I conceive that the Feoffees have power to dispose the land as to them seems best and therefore it is uncertain and then given to the King as it was in Dales case land was given to the intent that a Priest should be maintained as I. S. and I. D. thought fit so that he had not less then 8. marks yearly the King shall have all for the Feoffees may give all to the Priest if they please and in Turners case land was devised to a Priest and divers poor men all is given to the King by the superstitious imployment and as to the words if by the Law it may be they are idle for id possumus quod de Jure possumus and therefore 9. Ed. 6. an office was given to one if he were able to exercise it these words are idle for the Law saith that he shall not have it if he be not able to execute it 30. Ed. 3.8 a gift to two and to the longer liver of them that the Survivor shall have it are idle words 10. H. 7. a Condition that c. and here it the condition had been until an Act of Parliament prohibit it they are Idle words for if land be given to I. S. and his heirs upon condition that if he die without heirs c. this is a void condition and Repugnant to Law Lastly I hold the feofment good by way of Admittance and that the livery takes effect notwithstanding the Queens interest 4. H. 6.19 the Kings Tenant for life is disseised he shall have an Assise and yet there is no intrusion upon the King 17. H. 7.6 the Kings Lessee makes a feofment the King enters and so he held that the judgement should he given for the Defendant Snig Baron argued much to the same intent that Bromley had done and that the Schedule is so circumspect that nothing is given after the 99. years and that a spirit of Divination forwarned him of the alteration and he agreed the Feofment to be good with this difference where the King is in possession actually and where the Reversion is in the King and the book of 2 H. 4.9 that none shall enter upon the Kings Farmor is to be understood of the Kings under Tenants and not of his Lessees Tanfield chief Baron said that neither by the intent of the Statute nor of the parties the fee is given to the Queen but it is apparant that during the 99. years the parties intent is in suspence for fear of alteration and that they would see the difference of the times and leave the disposing thereof to his Feoffees and if they had sold the land and with the money maintained a Priest as many stocks of money have used to do without doubt it had been forfeited to the King and not the land and it would be in vain to speak of an Amortization if it be for a stipendary Priest only for this would not be necessary to have a foundation incorporated and to make an Amortization for such a Priest and therefore it seems to him that there is no determination of his will after the 99. years but that all is left to the determination and disposition of the feoffees who then should be and after the intent of the Statute which was penned by Hales Iustice of the Common Pleas. I observe four words given appointed limited and assigned and I do not conceive that our case is within the compass of any of them for as I said before it is in suspence until the end of 99. years and the parties who should have the interest are not known untill the time come nor the estate setled until that time but if it had been conveyed to superstitious uses after it had been given to the Queen notwithstanding the conveyance had not been sufficient if he who did convey had power in respect of the abilitie of his person and the estate in him and therefore Pasch 22. Eliz. the case was this Sir William Say before the Statute of 32. H. 8. of Wills was seised of lands in fee not devisable and before the said Statute he devised it to finde a Priest and notwithstanding that the devise was not good yet it was adjudged that the land was given to the Queen by 1. Ed. 6. but if it were a feme covert or an infant who are disabled in Law or a Tenant in tail who is disabled in respect of his estate there it had not been given to the Queeen but in all cases there ought to be an assignment or otherwise nothing is given and there is a difference where one grants land to the intent with the profits thereof to finde a Priest there all the land is given to the Queen and where he grants a rent for the maintenance of a Priest for there the King shall have but the Rent and he said that the Case cited 5. Ed. 6. Benlos is good Law and as to that which hath been said That because the power of the Feoffees is uncertain it should be given to the Queen true it is where the power is uncertain to bestow the profits but if their power be certain it is otherwise and as to the imployment there is none because there is no gift but the imployment of the particular estate is an imployment of the Remainder and a small thing will make an imployment James case was of the Greyhound in Fleetstreet which was given to finde a Priest and the White Horse for the maintenance of another and the Feoffees of the White-horse maintained the Priest of the
Sir Robert Dudley appointed and after Sir Robert Dudley by licence from the King Travelled beyond the Seas to Venice and after the Barganees made a lease to Sir Robert Lee to the intent that the Lady Dudley should take the profits of part thereof for ten years if the estate of the Barganees should continue so long unrevoked and after the King having notice of divers abuses made by the said Sir Robert Dudley in the parts beyond the Seas commanded the said Sir Robert Dudley by privy Seal delivered unto him the 10th of April in the 5th year upon pain of forfeiture of all his lands and fortunes to return again immediately c. and after a Commission issued forth to inquire what lands and Tenements c. Sir Robert Dudley had or others for him in use or upon confidence and the Iury found this special matter but found not any fraud expressy and thereupon the King exhibited his Bill here against the Barganees and also against Sir Robert Lee their Lessee who truly discovered all this special matter and that they were not knowing of the Deed until long time after making of it and that no consideration was given by them in this case for the lands so bargained and it was argued by Sir Henry Mountague Recorder of London for the King if these lands should be seised or not he conceived that there are three things considerable in the case First the contempt of Sir Robert Dudley in his not returning upon the sight of the privy Seal and of what quality this offence is Secondly what interest the King had by this offence in the land of Sir Robert Dudley being the offender Thirdly if notwithstanding these offences these lands ought to be seised for the King touching the first point he said that it is requisite to examine if a subject at the Common Law may go beyond the Seas without Licence and in what cases the Law allows a man to go out of the Realm without Licence and as to that he said that it appears by the reason in the 12th of Eliz. Dyer that at the Common Law every man may go out of the Realm but the Statute of the 5. Richard 2. restraineth all but Merchants noble men and Souldiers and as he conceived this was but an affirmance of the Common Law notwithstanding the Book before cited and to prove that he said that the opinion of Dyer in the first Eliz. fo 165. seemeth to agree also it is proved by divers Licences granted before this Statute see F. N. B. fo 85. in the writ de securitate invenienda quod Se non divertat ad partes exteras sine licentia regis according to the 12. Eliz. in Dyer and he further said that there are two reasons to prove that no man may go beyond the Sea without Licence at the Common Law for by 2. E. 3. and the 16. E. 3. and Glanvil in his Chap. of Essoynes by such means the subjects may be deprived of their suits for debt and also the King may be deprived of the attendance of his subject about the business of state and it appears by the Register fo 193. 194. that religious persons purchased licences to go beyond the Seas and it appears by Littleton in the Chap. of confirmation that a dissent takes not away an entry of him who is beyond the Sea except it be by the Kings commandment see the case intended by Littleton in the Chap. of Continual claim there it seems to be a doubt to Littleton then he argued further if the Common Law alloweth not a subject to go beyond the sea without licence but reputes it a great contempt this is a great contempt in him who will not return by the Kings command and the Law hath alwayes punished such contempt as it appears by Dyer fo 28. 177. 19. E. 2. John de Brittons Case also there is a president for seisure of all his lands for such contempt and he vouched the book what the King had done where he cited that the Prior of Oswaldshire forfeited all his lands and possessions for such contempts and so concluded the first point of the quality of the offence and spoke nothing of the licence which Sir Robert Dudley had of the King at the time the which as it seemeth was not expired nor the power which the King had to Countermand it within the time to which the Attorney general in his argument did speak to the Second point it seemeth that the contempt giveth such an interest to the King that he shall retain the land until conformity for he who dwelleth in contempt ought not to have any possessions here and he cited the 22. H. 6. and the 21. H. 7. and divers other books which are cited in Calvins Case Cook lib. 7. also he said that there is a difference where the King is offended as King of England and where as head of the Kingdome as this case is which is a greater offence in qualitie then for any offence for which men should lose their lives as if they should stand mute upon their arraignment c. also there is a great difference between this contempt and by outlawry and therefore in case of outlawry he needs no office but the King is only intitled to the profits of his lands which is but a transitory Chattel in which case an office is not necessary but where an interest coms to the King there ought to be an office and he vouched Pages Case in Cook lib. 5. and Sir William Herberts Case but he did not endeavour to prove what interest came to the King in this case for when an interest comes to the King there ought to be on office as to the second point he said that trust between parties is fraud as to the King and in this case the badges of fraud are found by the office First his purpose to go beyond the Seas Secondly his Barganees are not privy to the Deeds Thirdly no summe was paid by them Fourthly here is a power of Revocation Fifthly covenants to execute all grants as Sir Robert Dudley appointed Sixthly the subsequent Act that is viz. his staying beyond the Seas and his not returning upon the Kings command and although in this case there be no fraud in the parties who are Barganees and so the fraud is only of one partie yet it appeareth by the 19. of H. 8.12 that if an infant hath right to land and a stranger disseise the Tenant to the intent to infeoffe the infant without Covin in the infant yet the infant shall not be remitted and he vouched Delamores case in Plowden to be accordingly also there are divers cases in our books to prove the inveterate hatred which our law beareth to all Acts which are fraudulent and therefore in 44. E. 3. 41. Assise pla 28. it appears that a recovery upon a good title although it be in Dower which is favoured in Law against a Tenant who comes to the
land by Tort and Covin is void which cases and many other you may see in Farmors case Cook lib. 3. and the 12. Eliz. Dyer fo 294. and as it is said in Twines Case Cook lib. 3. all frauds are covered with trust expressed or implyed and here is an express trust and he vouched also Cook lib. 5. Gooches Case and also Englefields case and Pauncefoots case cited in Twines case Cook l. 3. fo 83. also he said that this conveyance being void by reason of the fraud by the Law it is more clear that it shall be decreed to be void here the Deed being in court and course of equity and therefore he said that it hath been decreed in this Court for equity that if a man outlawed taketh bonds in the name of another that they shall be forfeited to the King also it hath been decreed in Venables Case that where a widdow upon good devotion bad devised great summes of money for the relief and sustenance of poor silenced Ministers and Preachers for not subcribing to the Commons c. to be ordered and paid to them by the discretion of the Executors that the money should be disposed for the maintenance of poor conformable Ministers by the discretion of the Executors and not to them who retused to subscribe for when a thing is disposed to maintain contempt and disobedience in any this ought to be ordered and disposed by the Court to a contrary end and use and so in the principal case in so much that the conveyance was made by Sir Robert Dudley for the maintenance of himself in contempt and for the maintenance of his wife and other uses this by the rules of equity shall be decreed to be void and in regard the King is offended by the contempt he ought to have means to punish It and so he prayed that it may be decreed for the King Hutton Serjeant the same day to the contrary and he argued first that this confidence is as an use at the Common Law which was not forfeitable and secondly admit that this conveyance be fraudulent yet it is not now to be avoided and these are the grounds whereupon he would insist in the maintenance of his conveyance against the King but first as to that which hath been said that at the Common Law a man could not go beyond the Sea without the Kings licence he said that he thought the contrary for it appears plainly by the book 12. Eliz. Dyer fo 296. and F. N. B. cited accordingly that any man may go beyond the Sea to travail except there be a proclamation or a writ of ne exeas Regnum to restrain him so that he agreed that every man was prohibitable before his going or after by recalling but without a prohibition or recalling his departure was no offence but he agreed that if a man be prohibited or recalled that for this contempt his lands ought to be seised and that the King hath interest to dispose of them as it is proved by the president of John de Britanies case in the 19. E. 2. and vouched in the 2. Ma. Dyer 128. and this is also proved by other presidents and authorities as 39. Assise pla 1. where it appears that for a contempt of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury for not executing of the Kings writ that the King seised his lands and held them during the life of the Arch-Bishop and also Englefields case in Cook lib. 7. proveth that the King hath power to seise and dispose for such a contempt and therefore he would not argue what interest the King should have by such seisure but for the matters which he intended First he thought clearly that this confidence betwixt the Bargainor and the Bargainee was as an use at the Common Law and that cestuy que use should not forfeit this use at the Common Law is directly proved by 11. H. 4. fo 52. where without an express Statute an use was not forfeited as he said and he vouched accordingly 5. E. 4. fo 7. where it appeareth that cestuy que use shall not forfeit the land at the Common Law and the reason is because that it is subject to the forfeiture of the Donees and it is inconvenient that the same land should be subject to several forfeitures at the same time by several men viz. the Bargainor and the Bargainees and he said although that these uses were begotten by fraud as it appears in our books see Chudleys case Cook lib. 1. yet in so much that without an express Statute they were not forfeitable by the same reason a trust or confidence is not forfeitable although they are begotten by fraud without a special Act of Parliament also in out case there are not any Badges of fraud but only as a trust betwixt the Bargainees and that a bargain and trust may be without fraud although the Bargainor continue possession against his Bargainee which is another argument that there is no fraud in the case and the estates after made to the Tenants now in possession viz. Sir Robert Lee c. for the Bargaines were not made by the appointment of the Bargainor but of their own head also he said that if here be any fraud it is matter of fact whereof the Iurors ought to have inquired and the Iury here have found no fraud and to prove that the fraud ought to be found by the Iury he vouched Wardenfords case 2. 3. of Eliz. Dyer 193. 267. where it is also said that although a fraud he found by the Iury yet if it be found specially not to defraud the King but the Creditors then the conveyance shall be good against the King and so he concluded the first point Secondly admit that it was found that this conveyance was fraudulent yet it is not void against the King for it seemed to him it shall be avoided by fraud only by those who have an antient right or antient duty and if in this case there were any fraud this was long time before any title or right accrewed to the King for that was two years after this conveyance and to prove it he vouched Upton and Bassets case cited in Twins case in Cook lib. 3. there it is said expresly that a conveyance by fraud is void only in respect of an antient title see 22. Assise pla 72. accordingly but the Statute of 27. Eliz. makes such a conveyance void to those who have a present right if there were a valuable consideration as is not in our case and therefore we are out of this Statute and also he said that he agreed the case cited of the other part if a man outlawed purchase goods or takes an obligation in trust the King shall have them for this is by the Statute of the 3. H. 7. cap 4. but this concerus not land and therefore we are at the Common Law and as a Statute was requisite to be made to make an use forfeitable which was not forfeitable at the