Tenant dies here the Lord shall have the Land against his own confirmation for 't is ruled in Beaumont's Case Co. 9. 141 b. that a confirmation cannot add a discendible quality to him that is disabled to take by descent But vide Cro. Car. 478. by Jones and Croke a Deed shall never be void when by any Intendment it may be allowed good and to have any operation and that altho' in Beaumont's Case the Heir in tail was barred by the fine of his Ancestor yet they hold he was restored to the Estate tail by the Confirmation of him in the Reversion for as the Fine was an Estoppel to the Heir to claim against the Fine so the Indenture of Confirmation is an Estoppel to him in Reversion to say that the Heir shall not hold it in tail and there it is an Estoppel against an Estoppel which sets the matter at large See Jones 394. Fine levied by a Woman born Deaf and Dumb. ONE Martha Eliot that was born Deaf and Dumb came before Chief Justice Bridgman to levy a Fine she and her three Sisters had a House and Land and an Uncle had maintained her and was to buy the House and Land of them and agreed to maintain this Woman if she would pass her Land for Security As to her intelligence the Sisters said she knew and understood the meaning of all this the Chief Justice demanded what sign she would make for passing away her Lands and as 't was interpreted to him she put her Hands that way spreading them out where the Lands lay This matter being communicated by the Chief Juslice to his Brethren Judge Archer with whom Tyrrel and Brown agreed said that the rule in Law is that in Fines and Feoffments c. if there be a good intelligence they may well do such Acts they may be admitted to make contracts for their good They are allowed upon examination to Marry and to receive the Sacrament they may make contracts for their Persons and by the same reason for their Lands and so his Lordship took the Fine Cartor's Rep. 53 54. Vide Perkins Sect. 25. that one born Deaf and Dumb may make a gift if he have Understanding but that 't is hard such a Person should have Understanding for that perfect intelligence comes by hearing And see 1 Inst 8. a. that one born Deaf and Dumb may be Heir to another tho' it was otherwise held in ancient time and so if born Deaf Dumb and Blind for in hoc casu vitio parcitur naturali but note it is there said that such persons cannot contract Alien suffers a Common recovery LAND was given to an Alien in tail the Remainder to I. S. in Fee the Alien suffered a Common Recovery and died without Issue all which being found by Office the Court resolved the Recovery was good and should bind the Remainder-Man 4 Leon. 84. Note it has been adjudged where an Alien and I. S. were Joint-Purchasers and the Alien died that I. S. should not have the whole by Survivor but that the King should have the Moiety upon Office found The Wife of I. D. levies a Fine with I. S. as his Wife and I. D. can 't prevent it I. S. and the Wife of I. D. levied a Fine of her Lands by the name of I. S. and Jane his Wife I. D. came into Court and shewed this matter and prayed to stay the Fine but the Court would not stay it for the Court shall not determine loyalty of Matrimony and if it be true that she is not the Wife of I. S. it shall not hurt the rightful Husband 2 Roll. 19. Keblethwaite and Wade Wife prays the Peace against her Husband ON a difference between the Lord Leigh and his Lady about Pin-Money viz. the settlement of 200 l. per annum in case of Separation she upon Affidavit of hard Usage and that she went in fear of her Life prayed security of the Peace against him and 't was granted Note Hale Chief Justice said here the Salvâ Moderatâ castigatione in the Register is not meant of Beating but only of Admonition and Confinement to the House in case of her Extravagance Curia acc ' she being not as an Apprentice c. but they were reconciled afterwards 3 Keb. 433. See 1 Keb. 637. Bradley's Case The Court refused to bind him to the Peace at his Wife's Suit unless her Life were in danger because by the Law he has power of Castigation and the Bishop of London had certified that he used to beat her but that she used to provoke him Fine Sur Grant Lender Executory A MAN by Fine acknowledges all his right in certain Land to me and I render it back again to him in Fee where neither of us hath any thing in the Land and after I purchase the Land this Fine shall bind me for it was executory upon me 2 Roll. 20. Witness excused from swearing the whole Truth IN a Cause between Sparke and Sir Hugh Middleton Mr. Aylet having been Counsel for the Defendant desired he might not be sworn on the general Oath as Witness for the Plaintiff to give the whole Truth in evidence which the Court granted after some dispute and that he should only reveal such matters as he either knew before he was of Counsel or that came to his knowledge after from others and the particulars to which he was sworn were particularly proposed viz. what he knew concerning a Will in question that P. G. made and the Court only put the question Whether he knew of his own Knowledge 1 Keble 505. See Stiles 449. Waldron and Ward That a Counsellor is not bound to make answer to matters which may disclose the secrets of his Client's cause by Roll. Chief Justice and so he was forborn to be examined Vide March 83. pl. 136. that a Lawyer of Counsel may be examined upon Oath as a Witness to the matter of Agreement not to the validity of an Assurance or to the matter of Counsel Extinguishment IF a Man Lessee for Years take the Feme Lessor to Wife his Term is drowned for a Man cannot have a Term for Years in his own right and a Free-hold in auter droit to consist together 1 Inst 338. b. Baron Lessee for Years and the Inheritance descends to his Feme Resolved per Cur. praeter Williams That here the Term is not extinct 2 Cro. 275. So note a difference where the Feme has the Reversion before Marriage and where the Fee descends to her after Marriage Jenkins cent fo 73. the first is the Act of the Husband the other the Act of the Law which shall not prejudice him If a Man Lessor Marry the Feme Lessee the term is not drowned but he is possest of it in her right during the Coverture So if the Lessee make the Lessor his Executor the term remains for a Man may well have a Free-hold in his own right and a Term in auter droit Pl. Com. 418. 1 Inst 338.
carriage being ill beloved in the Country was found Guilty but reprieved by the Judges and hearing the Lord Treasurer had a Secretary of his Name applied himself to him promising to give him all his Estate having no Children if his Lord would bring him out of the danger he was in which by his power with the King he did and the Secretary within a short time after by the others death enjoyed an ample Estate Stewes and Brothel-Houses KING Henry VIII suppressed all the Stews or Brothel-Houses which long had continued on the Bank-side in Southwark and those infamous Women were not buried in Christian Burial when they were dead nor permitted to receive the rites of the Church whilst they lived This was by Proclamation under the Great Seal 30 Martii 37 H VIII Before the Reign of H. VII there were Eighteen of these Houses and that King for a time forbad them But afterwards Twelve only were permitted and had Signs painted on their Walls as The Cardinal's Hat The Boar's Head The Cross Keys c Stow. and 3 Inst 205. Many wicked and common Women had seated themselves in a Lane called Water-Lane next to the House of the Friers Carmelites in Fleet-street this being known King Edw. III. to the end these Friers might perform their Vows one of which was To live in perpetual Chastity took order for removing of these Women ibid. So odious and dangerous was this Vice the fairest end whereof is Beggery that Men in making of Leases of their Houses did add an express Condition That the Lessee c. should not suffer harbour or keep any Feme putiene within the said Houses ibid. 206. Nota Tho' Adultery and Fornication be punishable by the Ecclesiastical Law yet the keeping of a Bawdy-House being as it were a Common Nusance is punishable by indictment at the Common Law by Fine and Imprisonment ibid. Accessary IF I. S. counsel or command one to kill a Man and he kill another or to burn one Man's House and he burn another's or to steal a Horse and he steal a Cow or to steal a black Horse and he steal a white one or to steal a Goldsmith's Plate from him going to such a Fair and he go to his Shop in Cheapside and rob him there and break open his House to do it in these Cases the Counsellor shall not be Accessary because this is another Felony Plowd 475. But if one command a Felony and it be done in another Fashion Time or Place only than it was commanded he may be Accessary to it As if one bid another to rob I. D. on Shooters-Hill and he does it on Gads-Hill or to rob him one day and he does it another day or to do it himself and he does it by another or to kill him by Poyson and he does it by a Sword in all these Cases he shall be an Accessary ibid. See Stamf. 1. 45. If one counsel a Woman to murder the Child in her Body and after the Child is born alive and then she murders it in the absence of him that gave her the Counsel in this case he is an Accessary Dyer 186. Plowd 475. One Saunders had Poyson given him by another to poyson his Wife the Husband gave it to his Wife in a roasted Apple who eat part of it and gave the rest to her Daughter being an Infant the Wife recovered but the Child died and it was held That he that gave it for the Wife was not accessary to the murder of the Daughter For the Consent must not be extended farther than it was given Plowd 474. Saunder's Case Yet if I perswade or command one to go and beat another Man only and he do beat him and kill him by this I am made Accessary not only to the Beating but to the Murder for I commanded the unlawful Act which caused his death So it is Murder to kill one tho' the Malice be against another as if I strike at A. and kill B. because I had a malicious and felonious intent Felony to cut out Tongues Eyes c. BEFORE the Statute of 5. H. IV. cap. 5. which makes it Felony to cut out the Tongue or put out the Eyes of any of the King's Subjects of malice prepensed the mischief was that when one had been beaten wounded or robbed the Misdoers to the end the Party grieved might not be able to accuse them cut out their Tongues or put out their Eyes pretending the same to be no Felony which is therefore ordained and established to be so by this Act which has so terrified offenders that where before it was every days practice now it is very rarely done See 3 Inst 62. It extends not to cutting off Ears which is no Felony as appears by the Stat. of 37 H. VIII cap. 6. The offender had the benefit of his Clergy but that is now taken away by Stat. 22 and 23 Car. II. cap. 11. which enacts that if any Person on purpose and of malice fore-thought and by lying in wait shall unlawfully cut out or disable the Tongue put out an Eye slit the Nose cut off a Nose or Lip or cut off or disable any Limb or Member of any Subject of his Majesty with intention in so doing to Maim or Disfigure him in any of these Manners he is declared a Felon without benefit of Clergy But Note by this Act it is provided that he shall forfeit neither Lands Goods or Chattels The cutting off a Man's Privy Members was Felony by the Common Law for Bracton lib. 3. fol. 144. b. says Quid dicitur si quis alterius virilia absciderit illum libidinis causa vel convitii castraverit tenetur sive hoc volens fecerit vel invitus sequitur poena aliquando capitalis aliquando perpetuum exilium cum omni bonorum ademptione Agreeable to this is the Record in Bracton's time viz. Henricus Hall A. uxor ejus capti detenti sunt in Prisonâ de Evil-chester eo quod rectati fuerunt quod ipsi absciderunt virilia Johannis Monachi quem idem Henricus deprehendit cum praedictâ A. uxore ejus c. But Fleta says lib. 1. cap. 38. Si quis Castratus fuerit talis pro Mahemiato poterit adjudicari And so was the Law holden in my Lord Coke's time as he says 3 Inst 63. and 118. Where an Attaint lies tho' every word of the Verdict be true A MAN shall have an Attaint in some special Case where every Word of the Verdict is true As if one hath had Common Appendant to his Land time out of mind and brings an Assise of the Common and makes Title that he hath had Common time out of mind c. without speaking of the Appendancy and it is found for him The Defendant shall have an Attaint for the Plaintiffs Title is for Common in Gross and not Common Appendant yet the words of the Verdict are true that he hath had Common time out of mind c. but not
the Realm or Lord of Parliament Scil. Baron Viscount Earl Marquiss and Duke propter honoris respectum are not to be sworn on Juries and if neither Party will challenge him he may challenge himself for 't is provided by Magna Charta Quod nec super cum ibimus nec super eum mittimus nisi per legal◠judicium parium suorum aut per legem terrae Co. 6. 52 53. But note If a Peer is to be tried by his Peers he cannot challenge any of ' em 1 Inst 156. b. Where an Infant shall not reverse his Fine IF an Infant being a Feme covert or other Infant levy a Fine by grant and render to her or him in tail or for Life and the Husband die the Wife shall not have a Writ of Error because she is Tenant of the Land and she cannot have a Writ of error against herself so that she is without remedy So in the case of the other Infant per Catlyn Owen 33. Where one shall have a Formedon of Land that was never given 'T IS holden in 42 Edw. III. 53. cited in Mary Pottington's Case Co. 10. 37. b. that in some case a Man shall have a Writ of Formedon of Land that was never given as if Lands in tail are lost and the Tenant in tail recovers other Land in value the Issue in tail shall have a Formedon of the Lands recovered in value and yet those Lands were not given Livery and Seisin over a Wall IF one that is seised in Fee of an Orchard makes a Feoffment of it to I. S. and goes into the Orchard and cuts a Turf or a Twigg and delivers it in the name of Seisin to the Feoffee over a Wall of the same Orchard the Feoffee then being in other Land not mentioned in the Feoffment this is a void Livery 2 Roll. 6. numb 5. Note If it appears that the Feoffor intends to make an actual Livery it shall never amount to a Livery in Law 2 Roll. 7. n. 40. Where a Man shall give and take by his own Livery IF there be Dean and Chapter and one of the Chapter is sole seised of Land in Fee in his own right and thereof enfeoffs the Dean and Chapter by Deed and makes Livery and Seisin according to the Deed here the Feoffor gives and takes by the same Livery Perk. Sect. 205. So of a Mayor and Commonalty c. William the Conqueror 's Charter to Norman Hunter I WILLIAM the Third Year of my Reign Give to thee Norman Hunter To Me that art both Leef and Dear The Hop and the Hopton And all the Bounds up and down Under the Earth to Hell Above the Earth to Heaven From Me and Mine To Thee and Thine As good and as fair As ever they were To witness that this is Sooth I bite the White Wax with my Touth Before Jug Maud and Margerie And my youngest Son Henry For a Bow and a broad Arrow When I come to hunt upon Yarrow Vide Speed 424. b. 2 Roll. 181. Meriton's Anglorum Gesta in Vita W. I. Whether one can take and loose a Fee by the same Livery TENANT in Tail makes a Lease for his own Life the Remainder to the Donor in Fee this gift of the Fee is void because the Donor had it before But if Tenant in Taile make a Lease pur auter vie the Remainder to the Donor this vests a new Fee in him because that by the discontinuance he devested the ancient Fee out of him and gave him a new Fee-Simple by Marvine But Knightly denied this to be Law and that there should not be a new Fee-Simple in the Donor because then he should take a Fee and loose a Fee by the same Livery at an instant which cannot be ideo quaere Dyer 8. a. 9. a. Slander A. THE Attorney of B. brought an Action against C. for saying to B. Your Attorney is a bribing Knave and hath taken Twenty Pound of you to cozen me Judge Warburton held the Words not Actionable for an Attorney cannot take a Bribe of his own Client But Hobart said he might when the reward exceeds measure and the end against Justice as to raze a Record c. and Hob. says after he had spoken Justice Warburton began to stagger in his opinion and so the Plaintiff had Judgment Hob. 8 9. and 1 Roll. 53. Infant AN Infant brought an Action of Trespass by her Guardian the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff was above Sixteen Years old and agreed for 6 d. in Hand paid that the Defendant have licence to take two Ounces of her Hair to which the Plaintiff demurred and adjudged for her for an Infant cannot licence tho' she may agree with the Barber to be trimmed 3 Keb. 369. Scroggam against Stewardson Trespass for shaking a Sword at him A WOMAN shook a Sword in a Cutler's Shop against the Plaintiff being on the other side of the Street and in Trespass of Assault and Battery there was a Verdict of the Assault and not guilty of the Battery 'T was prayed to give no more Costs than Damages and so granted which was a Noble 3 Keb. 283. Smith and Newsam Where a Man shall be forced to spend his Money against himself I. S. PRAYED a Prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Court at Salisbury because his Wife Sued him there to be separated propter saevitiam and Sentence was given for him and he enforced to pay all the Costs for his Wife afterwards she appealed and because he would not answer the Appeal against himself and pay for the transmitting of the Record he was excommunicated and now prayed a Prohibition it was thought by the Court a very hard case that he should be obliged to spend his Money against himself but because it was alledged that the Course was so in the Spiritual Court they would advise c. and proceedings stayed in the mean time Cro. Car. 16. Green's Case One Indicted for taking away a young Woman and Marrying her ONE Brown was Indicted on Stat. 3 H. VII cap. 2. for forcibly taking away and marrying the Daughter of one Sommers a City Orphan in the Custody of the Chamberlain Note The Child herself being about Fourteen Years old was held a good Witness to prove the Fact and the evidence was that she was worth 5000 l. that she was menaced by the Defendant in a Vizard and carried away in a Coach to Westminster and the next day with her own consent but caused by the precedent menace she married him but was not defiled having been surprised that day he was found guilty and had judgment to die and was accordingly executed 3 Keb. 193. See the Lady Fullwood's Case Cro. Car. 482 484 488 492. and Halès Pla. Cor. tit Felonies by Stat. that the taking a Woman against her Will and marrying her is Felony by the said Statute But such Maid Widow or Wife must have Lands Tenements or Goods or be Heir Apparent so that the Motive of taking away is Lucre and
for Misadventure for that such their Play was by consent and because there was no former Malice but done only for disport and trial of Manhood Dalt 352. See tit Justs and Chance-medley in hoc Libro Justification in case of Necessity THE Ferry-Man of Gravesend took Forty seven Passengers into his Barge to go to London amongst whom was one Mouse the Barge being upon the Water a great Tempest arose insomuch that the Barge and all the Passengers were in danger to be drowned if a Hogshead of Wine and other ponderous things were not cast out among which things there was a Casket with 113 l. of Mouse's which I. S. took and threw over-board whereupon Mouse brought Trespass c. It was resolved per Curiam that in case of necessity for saving the Passengers lives it was lawful for I. S. being a Passenger to cast the Plaintiff's Casket out of the Barge with what was in it Quod quis obtutelam corporis sui fecerit jure id fecisse videtur and 't was directly proved that the Men had been drowned if the things had not been heaved out But 't was agreed also that the Owners in such Case shall have their Remedy upon the surcharge against the Ferry-Man and if there is no surcharge but the danger comes by the Act of God then every one must bear his own Loss 12 Rep. 63. and 2 Roll. 567. One may justifie the felling of a Tree in the Ground of another in Case of necessity 6 E. 4. 8. See 22 Assise 5 6. that a Man may justifie the beating another if he be in a Rage So Estrays may be fettered if they are fierce and unruly Hut Rep. 67. and Winch 67 124. If a Man has a way over my Land for his Cattle to pass and they in passing eat the Grass against his Will this is justifiable 2 Roll. 566 567. Reeve and Downs Note this for a Rule That in all Trespasses there must be a voluntary Act and also a damage otherwise an Action of Trespass lies not In Trespass for Ploughing his Land the Defendant said the Plaintiff's Land is adjoyning to his and that when he was Ploughing his own Land the Horses were unruly and by violence carried the Plough into the Land of the Plaintiff contra voluntatem suam and held a good Justification for if a Man be doing a lawful Act which afterwards becomes illegal against his Will that is damnum sine injuria 22 E. 4. 8. One cannot justifie a Trespass upon another for fear IN Trespass for breaking of a House and Close the Defendant pleaded that Duodecem homines ignoti modo querrino armati tantum minabantur ei quod de vitae suae amissione dubitabat and after requirabant compulsabant the Defendant to go with 'em to the House quodque ob timorem minarum per mandatum compulsionem dictorum duodecem hominum he did enter the said Close and House and returned immediately through the said Close which is the same Trespass c. Adj. no Plea upon demurrer for one cannot justifie a Trespass upon another for fear and the Defendant has remedy against those that compelled him the pleading too was naught because he did not shew that the way to the House was through the Close Allen 35. Gilbert and Stone vide the same Case Stiles 72. with this further reason that the Person injured shall have no satisfaction if such Plea be allowed for he cannot have it of those that threatened But see Stiles 65. in Trespass pedibus ambulando the Defendant pleads he was carried upon the Land by force and violence of others and was not there voluntarily which is the same Trespass c. upon Demurrer Roll. Justice said it is the Trespass of the Party that carried the Defendant upon the Land and not the Defendant's Trespass as he that drives my Cattel into anothers Land is the Trespassor and not I who am the owner of the Cattle Presumption of Law IN many Cases the Law will admit no proof against what it presumes Therefore If a Rent be behind for 20. Years and the Lord make an Acquittance for the last that is due all the rest are presumed to be paid against which presumption the Law will admit no proof Dyer 271. a. 11 H. IV. 55. So if a Man be within the Four Seas and his Wife hath a Child the Law presumes it is the Child of the Husband and will admit no proof to the contrary 7 H. IV. 9. 1 Inst 373. a. unless the Husband be castrated 1 Roll. 358. An innocent person is accused of Felony and being afraid flies for it tho' he after judicially acquit himself thereof yet if it be found that he fled for the same he shall forfeit notwithstanding his innocency all his Goods and Chattels Debts and Duties for as to the forfeiture of these the Law will allow no Proof against the presumption in Law grounded upon his flight 1 Inst 373. a. b. So if the Uncle of the Issue releases with Warranty to the Discontinuee of Tenant in tail and dies without Issue this is a collateral Warranty to the Issue in tail barring him without any Assets or Estate descended from him that made the Warranty the Law presuming that the Uncle would not unnaturally disinherit his Lawful Heir being of his own Blood of that right which himself never had without leaving him greater Advancements 1 Inst 373. a. Forfeiture TWO Joynt-Tenants for Life the one grants his Estate for the Life of his Companion it was held a Forfeiture for first it is a severance of the Joynture and then a Lease for another's Life 4 Leon. 236. Remainder for the Life of Tenant for Life good IF a Remainder be limited to one for term of the Life of Tenant for Life the Remainder is good but for this reason only because that by possibility the Tenant for Life may alien in Fee and so forfeit his Estate whereby the Remainder shall enter for the Forfeiture and enjoy the Estate during the Life of the Tenant for Life who committed such forfeiture Co. 2. 50 51. The King of Spain Out-lawed in Westminster-Hall THE King of Spain was Out-lawed in Westminster-Hall I being of Councel against him says Selden the Case was this A Merchant had recovered Costs against him in a Suit which because he could not get we advised to have him Out-lawed for not appearing and so he was As soon as Gondimer heard it he presently sent the Money by reason that if his Master had been Out-lawed he could not have the benefit of the Law which would have been very prejudicial to him there being then many Suits depending betwixt the King of Spain and our English Merchants Vide Stiles Pract. Reg. 382. that Mich. 22. Car. B. R. the King of Spain was Non-Suit in England for if a foreign Prince will have benefit of the National Laws here he must proceed and abide by the Rules and Orders of the Court wherein he prefers his