others which were present at the said marriage or Actors in that And upon Evidence it appeared that Doctor Hussey was not present nor Actor in it and for that the Jury found him not guilty but they found all the other Defendants guilty of the said Ravishment for upon the Evidence it appeares that the Wife of Doctor Hussey procured and provided the Minister which married them and in the last Michaelmas Terme this was tried here at the Barr and the Jury assessed Dammages to ten pound and the value of the Ward to eighty pound for so much Moore proved that he could have sold him for and also the Jury found that the Ward doth appeare married being of the Age of 16. yeares at the time of his marriage and exceptions were taken to that for that it was not found of what age the Ward was at the time of the verdict and it was urged by Dodridge that by the Statute of Westminster 2. chapt 39. The precise age ought to be found at the time of the verdict Secondly it was found that the Ward did appeare married and doth not say without License of the Guardian and the Guardian may give his consent where the Ward marries himselfe and then there is no cause of action The third and other exception was taken in the behalfe of the Wife of Doctor Hussey for that shee being a married Wife was found guilty of Ravishment of Ward against the Statute of Westminster the 2. chap. 39. And it was urged that it was not the intent of the Statute that provides that he which did Ravish not having right in the marriage though he should restore the Boy naked and not married or should satisfie for the marriage he shall be punished for the transgression by Imprisonment for two yeares and if he shall not restore him or shall marry the Heire after the marrying yeares and cannot satisfie for the marriage he shall abjure the Realme or shall have perpetuall Imprisonment And it was objected that a married woman was not intended to be within this Statute for it is apparent that a married woman hath not wherewith to make satisfaction and it shall not be intended that she shall have perpetuall Imprisonment or make abjuration for this was to make separation betweene the Husband and his Wife and so it was adjourned And the Judges moved the parties to compound amongst themselves see Michaelmas 8. Jacobi Trinity 9 Jacobi Pasch 9. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Kenricke against Pargiter and Phillipps RObert Pargiter Gentleman and John Phillipps were summoned to answer to Robert Kenricke Gentleman of a Plea why they tooke the Beasts of the said Robert Kenricke and those unjustly detained against Suerties and Pledges c. And thereupon the said Robert Kenricke by Thomas Pilkington his Attorney doth complaine that the said Robert and John the fourth day of August the yeare of the Reigne of our now King seventh at Kings Sutton in a certaine place called Great Greenes took Beasts that is to say one Gelding one Mare and one Colt of the said Robert Kenrickes and do unjustly detaine them against Suerties and Pledges untill c. By which meanes he saith he is the worse and hath losse to the value of twenty pound and therefore bringeth this suit c. And the aforesaid Robert Pargiter and John Phillipps by John Barton their Attorney do come and defend the force and Injury when c. And the said Robert Pargiter in his owne right doth well avow and the aforesaid John Phillipps as Bailiff of the said Robert Pargiter doth well acknowledge the taking of the said Beasts in the aforefaid place in which c. and justly c. Because he saith that the said place in which it is supposed the taking of the said Beasts to be made did containe and at the aforesaid time in which it is supposed the taking of the aforesaid Beasts to be made did containe in it foure Acres of Meadow in Kings Sutton aforesaid which the said Robert Pargiter long before the aforesaid time in which c. and also at the same time in which c. was and as yet appeareth seised of one Messuage and one virge of land with the appurtenances in Kings Sutton in his Demesne as of Fee and that the aforesaid Robert Kenrick the aforesaid time when c. and long before was seised of a Messuage and foure Virges of land with the appurtenances in Kings Sutton aforesaid whereof the aforesaid place in which c. Is and at the aforesaid time when c. and also at the time to the contrary doth not appeare in the memory of man was parcell in his Demesne as of Fee And the said Robert Pargiter and John Phillipps further say that the said Robert Pargiter and all those whose Estate the said Robert Pargiter now hath and at the aforesaid time when c. had in the aforesaid Messuage and one Virge of Land with the Appurtenances of the said Robert Pargiter from time the contrary whereof doth not appeare in the memory of man had and have used to have and were accustomed to have Common of Pasture in the aforesaid place c. For six Horses Geldings or Mares two Colts six young Beasts called Steeres or young Beasts called Heifers and two Mares called breeders in and upon the said Messuage and one Virge of Land with the Appurtenances lying and rising in manner and forme following that is to say every year in and from the first day of August called Lammas day untill the feast of the purification of the blessed Mary the Virgin then next following as to the said Messuage and one Virge of Land with the Appurtenances belonging and the said Robert Pargiter and John Phillipps further say that the aforesaid Robert Kenricke of the aforesaid Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the Appurtenances whereof c. In the forme aforesaid appearing seised the said Robert and all those whose Estate the said Robert Kenricke now hath and at the aforesaid time in which c. had in the aforesaid Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the Appurtenances whereof c. time out of mind had and were used and accustomed to have the aforesaid place in which c. To their proper use in severalty every year in and from the feast of the purification of the blessed Virgin Mary untill the first day of August called Lammas day then next comming that by reason and in consideration therof he the aforesaid Robert Kenrick and all those whose Estate the said Robert Kenrick now hath and at the time in which c. had in the aforesaid Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the Appurtnances whereof c. time out of minde have had and were accustomed to have every yeare from the aforesaid first day of August called Lammas day and from thence untill the aforesaid purification then next following Common of pasture in the aforesaid place in which c. Only for three Mares
or Geldings and no more and because the Beasts aforesaid in the narration aforesaid specified over and above the aforesaid other three Mares or Geldings the aforesayd time in which c. were in the aforesayd place in which c the Grasse then growing there eating and the Common of pasture of the sayd Robert Pargiter overcharging and doing damage to the sayd Robert there the sayd Robert Pargiter in his owne right doth wel avow and the aforesayd John Phillips as Bayliff of the aforesayd Pargiter doe well acknowledge the taking of the Beasts aforesayd in the aforesayd place in which c. and justly c. they then doing damage there c. And the aforesayd Robert Kenrick saith That neither the sayd Robert Pargiter for the reason before alleadged the taking of the aforesayd Beasts in the aforesayd place in which c. can justly avow nor the aforesayd John Phillips as Bayliff of the aforesayd Pargiter for the same reason the taking of the Beasts aforesayd in the aforesayd place in which c. justly can acknowledge Because by protestation that he the sayd Robert Kenrick and all those whose estate the sayd Robert Kenrick now hath and at the aforesayd time of the taking c. had in the sayd Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the appurtenances whereof c. time out of minde had not nor used to have or were accustomed every yeare at the first day of August called Lammas day and from thence to the next Feast of the Parification then next following Common of pasture in the aforesayd place in which c. onely for three Horses Mares or Geldings and not more in manner and forme as the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips above have alleadged for Plea the sayd Robert Kenrick sayth That he long before the time of the taking of the Beasts aforesayd and also at the same time of the taking c. was seised of the Mannor of Kings Sutton with the appurtenances in Kings Sutton and Astrop in the County aforesayd whereof the aforesayd Messuage and four Virges of Land with the appurtenances whereof c. are and at the aforesayd time of the taking c. and also time out of mind c. were parcell in his Demesne as of Fee and the aforesayd House and foure Virges of Land with the appurtenances thereof c. and of the taking and likewise time out of mind were parcell of the Demesne Lands of the Mannor of Kings Sutton aforesayd And the sayd Robert Kenrick so of the Mannor aforesayd with the appurtenances in manner aforesayd appearing seised the sayd Robert before the sayd time in which c. put his Beasts aforesayd which then were the proper Beasts of the sayd Robert Kenrick upon the aforesayd House and four Virges of Land with the appurtenances lying and rising in the aforesayd place in which c. to eate the Grafs there growing in the sayd place in which c. called Great Greens parcell c. the Grass in the same then growing feeding and the aforesayd Beasts were in the place aforesayd untill the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips the aforesayd fourth day of August the seventh yeare aforesayd at Kings Sutton aforesayd in the County aforesayd at Great Greene parcell c. took the sayd Beasts of the sayd Robert Kenrick and those unjustly detained against Sureties and Pledges untill c. as he above against those complaines and this he is ready to verifie whereof and from which the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips the taking of the aforesayd Beasts in the aforesayd place c. further acknowledge the sayd Robert Kenrick demands Judgment and his damages by reason of the taking and unjust detaining of those beasts to be adjudged unto him c. And the aforesaid Robert Pargiter and John Phillips say that the aforesaid Plea of the said Robert Kenrick above in the Bar avowed pleaded and matter therein contained is very insufficient in Law justly to avoid the said Robert Pargiter and the said John from just acknowledging the taking of the Beasts aforesaid to have and shut up and that he to the said plea in manner and forme aforesaid pleaded hath no need not by the Law of the Land shall be held to answer and this they are ready to averr whereof for default of a sufficient plea of the aforesaid Robert Kenrick in this part the said Robert and John as before demand Judgement and Returne of the Beasts aforesaid together with their Damages c. To them to be adjudged c. And the aforesaid Robert Kenrick in respect he hath sufficient matter in Law justly to avoid the said Robert Pargiter and the aforesaid John from justly acknowledging the taking of the said Beasts to be shut out as above alledged which he is reaoy to verify which truly matter of the aforesaid Robert Pargiter and John do not answer according to their verifying they altogether refuse to admit as before and demand Judgment and their Damages occasioned by the taking and unjust detaining of the said Beasts to be adjudged to them c. And because c. Upon the pleadings the Case was thus a Freeholder prescribs to have common in parcell of the Demesnes of the Mannor for six Horses and other Cattel in certain Land from Lammas to Candlemas that the Lord of the Mannor hath used to have the said Parcell of Land in severall to his owne use from Candlemas to Lammas and in consideration of that the said Lord hath used to have Common in the said parcell of Land for Horses only and not more and the Lord unjustly puts in other Beasts then the said three Horses in the said parcel of Land and surcharged the Common and the Free-holder distrayned them doing Damage and the Lord brings a Replevin and it was argued that prescription was not good for that that Free-holder claimes that as Common without number in his severall Soyle the Grantee cannot exclude the owner of the Soile 12 H. 8. Brooke so of him which hath Common Fishing in the severall of another he cannot exclude him which hath the severall 18 H. 6. 16. And it is not like to the Case of the time of Edward the first prescription the 55. Where is Prescription that the Owner of the Soile shall be excluded from his Common for part of the yeare for there the other claimes all the Vesture of the Land and so may well exclude the Lord but not when he claimes it but as Common but it was agreed that by Lawes by the Commoners consent they may order that their great Cattell shall be put in in such Feild only untill such a Feast and after that for sheep and swine and this is good as it appears by 46 Ed. 3. 25. And Coke cheife Justice said that such prescription to have Common and to exclude the Owner of the Soyle is not good and he saith that so it hath been adjudged between Whyte of Shirland 31 Eliz. And in
Carr. The Tenant in Dower before the value inquired of and Damages found brought a Writ of Error and by the opinion of the whole Court a Writ of Error would not lie for the Judgement is not perfect untill the value be inquired upon The Demand in Dower was of the third part of two Messuages in three parts to be divided and the Judgement was to recover Seisin of the third part of the Tenements aforesaid with the Appurtenances to hold to him in severally by Meets and Bounds and adjudged naught because they are Tenants in common and the Judgement ought to be to hold to him together and in common but if it had been in three parts divided it had been good Actions in Ejectment ALlen versus Nash Hill 5. Jacobi rotulo 719. The Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firme and a special Verdict upon a Surrender of Copy-hold Land which was to the use of the second Son for Life after the Death of the Tenant and his Heirs and it was adjudged not to be good in a Surrender for though it be good in a Will yet Implication is not good in a Surrender and in Copy-hold Cases a Surrender to the use c. this no use but an Explanation how the Land shall go if the Lord grant the Land in other manner then I appoint it is void if there be found Joynt-tenants and one Surrender to the use of his Will it was a Breach of the Joinder and the Will good EYer versus Bannaster Trîn 16. Jacobi rotulo 719. The Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firme and declared upon a Lease made by Ed. Kynaston to which the Defendant pleads not guilty and the Plaintiff alleadges a Challenge that the Wife of the Sheriff is Cosin to the Plaintiff and desires a Venire facias to the Coroners and the Defendant denied it and so a Venire was made to the Sheriff and at the Assises the Defendant challenges the Array because the Pannell was arrayed by the Sheriff who married the Daughter of the Wife of the Lessor and note the first Challenge was made after the Issue joyned and at the Assises the Defendant challenged as above and a demurrer to it and Hutton held that a Challenge could not be after a challenge except it were for some cause that did arise after the challenge made and that the party ought to rely upon one cause of challenge though he had many causes observe the Defendant could not challenge the Array untill the Assises but Husband held that a Challenge might be upon a Challenge but this challenge was adjudged naught by all the Judges HIll versus Scale Trin. 16 Jacobi rotulo 5. 18. the Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firmae and declares upon a Demise made to the Plaintiff by J. C. bearing date the first of January anno 15. and sealed and delivered the twelfth of January following to hold from Christmasse then last past for two years the Jury found a speciall Verdict and found the Lease and a Letter of Atturney to execute the Lease in this manner that the Lessor was seised of the Land in Fee and being so seised he made signed and sealed an Indenture of a Demise of the said Tenements and found it in haec verba this Indenture c. and they further found that the Lessor the said fifth day of January did not deliver the said Indenture of Demise to the Plaintiff as his Deed but that the Lessor the said fifth day of January by his writing bearing Date the same Day gave full power and authority to one C. to enter into all the premises and to take possession thereof in the name of the Lessor and after possession so taken to deliver the said Indenture of Demise to the Plaintiff upon any part of the premises in the name of the Lessor and find the Letter of Atturney in haec verba To all c. whereas I the said J. C. by my Indenture of Lease bearing date with these Presents have demised granted and to Farm let c. for and during the Term of two years c. and they further find that the said C. such a day as Atturney to the Lessor by vertue of that writing did enter into the Tenements aforesaid and took possession thereof to the use of the Lessor and immediately after possession so taken the said C. did deliver the said Indenture of Demise upon the Tenements as the Lessors Deed to the Plaintiff to have c. and the doubt was because the Lessor in the Letter of Attorney and said that whereas he had demised and if it were a Demise then the Letter of Attorney was idle but notwithstanding the Court gave Judgement for the Plaintiff WEeks versus Mesey An Ejectione firmae brought against two and one of them was an estranger and was in the house and the principall would not appear and the other appeared and pleaded non informat and the Court was acquainted with the proceedings and the Plaintiff prayed an habere facias possessionem and the Court told the Plaintiff that by that Writ and recovery he could not remove him that had Right when a Lease is made to bring an Ejectment of Land in divers mens hands then they must enter into one of the parcells and leave one in that place and then must he go unto another and leave one there and so of the rest and then after he hath made the last Entry there he sealeth and delivereth the Lease and then those men that were left there must come out of the Land and this is a good executing of the Lease and Pasch the ninth of James the Court held that an Ejectment would not ly of Common pasture or of Sheep-gate BEamont versus Cook Trin. 13 Jacobi An exception taken in Ejectment because the Originall was teste the very same day that the Ejectment was made and adjudged good by the whole Court and one Goodhall brought an originall in Ejectment against Hill and three others and the Plaintiff counts against three of the Defendants and no simulcum against the fourth and this matter was moved in arrest of Judgement And the Judgement was stayed by the whole Court COronder versus Clerk Hill 10 Jacobi rotulo 3315. Action upon an Ejectment brought the Jury found it specially upon a Devise the words of the Will were to my right Heires Males and posterity of my name part and part like the question was who should have the Land and the Court held the Land must go to the Heire at the Common Law and not according to the words of the Will because they cannot consist with the grounds of Law a Will must be construed in all parts the brother cannot have it by the Devise because he is not Heir and the Daughters cannot for they are not Heirs and posterity and therefore neither of them could have it because they are not Heirs and posterity because they that take it must be Heir and posterity
for the intent of a Will must be certain and agreeable to Law and there must not an intent out of the words of the will be sought out and the whole Court held that the Plaintiff was barred YOung versus Radford Pasch 10 Jacobi Rotulo 1515. Action upon an Ejectment brought and the Jury found a speciall Verdict and the Case was that Elizabeth Rudford was possessed of a house full thirty years and she took a Husband the Husband and Wife morgage the Term the Wife dies and the Husband redeems the Land and marries another wife and then dies and makes his Wife Executrix and she maries the Lessor The Defendant takes Administration of the Goods of the first Woman and it was held void and Judgement for the Plaintiff PEttison versus Reel Pasch 12 Jacobi Rotulo 2350. An ejectment brought and Triall and Verdict for the Plaintiff and exception taken in arrest of Judgement to the Venire Facias because this word Juratum was omitted for the Writ was posuerunt se in illam and omitted the word Juratum and this was amended by the Court. When a Title is to be tryed upon an Ejectment and a Lease to be executed by Letter of Attorney the course is this that the Lessor do seal the Lease onely and the Letter of Attorney and deliver the Letter of Attorney but not the Lease for the Attorney must deliver that upon the Land and upon an Ejectruent brought of Lands in two villages of a house and forty Acres of Land in A. and B. and a speciall Entry in the Land adjoyning to the house to wit the putting in of a Horse which was drove out of the Land by the Defendant and this was adjudged a good Entry for the Land in both the Villages by the opinion of the whole Court ARden versus Mich. 12 Jacobi The Plaintiff delivers that whereas such a day and year at Curdworth in the said County did demise to the Plaintiff two Acres of Land with the Appurtenances in the Parish of C. and the Venire facias was of the Parish of C. and after a verdict exception was taken because it was not of Curdworth but it was adjudged good by the Court and to prove the Lease made Lanheston an Attorney swear that the Lessor sealed the Lease and subscribed it but did not deliver it and by word gave authority to one W. to enter into the Land and to deliver the Lease upon the Land to the Plaintiff as his Deed and by that authority he entred and delivered the Lease as his Deed to the Plaintiff and it was adjudged good MArsh versus Sparry Hill 14 Jacobi Rotulo 1859. An Ejectment brought ex dimissione G. W. and the Originall was made ex divisione and after a Triall Serjeant Hitchaw moved the Court that the Originall might be amended and make ex dimissione and the Court granted it and the Cursitor was ordered to amend it and also in the end of the Originall it was written Barnabiam and it should have been Barnabas and that also was ordered to be amended by the Court. CRadock versus Jones Trin. 14 Jacobi Rotulo 2284. An Ejectment brought upon a Demise made by Cotton Knight the Defendant pleads not guilty and a Challenge to the Sheriff and prayes a Venire facias to the Coroners because the Sheriff is cozen to the Plaintiff and shews how and because the Defendant did not deny it a Venire facias was awarded to the Coroners and after a verdict it was alledged in arrest of Judgement because it was not a principall Challenge and a Venire facias de novo awarded to the Sheriff PArkin versus Parkin 13 Hill Jacobi Rotulo 979. And Ejectment brought and verdict and after a Triall Exception taken to pleading of a Deed inrolled the Action was brought in the County of York and pleaded thus ut infra sex menses tunc proximos sequent coram milite uno Justic c. in West-Riding Com. Eborum ad pacem c. conservand Assign W. C. Clerico pacis ibidem debito modo de Recor. irrotulat and Exception was because the inrollment was not made according to the Form of the Statute because it did not appear that the Justice before whom the Deed was inrolled was a Justice of the Peace of the County of York but of the West-Riding and it was not alledged that the Land did ly in the West-Riding and note that the Defendants Plea in Barr was insufficient because the Defendant did not confesse nor avoid the Count and the Plaintif by his Replication doth not shew any Title to the Land because it did not passe by the inrollment and so he hath lost his Suit and although the Barr be insufficient yet notwitstanding the Plaintif shall not recover GReenely versus Passy Hill 5 Iacobi Rotulo 808. An Ejectment brought the Defendant pleads not guilty and the Jury found it Specially that one Woodhouse was seised of Land in Fee and did infeof the Husband and Wife to have and to hold to the said Husband and Wife and the Heirs of their bodies between them to be begotten by vertue of which Feofment the Husband and Wife were seised of the whole Land in Fee Tail to wit c. the Husband infeofs the youngest Sonne of the land in Fee and afterwards the Husband dies and the woman survives and afterwards she dies before any Entry by her made into the Land and further find the lessor to be the eldest son of their bodies and that the younger Son infeoffed the Defendant and afterwards the eldest Sonne entred into the Land and made the lease in the Declaration and whether the Entry of the eldest Son was lawfull or no was the question upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. that Fines or Feoffements made by the Husband c. during coverture be or make any discontinuance c. or be hurtfull to the said wife or her Heirs and Sir Edward Cook held that the Heir is not barred of his Entry by the Statute PAcy versus Knollis Trin. 6. Iacobi Rotulo 291. An Ejectment brought the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury found it Specially and the question is upon the words of the Will to wit And I give to Katharine my Wife all the Profits of my Houses and Lands lying and being in the Parish of Billing and L. at a certain street there called Broke-street and the Jury found that there was not any Village or Hamlet in the said County called Billing and that the Land supposed to be devised lieth in Byrling-street no mans verbal Averment shall be taken or admitted to be contrary to the Will which is expresly set out in the Will If I have two Thomas to my Sonnes and I give it to Thomas it shall be intended my youngest Son because my eldest Son should have it by Discent the Will was held by all the Court to be good HEllam versus Ley Trin. 7. Jacobi rotulo 2718.
goes to issue upon it for if they discend to issue upon such a Plea and it be found against the Defendant it is peremptory and he shall loose the Land but upon demurrer it is not peremptory but onely to answer over Which mark VVOrkley versus Granger Mic. 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for two Houses and certain Lands c. And upon a speciall Verdict The case was one Heâ— Wels and his wife nere seised of a parcel of Land to them and the Heirs of their bodies begotten as for the joynture of the wife the remainder to the Heirs of the Husband in Fee the Husband bargains and sels the Land to Stamp and his Heirs in Fee And afterwards the Husband and one Winter leavie a Fine of that Land to another who grants that Land back again to Winter for one month the remainder to the husband and wife and the heire of their bodies to be begotten the remainder to the husband and his heirs The Husband dyes the Wife survives and makes a Lease to the Defendant for ninety nine yeers if she should so long live the woman dyes and the Plaintiffe claims under the bargainee and in this Case two points were debated First what Estate passed to the bargainee and Digges of Lincolnes Inne who argued for the Plaintiffe that the bargainee had a Fee simple determinable which issued out of both the Estates as it was held by Periam in Alton Woods Case And he said that the Proclamations upon the Fine are but a repetition of the Fine as it is held in Bendlones Rep put in the Case of Fines in Cooks 3. Rep. And see Pinslees Case for then for the same cause the Issue in tayl is bound although the Fine be levied by the Husband alone by the Statute of the 4. H. 7. and 32 H. 8. because he cannot claim but as Heir to the Father as well as to the Mother and therefore his Conveyance is bound and see 16. E Dyd 332. Husband and Wife Tenants in speciall tayl The husband is attainted of Treason and executed having Issue the woman dyes the Issue shall never have the Land And if husband and wife Tenants in speciall tayl And the Husband levies a Fine to his own use and devises the Land to his wife for life which remainded over rendring Rent the husband dyes the woman enters pays the Rent and dyes the Issue is barred for two causes first by the Fine which had barred his Conveyance of the intayl secondly by the Remitter waived by the Mother 18 Eli Dyer 531. See 5 H. 7. Assise Thorp and Tirrels Case Secondly the Lease made by the woman was determined by her death and it was said that the woman had not any qualitie of an Estate tayl but onely she might take the profits during her life within the Statute of 11 H. 7. And when she dyes the Estate is denised See Austens Case Doctor Wyat Tenant in tail leased for yeers And dyed without Issue the Lease was determined See first of Eliz title Executors And 31 H. 8. Dyer Where a Bishop made a Lease for yeers and afterwards makes another Lease to one of the Lessees c. And Fleming held that if the woman survived as under Tenant in speciall tayl and made a Lease for 21. yeers it is out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. and so it was adjudged in Wattes and Kings Case LAne versus Alexander Hill 5. Jaco The Plaintiffe declares in Ejectment upon a Lease made to him by Mary Planten for three yeers the Defendant saies c. that the Land is Copihold Land of the Mannor of H. in Norff. whereof the Queen Eliz was seised in Fee and long time before the Lessor had any thing there in Court such a day that J. S. her Steward at the Court c. granted the Land to the Defendant by Copie in Fee according to the custome and so justifies his entry upon the Plaintiffe The Plaintiffe replies and saies that long time before the Copy granted to the Defendant to wit at a Court of the Mannor held such a day the 43. Eliz the Queen by Copy c. granted the Land to the Lessor for life according to the custome by force whereof he entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiffe The Defendant by way of rejoynder maintained his barr and traverses with that the Queen at the Court of the Mannor by J. S. her Steward such a day c. granted the Land to the Lessor and upon this the Plaintiffe demurred in Law generally And Yelverton moved that the traverse was good in this Case upon the day and Steward and the difference is where the act done may indifferently be supposed to be done on the one day or the other there the day is not traversable as in the Case of a Deed made such a day there the day of the Deed is not traversable for it passes by the livery and not by the Deed. And the livery is the substance and the day but a bundance 10 E. 4. And the Law is the same if the day in trespasse wherein the day is not traversable For although it be done upon another day it is not materiall But when a man makes his title by an especiall kinde of Conveyance as in this case the Plaintiffe makes his title by one Copy there all that is concerned in the Copy is materiall and the party cannot depart from it for he claims not the Land by any other Copy but by that which is pleaded as is in the 18 H. 6. 14. where an Action is brought for taking his Servant and counts that he by Deed retained with him his Servant the Monday in one week in such a case it is a good plea for the Defendant to say that the Servant was retained by him such a day after without that that the Plaintiffe did retain him the Monday And the Law seems to be concerning Letters Patents wherein the day and place are traversable being the speciall conveyance of the party from which he cannot depart And also it seems that although the day in the principall case be traversed yet the Statute of 18 Eliz of Demurrers aids it it being but a generall Demurrer and the day being onely matter of form But the whole Court were of opinion that the day was not traversable in this case For the Queen granting an ancienter Copy to the Plaintiffs Lessor then to the Defendant and the traverse should have been without this that the Queen did grant in manner and form c. to the Plaintiffs Lessor and the Case is the same in the Letters Patents for there the traverse should be without this that the Queen granted in manner and form c. And the day and place shall not come into the traverse But Justice Fennor was of a contrary opinion for the Reason delivered by Yelverton before and he also and the Lord cheif Justice held it to be holpen by the Statute of 18 Eliz for it is but
to the estate casts the possession of his Ancestors upon him but a stranger to whom a Copy hold is surrendred hath nothing before admittance because he is a purchasor And a Copy made to him upon which he is admitted is his Evidence by the custome and before that he is not a customary Tenant and so he could not transfer any thing to another and adjudged so according to 24 Eliz Alderman Dixies Case BEdell versus Lull Pasch 7. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares in Ejectment upon a Lease made by Eliz James of certain Lands The Defendant pleads that before Eliz had any thing one Martin James was seised in fee of it and had issue Henry James and dyed seised by reason whereof it discended to H. J. as Son and Heir and that Eliz entred and was seised by abatement and made the Lease to the Plaintiffe and that afterwards the Defendant as servant to H James and by his command c. The Plaintiffe by way of replication confesses the seisen of M. James And that he being so seised by his last Will in writing devised the said Land to Eliz in fee and afterwards dyed seised by reason whereof she entred by force of the devise and made the Lease to the Plaintiffe and traverse without that Eliz was seised by abatement in manner and form c. And the Defendant demurrs upon this replication and shewed for cause that the traverse was not good and adjudged for the Defendant for the Plaintiffe by his replication need not both confesse avoid and traverse the abatement too for the Plaintiffe made a title to his Lease by the Will of his Ancestor and that proved that he entred legally and not by abatement as the Defendant had supposed And then to take a traverse over makes the replication vitious For a traverse shall not be taken but where the thing traversed is issuable And here the devise is onely the title issuable And it was also held that the traverse was not good as to the manner of it for he should not have traversed without that that he was seised by abatement but it ought to have been without that that he did abate and also if the Plaintiffe had minded to have fully answered the Defendant he ought to have took his traverse in the very same words the Defendant had pleaded it against him to wit without that that he did enter and was seised by abatement which observe The Case concerned Sir H. James to whom the Defendant was Tenant SAunders versus Cottington Mich. 7. Jac. An Ejectment brought of two Houses but the Bill was onely for one and it was filed And the Defendant by his paper book pleaded to both Messuages And the Roll in Court and the Record of Nisi prius were two Houses And there was a verdict for the Plaintiffe and Judgement entred accordingly And a Writ of Error was brought by the Defendant and before the Record was removed the Plaintiffe moved the Court that the Bill upon the file might be amended and made two Messuages And because the Defendant had pleaded to Messuages in his Answer in paper and that the Roll and Record were according it was resolved by the whole Court that the Bill upon the File should be amended and made two Messuages for that Bill which made mention onely of one House could not be the ground of all the proceedings afterwards but it was as if no Bill had been filed and therefore it should be supplied and so had been severall times before the Record was renewed Which observe THe Plaintiffe declared in Ejectment upon a Lease of an House 10 Acres of Land 20 Acres of Meadow 20 Acres of Pasture by the name of one Messuage and ten Acres of Meadow be it more or lesse and upon not guilty pleaded the Plaintiffe had a Verdict but moved in Arrest of Judgement and Judgement was stayed For by the Plaintiffs own shewing in his Declaration he could not have Execution of the number of Acres found by the Verdict for in the Lease there is but ten Acres demised And these words more or lesse could not in judgment of Law be extended to thirty or fourty Acres for it is impossible by common intendment and the rather because the Land demanded by the Declaration is of another nature then that which is mentioned in the per nomen c. For that is only of Meadow and the Declaration is of arrable and Pasture MOore versus Hawkins Mich. 8. Jacobi In Ejectment after issue Joyned upon a not guilty pleaded the cause came to be tried before Brook and Yelverton Judges of Assize in the County of Oxford the Plaintiffe had declared of divers Messuages and divers Acres of Land lying in three Villages in the said County And at the tryall before the Jury was sworn Walter the Defendants Counsell put in a Plea that after the last continuance to wit such a day in Trinity Terme before the day of Assize to wit the 20. of July the Assizes being held at Oxford the 21 of July the Plaintiffe had entred into such a Close by name containing eight Acres parcell of the premises specified in the Declaration c. and this Plea was received by the Judges of Assize And afterward in Mich. Terme Yelverton and Walter being of Counsell with the Defendant desired that they might amend their Plea to wit to put in the very Village where the Land did lye into which the entry of the Plaintiffe was because it was but matter of form and not of substance and they were of opinion that the tryall of that new lssue ought to be of all the three Villages named in the Declaration And Yelverton Justice having asked the opinions of all the Judges in Serjeants Inne Fleetstreet related their opinions in the Court the Record of Nisi prius was returned into the Exchequer to wit that it was in the discretion of the Justices of Assize to accept such a Plea as is before and that it might be well allowed as the 10 H. 7. is and it shall stay the Verdict But otherwise it is of a protection for although they allow a protection yet the Judges may take the Verdict de bene esse yet he said that in the 7. E 3. in a Precipe quod reddat a Release was pleaded at the tryal and the Jury found the Verdict but that was the indiscretion of the Judges to allow it when it should not have been allowed And all the said Judges held as he related that the Plaintiffe could not have a replication to that Plea at the tryall for the Justices have no power either to accept a Replication upon that Plea or to try it but onely to return it as parcell of the Record of Nisi prius And they held also that the Plea being put in the Countrey could not be amended in adding the Town in certain in which the Close did lye for it was matter of substance And that the Court of
Exchequer where the Record was would not award the Venire Facias of all the three Villages named in the Record if it did not appear judicially to them that the Close did extend in all the Villages and it doth not appear for parcell if the premises doth not necessarily extend to all the Villages but may well be and so presumed in one Village onely and therefore it is matter of substance And the Judges had not power after their Commission determined to amend the Plea DAvis versus Pardy Mich. 8. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declared of a Lease made by one Cristmas the sixth of May Anno 7. of one Messuage c. In D. by reason whereof the Plaintiffe entered and was possessed untill the Defendant afterwards to wit 18. of the same month Anno sexto supradicto did eject him And not guilty being pleaded a verdict was found against the Plaintiffe And Yelverton moved in Arrest of Judgement to save Costs that the Declaration was insufficient For that Action was grounded upon two things first upon the Lease secondly upon the Ejectment and both those ought to concur one after the other And in this case the Ejectment is supposed to be one year before the Lease made for the Lease is made Anno 7. and the Ejectment supposed to be done Anno 7. 6. And therefore the Declaration naught And Yelverton vouched the case between Powre and Hawkins Anno septimo Termino Pasch Where the Plaintiffe declared upon the Lease of Edw. Ewer 27. April Anno sexto and laid the Ejectment to be 26. April Anno 6. And the Court held then that the Declaration was naught yet in the case in question the Declaration was adjudged good And the word sexto to be void for the day of the Ejectment being the 18. of the same month of May it cannot be intended but to be the same year in which the Lease is supposed to be made by the opinion of the whole Court AYlet versus Chippin Mich. 8. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares upon a Lease made by John Aylet for one year of certain Land in C. in the County of E. by vertue whereof he entred and was possessed untill the Defendant did eject him The Defendant pleads that the Copihold Land is parcell of the Mannor of D. c. of which one Jo Aylet the Lessors Father was seised in Fee according to the Custome and that he made a surrendor thereof to the use of his Will and by his will devised the Land in question to John the lessor and H. Aylet his sons and to their Heirs Males of their Bodies and willed that they should not enter untill their severall ages of 21 years And further willed that W. B. and H. B. his Executors should have the Lands to perform his Will untill his said Sons Jo and H. came to their severall Ages of one and twenty years c. To which Plea the Plaintiffe replies and confesses the Will but shews further how that such a day and year before the Lease Jo his Lessor attained to his full Age of one and twenty years and entred and made a Lease thereof to him c. To which Plea the Defendant demurred and adjudged for the Plaintiffe For although the Estate to Jo and H. precede in words and the devise to the Executors insues in construction yet the estate to Io Executors precedes in possession And is as if he should have demised the Land untill his Sons Io and H. should attain to their severall Ages of one and twenty years And afterwards to them and their Heirs Males c. to be enjoyed in possession at ther severall Ages so that the Executors have onely a limited estate determinable in time when either Son severally should attain to his full age for his part For so it appears the Devisors intent was that either Son might enter when he attained to the age of one and twenty years And although it was objected by Justice Williams that the two Brothers are joyntenants by the Will and if one should enter when he comes to his full Age the other Brother being under age that would destroy the intent of the devise for then they should not take joyntly but the Court as to that said that the entry of him that attained to his full age doth not destroy the juncture but that they are joyntenants notwithstanding For that entry in the intent of the Devisor was only as to thâ— taking of the the profits and the possession and not as to the estate in joyntenancy and this is proved by 30 H. 6. Devise 12. where a devise was to foure in Fee and that one of them should have all during his life and this was adjudged good and it was as to the taking of the profits onely which observe by the whole Court but Williams RIce versus Haruiston Pasch 10. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares of a Lease made by Jo. Bull c. The Defendant pleads that the Land is Copihold Land parcel of the Mannor of c. Whereof the King was seised and is seised and that the King by his Steward such a day granted the Land in question to him in Fee to hold at will according to the custome of the Mannor by vertue whereof he was admitted and entred and was seised untill the lessor entred upon him and outed him and made a Lease to the Plaintiffe and then he entred and did eject him c. The Plaintiffe replies that long before the King had any thing in the Mannor Queen Eliz. was thereof seised in Fee in right of her Crown and before the Ejectment supposed by the Defendant by her Steward at such a Court did grant the Land in question by Copy to him in Fee to hold at Will according to the custome of the Mannor who was admitted and entred and further shewed the descent of the Mannor to the King and how the Lesser entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiffe who entred and was thereof possessed untill the Defendant did eject him Upon which Plea the Defendant did demurr because he supposed that the Plaintiffe ought to traverse the grant alledged by the copy of the Defendant in his Barr. But the Court held the replication good for the Plaintiffe had confessed and avoided the Defendant by a former Copy granted by Queen Eliz under whom the King that now is claimed and so the Plaintiffe need not traverse the grant to the Defendant but such a traverse would make the Plea vitious for which see Hilliais Case 6. Rep. And 14 H. 8. Dotknis Case 2 E. 6. Dyer And Brooks title confesse and avoid for as no man can have a Lease for years without assignment no more can a man have a Copy without grant made in Court Which observe SHecomb versus Hawkins Pasc 10 Jacobi The case was in an especial verdict in Ejectment that one Mrs. Luttrel Tenant in fee of the Mannor of L. leavied a Fine to the use of her self for life and after death to
may take the power of the County to make a replevin upon the plures replevin a replevin will not lye of deeds or charters concerning Land and no return habend lyes upon a justistification and if a discontinuance be after a second deliverance the return habend shall be irreplegiable And if the Defendant after an advowry will not gage deliverance he shall be imprisoned for the contempt no disclaimer lies upon a justification but upon an advowry And if the replevin was sued by writ and the Sheriffe return thereupon that the cattell are not to be found then a withernam shall be awarded against the Defendant and if a nihil be returned then a capias alias plur withernam and thereupon an Exigent and if hee do at the return of the exigent find pledges to make deliverance and be admitted to his Fine then the Plaintiff shall declare upon an uncore detent and goe to tryall upon the right of the cause of distress and if it be found for the Plaintiff he shall recover his costs and dammages And if for the Defendant he shall have a return habend But if upon the return of the Plures repleg the Defendant appear then no withernam lies but he must gage deliverance or be committed and the Plaintiff shall count against him upon an uncore detent and so proceed to the rightfull taking of the distress And if it be found for the Plaintiff if the Cattell be not delivered he shall recover the value of the goods and costs and dammages if for the Defendant costs and dammages and a return habend WIlkins versus Danre Trin. 6. Jacobi rotulo 930. The Defendant avowed a rent charge granted to his Father in fee with a clause of Distress the Plaintiff demands Oyer of the deed which was a grant of the rent to one and his heirs to hold to him his Heirs Executors and Assigns to the use of the said H. and his Assigns during the life of a stranger And whether it was in fee or for life was the question and whether the habendum be contrary to the premises or do stand with the estate If the habendum had been to him and his Heirs during his own life this had been void but it was held otherwise for a strangers life and no occupancy can be of a rent CHappell versus Whitlock Mich. 6. Jac. rotulo 1316. The question was upon a liberty in the deed to make Leases provided they shall not exceed the number of three lives or twenty and one years and the lease was made for 80. years if two live so long if he make a Lease absolute it must not be above twenty and one years but in this case it is uncertain MAnning versus Camb Pasch 7. Jacobi rotulo 341. in Replevin the Defendant avows damage fesant by reason of a devise made to the Advowant by will for one and twenty years by one Lockyer who was seised of the Land in fee The Plaintiff saith that true it is that Lockyer was seised in fee of the Land in question and by the said Will devised the Land to the said D. for the said years in confidence only to the use of it if she should remain unmarried and afterwards and before the taking dyed thereof seised J. L. being then Sonne and Heir of the said Lockyer after whose death the Land descended to the said J. as Son and Heir c. after whose death the Legatees entred into the Land and were thereof possessed to the use and confidence above said the reversion belonging to the said J. L. And the woman took Manning to her Husband by reason wherof the said term devised by the said L. to the said A. and J. to the use and confidence above-said ended the said being under the age of 14. years to wit of the age of two years by reason whereof the custody of the Heir did belong to the Husband and Wife by reason whereof they seised the Heir and entred into the Land and maintained their count the Defendant confessed the Will and the devise for years in confidence and further that after the term he devised the Land to his sonne in fee and a demurrer The condition must go to the estate and not to the use COuper versus Fisher Trin. 6. Iac. rotulo 513. The Defendant as Administrator of Foster advows for rent reserved upon a Feofment made in fee of the Mannor reserving rent in fee to the Feoffer in the name of a Fee-farm-rent with a clause of Distress for the not paying of it and that the rent did desend to the issue of the Feoffer And for the rent due to the Heir the Feoffer in his life advows the Plaintiff in his barre to the Advowry saith that neither the intestate nor his Ancestors nor any other whose estate the said T. hath in the rent were ever seised of the same rent within forty years then last past before the taking c. And a demurrer pretending that he ought to alledg seisen in the Advoury with forty years And it was held by the whole Court that the seisin is not to be alledged being it was by deed made within the time of prescription neither is the seisin but where the seisin is traversable there it must be alledged and in no other case and the Judgment was given for the Advowant Mich. 8. Jacobi An Advowry was made for an amerciament in a Court leet and shews that he was seised of the Mannor in Fee and that he and all c. have had a Court leet and the Plaintif traverses that he was seised of the Mannor in Fee and the Court held If the Defendant had a reputed Mannor it would maintain the Avowry though he had indeed no Mannor in truth REynolds versus Oakley The Defendant avows for rent reserved upon a lease for life and the Plaintiff shews that the place in which c. did adjoyn to the close of the Plaintiff and that the Cattell against the Plaintiffs will did escape into the other close and that he did presently follow the Cattell and before he could drive them out of the close the Defendant did distrain the Plaintiff's Beasts And whether the Distress were lawfull or not was the question And the Court held in this case because the Beasts were always in the Plaintif's possession and in his view the Plaintiff would not distrein the Cattell of a stranger but if he had permitted the Beasts to have remained there by any space of time though they had not been levant and couchant the Lessor might have distreyned the Beast of a stranger BLown versus Ayer Hill 40. Eliz. rotulo 1610. In a Replevin the question was upon these words to wit the said Abbot and Covent granted to the said R. that he and his Assigns Fierboot Cart-boot and Plowboot sufficient by the appointment c. without making wast under the penalty of forfeiting the devise whether those words make a condition or no and
village is in question or could come in Issue yet it was resolved by the whole Court but him that those of the village of Bail might well know whether the Plaintif being an inhabitant within the village in which the Leet was were a chief Pledge at the Court or no for to have cheif pledges doth properly belong to a Leet which Leet is within the village and therefore they of the Mannor cannot have so good knowledge of the matter as they of the Mannor and village together and therefore they all ought to have been of both as in the Case of Common or a way from one village to a house in another village this ought to be tried of both villages and so also of the Tenure of Land in D. held of the Mannor of Sale the triall must be as well of the village where the Land lies as of the Mannor of which the Land is holden as it was adjudged Hill 45. El. in the then Queens Bench in the Case between Lovlace and and Judgement was reversed and see 6 H. 7. and Arundels case in my Lord Cooks Reports BVrglacy versus Ellington Burglacy brought a Replevin against Ellington for the taking of his cattell c. the Avowant pleads that one W. B. was seised of the place in which c. in his Demesne as of Fee and being so seised died by reason whereof the Land descended to one Crist. his Daughter and Heir who took to Husband the Avowant the Plaintiff in his Barr to the Avowry confesses that W. B. was seised and that it descended to C. who took to Husband the Avowant but he further said that the 16 of April primo Jac. the Husband and Wife by their Deed indented and inrolled did bargain and sell the same Land unto one Missenden and a Fine levied by them and that M. the 30 of James bargained and sold it to F. M. in Fee and he being so seised licensed the Plaintiff to put in his cattell the Avowant replies if in the said Bargain and Sale made by the Husband and Wife a Proviso was contained that if the said Ellington should pay one hundred pounds a year after then c. and pleaded the Statute of 13 Eliz. of usury with an averment that the profits of the Land were of the value of twelve pounds by the year the Plaintif rejoyned that true it is there is such a clause in the Indenture but he further said that before the sealing of the Indenture it was agreed by word that the said Ellington should have and receive the profits and not the Plaintif and thereupon the Avowant demurres and the Case was thus Ellington bargains his Land to M for the payment of one hundred pounds a yeare after to be paid and that the Bargainee should have the profits the bargainor enters as upon a void Sale because of the statute of usury for by the Proviso â—he is to have the hundred pounds and ten pounds for the forbearance and by the Law he is to have the profits and the which did amount above ten pounds by the hundred the bargainee to avoid the usury pleaded an agreement by word before the sealing of the Bargain and Sale and the question arising upon this was if the Bargainee might plead this verball agreement for the avoiding of the Deed which did suppose the contrary and Moore of Lincolns â—nne counsell was of opinion that he could not put that maxime that every thing must be dissolved by that by which it is bound and his whole argument depended upon that and he cited divers Cases as 1 H. 7. 28. 28 H. 8. 25. 1 Eliz. Dier 16. 9. Rutlands Case 5 Rep. and Cheyney 6 Case there but the whole Court without any argument were of opinion that he might plead the verball agreement and avoid the usury and first they all agreed that when a Deed is perfected and delivered as his Deed that then no verball agreement afterwards may be pleaded in destruction thereof as it is in the Cases put but when the agreement is parcell of the Originall contract as here it is it may be pleaded and secondly otherwise it would bring a great mischief being the custome so to do by word but if it had been expressed within the Deed that the Bargainee should have the profits and that it was delivered accordingly that no agreement or assignment of the profits could now avoid it for it is an usurious contract and therefore the whole court gave Judgement for the Plaintif that he might well plead the agreement Actions of Trespass and Battery JOhnson versus Turner Trin. 44 Eliz. Trespasse brought for breaking the Plaintifs house and the taking and carrying away his goods the Defendant justifies all the Trespasse the Plaintif as to the breaking of the House and taking the goods and the matter therein contained demurres upon the Defendants Barr the Defendant joins in demurrer in this form to wit because the Plaintif aforesaid as to the breaking of the House and taking the goods is sufficient demands Judgement and Judgement given in the Common Pleas for the Plaintiff and a Writ to inquire of Damages upon which Damages are assessed for the breaking of the House and taking the goods and whether the subsequent words to wit and the matter therein contained go to the whole matter in the Barr to wit to the carrying of the Goods away also for when the Defendant joyned in Demurrer with the Plaintiff he joyned specially to wit to the breaking of the House and taking the Goods but nothing of the carrying them away and so as to the carrying of them away nothing is put into Judgement of the court yet the Writ to inquire is for the whole and the Judgement also and the carrying of the Goods away being parcell of the matter and for which greater Damages are adjudged and that being not put into the Judgement of the Court by the Demurrer therefore the Judgement is erronious for there is a discontinuance as to the carrying of the Goods away which is part of the matter and this businesse concerned Mr. Darcy of the privy chamber concerning his patent for Cards PVrrell versus Bradley Pasch 1 Jacobi The Plaintif declares in Trespass wherefore by force and Arms such a day the Defendant did assault him and one Mare price six pounds from the person of the Plaintiffe then and there did take and Yelverton moved for the Defendant in arrest of Judgement and the Declaration was not good for the Plaintif did not shew any property in the Mare for he ought to have that it was his Mare or the Mare of the Plaintif for as it is laid in the Declaration the words may have two intendments that the property of the Mare was to the Defendant and then the taking was lawfull or that the property was in the Plaintif and then the taking was wrongfull and it being indifferent to whether it shall be taken most strongly against the Plaintif for his
BAnks against Barker Hill 12. Jac. rotulo 1979. In an Action of Trespass the venire facias was well awarded upon the case of the venu in Westown and of the Mannor of D. and the Writ of Venire was mistaken to wit of the venu of Westown and exception being taken after tryall the Court was moved for the amending of the venire facias by the roll and it was denyed because the Jury did come of another venu then they ought by the Law of the Land to come and therefore could not be amended but afterwards the Court seemed to be of an opinion that the awarding of the venu in the roll was mistaken because it was of the venu of the Villiage and Mannor and it should have been of the Mannor only being to try a custome of the Mannor FOrrest against Headle Hill 13. Jac rot 1123. An Action of Trespass brought and a continuando of the Trespass unto the day of the shewing forth the Plaintifs Originall to wit the 20. day of November which day was after the shewing forth of the Originall and because the Jury gave damages for the whole time which ought not to be it was proved that the Judgment upon the verdict might stay but by the whole Court the videlicet was held idle and Judgment given for the Plaintiff COcks against Barnsley Hill 10. Iac. rotulo 2541. An Action of Trespass brought and a speciall verdict found and the question was whether Land held in ancient Demesne was extendable for debt and an action of Trespass brought for that cause And Justice Nichols held it was extendable for otherwise if it should not be extendable there would be a fayler of Justice for if a Judgment should be had against a man that had no other Land but what was in ancient Demesne and that it could not be extendable there would be a fayler of Justice which the Law doth not allow of but an Assize or a re-disseisin doth not lye of Land in ancient Demesne because of the Seisin that must be given by the Common Law and it would be prejudicial to the Lord which the Law allows not and Wynch and Hubbard were of the same opinion For ancient demesne is a good plea where the Free-hold is to be recovered or brought in question but in an action of Trespass it is no plea. And note that by this execution neither the Free-hold nor Possession is removed but only the Sheriffe enters to make execution upon a Judgment had in the Common bench in debt which is a proper Action to be brought there WRight and his Wife against Mouncton Hill 12. Iac. rotulo 43. An Action of Trespass brought to which the Defend pleaded not guilty And the Husband only made a challenge that he was servant to one of the Sheriffs and prayes a processe to the Coroners and the Defendant denies the challenge and therefore notwithstanding the challenge the Venire issued to the Sheriffs and after a tryall exception was taken because the woman did not joyne in the challenge and it was held that the Husband and Wife should joyn in the challenge although the cause of challenge proceded from the Husband only but after tryall it was helped by the Statute of Ieofailes and judgment given for the Plaintiff BIde against Snelling Hill 16. Iac. rotulo 1819. An Action of Ejectment brought and also a Battery in one and the Writ and after a verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment because the Battery was joyned with the Ejectment The damages were found severally and the Plaintiff had released the damages for the Battery and prayed Judgment for the Ejectment Winch held the Writ naught but Judgment was given for the Plaintiff notwithstanding STeward and his Wife against Sulbury An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes the Close of the Wife while she was sole at D. hath broken and the wood of the said D. to the value of 1005. there lately growing hath cut down and carried away and in his Count shews that he hath cut downe two acres of wood and exception was taken because he declared of so many acres of wood and not of so many loads of wood to wit twenty c. loads and held by the Court to be a good exception BLackeford against Althin Trin. 14. Jac. rotulo 3376. An action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes a certain Horse of the said Plaintiffs took away c. The Defendant conveys to himselfe a certain annuity granted to him by one John Hott The Plaintiff shews that one William Hott Father of the said Iohn Hott the Grantor was seised of Land in Fee which Land was Gavel-kind Land and devised it to his Wife for life the remainder to Iohn Hott the Elder and Iohn Hott the Younger his Sonne and the Heirs of their bodies And afterwards William dyed and the Woman entred and was seised for life and the two sonnes entred and were seised in tayl and being so seised Iohn Hott the younger had issue Iohn Hott c. and traverses without this that Iohn Hott the Father at the time of granting the annuity was seised of the Tenements aforesaid with the appurtenances in his Demesne as of fee as c. And the Defendant as before saith that the said J. H. the Father at the time of the granting the annuity aforesaid was seised and after the tryall it was moved in Arrest of Judgment supposing it was mistried because the issue was that the said J. H. the Father at the time of the grant c. And it doth not appear that the said J. H. was nominated Father neither could it appear that the said J. H. was the Father and so the word Father was idle and the Court were of opinion that it was helped by the Statute of Ieofailes and the word Father was idle and judgment was given for the Plaintiff A. brought an Action of Battery against the Husband and Wife and two others the Wife and one of the others without the Husband pleads not guilty and the Husband and the other pleaded seu assault demesne and tryed and alledged in arrest of Judgment because the Woman pleaded without her Husband and Judgment was stayed and a Repleader alledged and this case was confirmed by a case which was between Yonges and Bartram HArvy against Blacklole Trin. 8. Jacobi rotulo 1749. An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by force and Armes his Mare so strictly to a Gelding did fetter that by that fettring the Mare aforesaid did dye If a stranger take a Horse that cometh and strayeth into a Mannor the Lord may have his action of Trespass If my stray doth stray out of my Mannor and goeth into another Mannor the day before the yeare be ended I cannot enter into the other Mannor to fetch out the stray If I take an Horse as a stray and onother taketh him from me the Action lyeth not by the Owner against the second taker
although his Estate be ended And the like if a Lease be granted to a Woman so long as shee shall live sole or shall behave her selfe wel if shee commit Waste the Writ shall be brought in the Tenet ad terminum vite and the Count shall be speciall If Tenant in Dower grants over his Estate to a Stranger and commits Waste yet the Action lyes against the Tenant in Dower but otherwise it is if the Heire grants over his Estate And the like for Tenant by the Curtesie If Waste be brought against two and one appear upon the Distringas and the other make default the Plaintiff shall have a Writ to inquire of the Waste but shall declare against him that appears for a man shall not recover by moities in Waste as one shall recover in a Precipe quod reddat against two for in waste the Land shall not be lost by default by an Action tryed and if a waste be committed between the Judgement and Execution a writ shall be awarded to inquire of the waste but Quaere thereof If a woman while she is sole commits waste and marries the writ shall be that the woman while she was sole committed waste and if Tenant in Tail in remainder brings an Action of waste against Tenant for life the writ may be which he holds of the Tenant in Tail although they hold of him in the Reversion in Fee and so it was adjudged Pasch first James that the writ was good An Action of waste lies against Executors for waste for waste committed by the Testator and if a man have Land in the Right of his Wife and waste is committed and the woman dies now no Action of waste lies against the Husband after the death of the wife In waste if the Term be ended and nothing be recovered but damages there a concord with satisfaction is a good plea and if the Lease for years determines pending the writ the Plaintiff shall recover nothing but damages and not the place wasted The Defendant may disclaim in his Action if he that hath the fee pleads no waste done this is a forfeiture of his Estate the Defendant may plead no waste done and give in Evidence that the Tenements at the time of the Demise were ruinous ancient Demesne is no Plea in Waste If a Guardian in Socage in the Right of his wife commits waste the writ shall be brought against the Husband onely Mich. 27. Ed. 1. rotulo 329. If an Action of waste be brought against the Husband and wife and the Husband appear upon the Distringas and the wife maketh default this shall be the default of both of them Mich. 20. H. 4. rotulo 393. the Plaintif may abridge the waste assigned in part so that he aabridges not the whole as if writ be of waste in houses and wood he may abridge part of the assignment in the houses and woods but not the whole and if Issue be joyned for part and demurrer for another part the Issue may be tryed before the Demurrer adjudged If an Indenture to raise uses upon good consideration be made and he that hath the Estate for life commits waste he to whom the reversion is limited by the same Indenture may have a generall writ of waste by saying generally that he hath demised it or a speciall writ at his pleasure and Mich. 27 H. 7. it was held by all the Judges that it is an ill return for the Sheriff to return upon a writ to inquire that he hath commanded his Bailiff because the Sheriff is both Officer and Judge which power cannot be committed to the Bailif of the Liberty and the writ is a Non omittas in it self but Quaere for there are divers Presidents against it the Lessee may cut down Trees for the repairing of houses when the Lessor is bound by covenant to repair and doth not and it is no good Plea for the Lessee in waste brought against him by his Lessor to say generally that he hath nothing in the Reversion but he must shew how the Reversion is not of him but upon a grant of the Reversion and waste be brought by the Grantee nothing in Reversion is a good Plea Upon no waste pleaded the Defendant cannot give in Evidence that the Tenements were sufficiently repaired before the writ brought If an Issue arises iâ— a forreign County the Jury shall not be examined of the view and if the Jurors be not examined of the View when they should be examined it is Error If my Father leases Land for term of life the writ of Waste shall be of houses c. which the said A. Father to him demised and so in a Writ of waste of a Lease made by my Predecessor but if the Abot or the Son himself bring the writ it shall be of Houses which he holds for a Term c. if waste be made sparsim in a Close or wood the Plaintiff shall recover the whole Close or wood and the treble value shall be levyed by Fieri facias or Elegit and not by Capias because a Capias lies not upon the Originall the Sheriff may take a Posse Comitatus to stay the Tenant from doing of waste upon an estrepment Two Tenants in Common one of them makes a Lease for years to the other An Action was brought against Tenant for years by him in the Reversion the Case was that the Lessorafter the Lease made granted another Lease in Reversion for yeares and this matter pleaded in abatement pretending that the Lease in Reversion was an impediment against the Plaintiff inbringing his Action but otherwise adjudged for if a Lease be made for life the Remainder for years and waste be committedby Tenant for life notwithstandingthe Lease for years in remainder waste lies SKeate against Oxenbridge and his wife Trin. 12 Jac. rotulo 849. waste brought of Lands and Gardens in L. of which E. K. was seised in his Demesne as of Fee and being so thereof seised after the fourth of February 27 H. 8. thereof infeoffed E. S. and others to the use of the said E. S. dead and of the said E. for Term of their lives and the longest liver of them and after the decease of the said E. S. and the said E. then to the use of the Heirs of the body of the said E. S. to be begotten upon the body of the said E. of which said E. S. dead the now Plaintiff is Son and Heir begotten on the body of E. committed waste and in the Declaration he shewed the Feoffment made to the Feoffees and the habend to them and their Heirs and because the word Heirs was omitted in the writ exception was taken but because it was in the Declaration it was adjudged good and note in this Case the woman was received upon the default of the Husband and pleaded to Issue If the Feoffees have but an Estate for life then they cannot convey an Estate in Fee simple over SAunders against Marwood H. 41. El. rot
not to the age of the Daughter for the age of the Daughter shall be intended to be set down for the receit of her legacy of forty pounds and for no other purpose and the Defendant within the time in which the Rent demanded is supposed to be due had not determined his Will as appears by the Verdict but Fennor and W. said that by the Verdict that the Defendant entred by force of the lease and occupied the land at the time comprised in the Declaration and more and that the Tenant at will cannot determine his will within a little time before the year end for that would prove very mischeivous to the lessor that his Tenant at will should determine his will within the year and refuse to occupy the land twenty dayes before the year end and in 21 H. 7. Crooks Reports it appears that a Lessee at will cannot determine his will within the year to the prejudice of the Lessor but that he shall answer the whole Rent to the Lessor but note it appeared that the Lessee at will was expulsed by the Plaintif that was Lessor and no other thing although done by his agreement can determine the Lease against the Lessor for it is Covin if the Lessee be not privy and acquainted with it which was granted by the whole Court and all of them agreed in the Title against the Plaintif but as the Reporter affirmed Popham was absent and hearing the Case was of opinion that the Plaintif had an interest by the words of the will JEffry versus Guy Mich. 3. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with Condition that if Jeffry the Defendant perform all Covenants in such an Indenture that then c. and one Covenant was that he should permit Guy the Plaintiffe from time to time to come and see if the House Leased by Guy and K. his Wife were in repair the Case was thus J. Bill and K. his Wife were Tenants in Tail of a house and had Issue J. B. dies K. marries Guy the Plaintiffe and they two make a Lease by Indenture to Jeffry for twenty years yeelding and paying to them and their Heirs three pounds Rent by the year with the Covenant as aforesaid Jeffry pleads in Barr the former intail and the death of R. and that VV. the Issue in Tail such a day entred before which Entry the Condition was not broken Guy replies that William came with him upon the Land to see if reparations c. and traverses the Entry of William in manner and form prout c. and Issue joyned upon the traverse and found for the Plaintiffe and Judgement given in the common Pleas upon which Judgement Jeffry brought Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and Judgement affirmed there but it was assigned for Error the Jury had not assigned any breach of Covenant in Jeffry and so had showed no cause of action but the Court held he need not in this Case for by the speciall Issue tendred by Jeffry the Plaintiffe was inforced one speciall replication to that point tendred and the Plaintiffe could not proceed error and it is not like the Case of an arbitrement wherein Debt upon an Obligation to perform the award the Defendant pleads nullum fecer arbitrium then the Defenâ—… in his replication ought to set forth the award and assign his breach because the Defendants Plea is generall but if in such Case the Defendant should plead a release of all demands after the Arbi-Arbitrement by which he offers a special point in Issue there it suffices if the Plaintiff answers to the Release or other special matter alleadged by the Defendant without assigning any Breach so in this Case the special Plea of the Defendant had disabled the Plaintiff that he could not assign any Breach of Covenants but of necessity ought to answer to the special matter alleadged RAstell versus Draper Mich. 3. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought for nine and thirty pounds the Plaintiff declares that the first of May primo Iacobi sold to the Defendant twenty Northern Clothes for sixty pounds Flemish Money to be paid upon Request which sixty pounds Flemish Money amount to nine and thirty pounds English Money and that the Defendant though often requested had not paid the nine and thirty pounds to his Damages of c. The Defendant pleads Nil debet per patriam and found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Plaintiff should have demanded the summ according to the Contract which was for sixty pounds Flemish and to have shewed that it amounts to nine and thirty pounds English but the whole Court against it for the Debt ought to be demanded by a name known and the Judges are not skilled in Flemish Money and also when the Plaintiff hath his Judgement he could not have his Execution by that name for the Sheriff cannot tell how to levy the Money in Flemish and also it is made good by the Verdict for the Jury have found the Debt demanded to wit nine and thirty pounds But if the Contract had been for so many Ounces of Flemish Money or a Barr of Silver and Gold now it cannot be demanded by the name of twenty pounds or such a summ which is not Coin nor used in Trade or Merchandise but in such Case must have a Writ of Detinue and in that recover the thing or the value and so in the Book of Entries fol. 157. is the President where Debt was brought upon two severall Obligations and demands eight and twenty pounds and declares severally that by one Obligation he owed eight and twenty pounds of Flemish Money and 34 H. 6. 12. 9 E. 4. 46. But note in that Case the Plaintiff if he would might have declared in the Detinet and it had been good ROlles versus Osborn Mich. 3. Jac. The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant upon a Bond of a thousand pounds and Serjeant Nichols moved the Court for the Defendant and shewed that the Plaintiff and Defendant were obliged each to other in a thousand pounds a peice that they should intermarry before such a Day and both their Obligations were forfeited and each of them sued the other and the Defendant prayed that common Bail might be accepted of her and she would accept of common Bail of the Plaintiff and the Court held it reasonable but said if they would marry both their Bonds might be saved BArneshurst versus Yelverton Hill 3. Jacobi The Plaintiff as Administrator of I. S. brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant upon a Bond and obtained a Judgement and afterwards the Administration is revoked yet notwithstanding the Plaintiff proceeded and took the Defendant in Execution and upon a Motion in the Court the Court held the Execution void and that the Defendant ought to be discharged because it issued out erroneously for the Letters of Administration being revoked the power of the Plaintiff is gone
31 H. 8. of Monasteries which gives the Houses dissolved to the King but in the same degree and qualitie as the Abbot had them And the Abbot was charged with the power given by himself and so was the King Which mark VVAnto versus Willingsby Pasch 5. Jacobi The Bishop of Exceter in the time of H. 8. by his Deed gives Land c. to Nicho Turner and by Bill his Cousin in consideration of service done by Turner and for other considerations him moving to them and the Heirs of their bodies and dyes They have Issue Jo. and William N. T. dies and Sybill marries Clap. and they alien the Land to Iohn in Fee Sybill and Iohn leavie a Fine to Walther in Fee of the Land And afterwards Sybill infeoffes William her younger Son who infeoffes Willinghby Io enters and leaseth to Walther and Willingby for the tryall of his title seals a Lease to ward who declares of so many Acres in Sutton Cofeild And the Jury upon a not guilty pleaded foundby the Verdict that the Bishop gave the Tenements aforesaid by his Deed the tenor of which Deed follows c. And by the Deed it appeared that the Lands did lye in Little Sutton within the Lordship of Sutton Cofeild And notwithstanding the Plaintiffe shall recover For first it was held not to be any Joynture within the Statute of 11 H. 7. for it is not any such gift as is intended by the Statute for the Bishop was not any Ancestor of the Husband and the Husband took nothing by that but it was a voluntary recompence given by the Bishop in reward of the service passed And the Statute intended a valuable confideration And also the Bishop might well intend it for the Advancement of the woman who appeared to be Cozen to the Bishop And Tanfeild held if the woman were a Doneâ— within the Statute of 11 H. 7 she could be but for a moyetie for the gift was before the marriage and then they took by moyeties And the Baron dying first the woman came not to any part by the husband but by the course of Law as survivour But quaere of this conceit for the other Judges did not allow it And secondly they held that the Fine of Io. the elder Son of Sybill levied to Walther destroyed the entry of Io. and of Walther For although in truth the Fine passed nothing but by conclusion yet Io. the Son and Walther his Conusee shall be estopped to claim any thing by way of forfeiture against that Fine on the womans part then any title accruing after the Fine For they shall not have any new right but Io the Son upon whom the Land was intayled is barred by the Fine Thirdly although upon view of the Deed made by the Bishop the Land which by the Declaration is layed to be in Sutton Cofeild by the Deed appears to be in Little Sutton yet this is helped by the Verdict by which it is found expresly that the Bishop gave the Lands within written and therefore being so precisely found the Deed is not materiall Which mark KNap versus Peir Iewelch Pasc 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for Lands in Wiccombe which were the Deans and Chapters of Chichester And in this case it was agreed by the whole Court that if it be a Corporation by prescription it is sufficient to name them by that name they are called And the Court held that if a man demands Rent upon the Land to avoid a Lease upon a condition the Demand ought to be made in the most open place upon the Land The Dean and Chapter of Chichester made a Lease to one Raunce the Lessee of the Defendant of Lands in Wiccombe rendring Rent payable at the Cathedrall Church of Chichester upon such a condition it was agreed by the whole Court that the Demand ought to be made in the Cathedrall Church of Chichester although it was of the Land Leased And the Demand ought to be made at the setting of the Sun the last instant of that day and when he made his Demand he ought to stand still and not walk up and down for the Law did not allow of walking Demands As Pipham said and he ought to make a formall demand And because those whom the Dean and Chapter did send to make the demand of Rent said bear witnesse we are come hither to demand and receive such Rent it was held by the Court that such a demand was not good And they held the demand ought to be made at that part of the Church where the greatest and most common going in is And in this case it was said by Popham that if a man make a Lease to one for yeers to commence at a day to come and then he lease to another for yeers rendring Rent upon a condition to commence presently And he enter And the first Lease commence and he enter the Rent and Condition reserved upon the second Lease is suspended A man leases for years rendring Rent after he leaseth to another to commence at a day to come and the first Lessee attorns the second shall not have the Rent reserved upon the first Lease by Popham but he doubted of it And Popham and Tanfeild held none contradicting that the Letter of Attorney made by the Dean and Chapter to demand their Rent was not good because the Letter of Attorney was to make a general demand on any part of the Land which the Dean and Chapter had leased And that ought to have been speciall onely for that Land And secondly it was to demand Rent of any person to whom they had made a Lease And the Letter of Attorney ought to be particular and not generall of any person TOmpson versus Collier Mich. 5. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares upon a Lease of Ejectment made by Robinson and Stone of one Messuage and fourty Acres of Land in the Parish of Stone in the Countie of Stafford The Defendant imparled tryall another Terme and then pleads that within the Parish of Stone there were three Villages A. B. and C. And because the Plaintiffe hath not shewed in which of the Villages the Land he demanded Judgement of the Bill c. And the Plaintiffe demurred upon this Plea And adjudged for the Plaintiffe For first after an Imparlance the Defendant cannot plead in abatement of the Bill for he hath admitted of it to be good by his entring into defence and by his Imparlance And secondly the matter of his Plea is not good because the Defendant hath not shewed in which of the Villages the House and fourty Acres of Land did lye And that he ought to have done For where a man pleads in abatement he alwayes ought to give to the Plaintiffe a letter writ with mark And the whole Court held that this Plea was not in barr but that he should answer over And Williams Justice took this difference that when a man demurrs upon a Plea in abatement And when he
by the whole Court held to be a condition but Judgment was given for the Plaintiff for doublenesse in the plea. BRown versus Dunri Hill 15. Iac. rotulo 1819. The Defendant made cognizance c. as Bailiff M. Walker Widow Administrator c. R. W. for one rent charge of 6 l. granted by one Warner to the said R. and M. his wife for life of the VVife And the said R. by the said writing granted c. That if it should happen the said yearly Rent to be behind and not paid in part or in all by the space of ten dayes next after any Feast c. being lawfully demanded that then c. the said Warner c. ten shillings nomine paene for every default and that then it should be lawfull to the said W. and M. and their Assigns to enter into the premises and distrain as well for the rent as for the nomine paene and shews that the rent was behind in the life of the Husband and that he dyed intestate and that administration was committed to the woman and made cognisance for the rent due at such a Feast in the life of the Husband and being then behind and the issue was that the Grantor was not seised and after a tryall diverse exceptions were taken one was for that a demand was not alledged another was that the cognisance was made as Bailifle to the Administrator when as the woman by the survivorship should have the rent Another was that it is not alledged that the rent was behind by ten dayes next after the Feast and the exceptions upon debate at diverse dayes were over-ruled First the demand is not necessary for the Distress is a sufficient demand as it was adjudged in Iaces case The second was because the cognisance as Administrator are void idle and superfluous and for the ten dayes it was good because that predicto tempore quo c. It was behind and adjudged by the whole Court for the Advowant SLoper versus Alen Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 3002. Replevin upon the taking of 40. Sheep the issue was that the Sheep were not levant and couchant and found by a speciall verdit that twenty Sheep were levant and couchant and that twenty Sheep were not levant and couchant and it was held upon the reading of the Record that the Plaintiff should have his Judgment BVrton versus Cony Hill 16. Iac. rotulo 2044. The Defendant avows for a rent charge granted to him for life by his Father issuing out of all his Lands in such a Town to have and to hold to levy and yearly to take the said annuity or annuall rent of c. during the naturall life of the said P. at two Feasts in the year to wit c. by equall portions the first payment to be made at the first and next Feast of the said Feasts which should next happen after the term of 8. years ended and determined specified and declared in the said will And if it should happen c. And averres in the avowry that there is not any term of years specified and declared in the said Testament before recited And note that in the premises of the Deed it is recited thus in fulfilling the Will or Testament of me the said T. bearing date such a date I have given c. And the Court held that the grant was present if no term was contained in the will and Judgment was given for the Advowant But after Judgment was entred upon Record an exception was taken because it was not averred that the Grantor was dead and it was allowed for a good exception but it came to late judgment being entred HEyden versus Godsulm Judgment for the Defendant who avowed for rent reserved upon a Lease for years and it was moved that the Plaintiff who brought the writ of Errour upon that Judgment ought to find bayle upon the writ of Errour by the Statute of 3. Iacobi and it was held by the greater number of the Judges that the Plaintiffe should not find bayle for Replevins are not within the Statute TVrny versus Darnes Trin. 17. Iac. rotulo 2887. Demurrer in a replevin upon a traverse of Lands when as the parties have not agreed of the quantity of Land The Avowry was that C. was seised of one Messuage two Barns one Mill c. and 100. acres of Land with the appurtenances in W. and held them of c. by fealty rent c. and suit of Court c. And the Plaintiff prayed in aide and he joyned and alledges that he was seised of 70. acres of Land with the appurtenances in his demesne as of Fee and held them of G. by fealty and rent c. and suit of Court and traverses that he held the Tenements of the said G. as if his Mannor of W. in manner and form as c. and a speciall demurrer and one cause was because he denies not the seisin of the said services but only denies and traverses the tenure and therefore they pretended that the plea contained double matter and was a negative pregnant and secondly whether the Seisin or Tenure be traversable and the Plea was held good by Hubberd and Warburton RIchards versus Young Trin. 16 Jacobi rotulo 104. vel 1700. A Replevin brought for taking of Cattel at Aller in a certain place called Land Mead the Defendant avows as Bailiff of Sir John Davies the Kings Serjeant containing four Acres for damage fesant the Plaintiff pleads in Barr that Henry Tearl of Hunt was seised of the Mannor of Aller whereof one Messuage c. was parcell and customary Land and devisable by Copy of Court Roll and that within the said Mannor there was a Custome that every customary Tenant of the said Messuage hath been used to have Common of Pasture in the said place called Land Mead rhe Issue was without that that within the said Mannour with the appurtenances whereof c. is and time out of mind was a custome that every customary Tenant of the laid Messuage c. had Common of pasture in manner and form c. and Serjeant Harris moved in Arrest of Judgment that there was no custome alledged because it did not appear in the pleading that the place where the taking was supposed to be was within the said Mannor and no custome of the Mannor could extend forth of the Mannor but he ought to prescribe in the Mannor and note he ought to have pleaded that the place in which c. was parcell of the Mannor and then the Plea had been good In a Replevin upon an Avowry for Rent the Plaintiff for part pleadeth payment for the other part an Accord the one Issue is found for the Paintiff and the other for the Defendant the Plaintiff shallrecover his costs and damages and the Defend shall have Judgement of Return habend and no costs and damages I think otherwise it is if the Avowries be severall then on both
Winch held that the Plaintiffe should not be barred for the Misnomer and for the second he held that his house was within the Statute of Chaunterys and so the interest in the King H. 6. And so the Lease made by the Master of the Hospitall void Dyer 246. 287. And Warburton held the Plaintiffe should be barred upon both points SWynerton versus Mills Hill 14 Jacobi rotulo 2049. In a Replevin the Defendant a vows for a rent charge reserved by a Copiholder who is seised in Fee and made a Lease by the license of the Lord reserving Rent at foure Feasts or within one and twenty days being lawfully demanded and afterwards the Copiholder surrendred one moity in Fee to a stranger and afterwards surrendred the reversion of the other moity to another to which the Termer atturned and so avowed for Rent The Plaintiffe pleaded in Barâ— that he was seised of a Close adjoyning to the place in which c. and put therein his Cattell and that they escaped by fault of inclosure and issue taken upon that And after a Verdict by default those exceptions were taken to the Avowry in Arrest of Judgement First because it appeared by the Advowry that the Copiholder had surrendred a Reversion which could not be because a Copiholder is a Tenant at will and so could not have a reversion for he cannot make a Lease for yeers without the license of the Lord but this exception was over-ruled by the Couâ—t Secondly because there was no Atturnment alledged in the first surrender And it was held no exception because the Rent for which he avowed was reserved by the Copiholder by the second surrender to which the Termer had atturned And also the Court said that an Atturnment is not necessary for a Copiholder because there is no time when the Terme should atturn For before the surrender he cannot atturn and after the surrender and admittance it is too late And the Copihold estate is like an estate raised by uses or devise in which an Atturnment is not necessary As also in an estate raised by Fine and the like an Atturnment is not necessarie for if the Termer will not atturn he is compellable by Law as by a Quid juris clamat but a Copiholder hath no means to make the Termer atturn if he refuse And thirdly in the conclusion of the Advowry he doth not say that the Rent was behind such a day and one and twenty dayes after at least and this exception was disallowed because the distresse is a sufficient demand of the Rent and it appears that the day of the taking of the distresse was one and twentie dayes after the Feast at which the Rent was due and Judgment was given for the Advowant and note that a Covenant to distrain is idle for a man may distrain of common right HOwell versus Sambay Mich. 13 Jacobi rotulo 2009. In Replevin the Defendant a vows for a Rent charge and a Nomine pene granted by Tenant in tail generall and one Fine levied afterwards and the use expressed the Plaintiffe replies and saies that the Grantor had only an interest for life and so makes inducement and traverses the use of the Fine The Defendant demurrs And held by the Court that the Grantee was not seised in tail nor to the use of the Fine And it was said that in this case that it was necessary for the Advowant to plead the Fine with the estate tail for if the Tenant in tail grant a Rent charge and dye no Fine being levied and the estate tail discends the issue in tail is not chargable with the Rent And note the Advowry was as well for the Rent as for the Nomine pene and no speciall demand was alledged in pleading the Rent and it was adjudged by the Court a naughty advowry as to the Nomine pene but good for the Rent as it hath been adjudged in one Mildmaies Case COtterell versus Harrington Pasch 6. Jacobi rotulo 545. In a Replevin the Defendant avows for an Annuity for 20 d. granted for yeers payable upon demand and alledges a demand the Plaintiffe demands either of the Deed and by the Deed it appeared that for a hundred and ten pound one Rent of twenty pound was granted for eight yeers and another for 20 l. for two yeers if E. R. and T. should so long live the Plaintiffe pleads the Statute of Usury and sets forth the Statute and a speciall usurious Contract If it had been layed to be upon a loan of Money then it was Usury but if it be a bargain an Annuity it is no usury But this was alledged to be upon a lending VVOod versus Moreton Hill 6 Jacobi rotulo 1802. In Replevin the Defendant advows to have Common Appendant out to his house and Land the Plaintiffe saith that he had Common Appendant to his House and Land And the Defendant to avoid the Common saith that the Commoner sold to the Plaintiffe five Acres of the Land to which the Common is appendant pretending that he should not have Common for that Land being but parcell of the Land to which the Common was appendant Common Appurtenant cannot be to a House alone purchasing of part of Common Appendant doth not extinguish the Common otherwise it is of Common Appurtenant And it was pretended to be Common Appurtenant because it is to a House and Land whether by severance his Common is gone and held to be common Appendant and Judgment given for the Plaintiffe MOrse versus Well Replevin for Common of Pasture the casewas that the Father was seised of two yard Land with Appurtenances and had Common of Pasture for four rother Beasts three Horses and sixty Sheep and he demised part of the said two yard Lands in being And whether the Common should be apportioned and if it should be apportioned whether the Prescription failed because the issue was taken that he and all those c. had Common in the said two yard Land A Release of Common in one Acre is a Release of all If I have Common Appurtenant and purchase part the Common is gone but otherwise it is of Common Appendant And note this Common was Common Appendant and the purchasing of Common Appendant doth not extinguish the Common and Judgment was given for the Commoner by the whole Court HVghes versus Crowther Trin. 6 Jacobi rotulo 2220. In a Replevin a Lease for years made to Charles H. and the said A. T. to have and to hold from c. for sixty years if they live so long Charles dyed in this case Judgment was given that the Lease was ended by the death of Charles but otherwise it had been if it had been for life BIcknall versus Tucker Trin. 9 Jacobi rotulo 3648. in a Replevin the case was whether a Fine with five years will bind the Copy-holder in remainder there was a Copy-hold granted to three for lives to have and to hold successively the
first had the Free hold granted to him by the Lord of the Mannor And then he leavied a Fine and five years passe whether he in the Remainder be Barred or no those whose estates are turned to rights either present or future are meant by the Statute to be barred of a Copy-hold for years be put out of possession and a Fine Leavied and no entry by him he is barred by the Statute by the Bargain and Sale he in the Remainder is not put out of possession if a man make a Lease to begin at Easter next and before Easter a Fine is leavied and five years passe this Fine will not barr because at the Leavying of the Fine he could not enter for then his right was future if the Lease had been in possession and the Lessee had never entered he had been barred A Lease for years Remainder for years if the first man taketh for life the first estate is not so determined but that the Remainder standeth if a Copy-hold surrender for life there passeth no more from him then so much as maketh the estate and no more and the rest remaineth in him CRantley versus Kingswel Pacsb 15 Jacobi rotulo 710. The Defendant makes cognisance as Bailiff of Kingswell his Father for Rent service due to his Father at such a Feast And shews that Cramley holds of him by fealty and rent paiable at such a Feast and for Rent due at such a Feast made Cognisance the Plaintiffe in Barr saies that he at the said Feast offered the Rent upon the Land and that no body was there to receive it And the Plaintiffe saith that afterwards he demanded the Rent upon the Land and the Plaintffe made a Replevin pretending the Lord should make a personall demand but the whole Court was against him And Warburton took acception against the pleading the Tender because he saith that he offered the Rent to pay when as he was not present And the question was whether the Lord for a Rent service did not demand it at that day whether he can distrain without a demand of the person and held he might for the Tenant is yet bound to tender and the Land is debter and the Lord may resort thither when he pleases to demand the Rent upon the Land but if he tender his Homage and the Lord refuses it he cannot distrain without a demand of the Person and Judgment for the Defendant STokes versus Winter Trin. 15. Jacobi rotulo 2242. In Replevin the Defendant makes cognisance as Bayliff to Tenant for life to whom the Annuity was granted for life to begin by will after the death of the devisor And alledges the death of the devisor but not the day of the death after whose death the said H. was seised of the yeerly rent aforesaid in his demesn as of his Free-hold for terme of his life by vertue of the devise aforesaid And because seven pounds of the Rent aforesaid for one yeer ended at the Feast c. and by the space of 14. dayes then next following were behinde to the said T. the said time with c. the said T. as Bayliffe of the said H. doth make cognisance of the taking of the cattell aforesaid in the said place in which c. for the said 7 li. for the yeerly Rent aforesaid being so behind c. and issue was taken whether the said I. at the time of his death was seised of the said six Acres of Land in his demesne as of Fee as c. And after tryall exception was taken to the Advowry because it was not alledged that the annuity at such a Feast after the death of the devisor was behinde but it was over-ruled because there is so much expressed and Judgment given for the Defendant HVmfrey versus Powell Trin. 12. Jacobi rotulo 2791. Replevin wherein the Defendant avows for one Annuity granted to the Defendant to whom the office of Catorship of the Church of Roffen in Kent was granted by the Dâ—an and Chapter of that Church for life with an Annuity of 6. pounds for the exercising of that Office with a clause of distresse by vertue of which grant he was possessed and avowes for the Annuity and avers that it was an ancient Office pertaining to the Dean and Chapter of Roffen and doth not aver that the Annuity was an ancient Annuity The Defendant pleads the Statute of the 13 Eliz that all Devises Donations Grants c. made by any Master and Fellows of any Colledge Dean and Chapter c. other then for the terme of twenty and one yeers or three lives from the time of this Devise c. should be totally void And shews that the old Dean died and another was elected And a Demurrer thereupon And Judgement that the Grant was void HYen versus Gerrard Mich. 13. Jacobi rotulo 752. The Defendant in Replevin avows that one being seised in Fee made a Lease to him and avows for Damage feasant The Plaintiffe in Barr pleads and maintains his Declaration and traverses the Lease upon the Avowant demurrs and adjudged a goodtraverse IEnyx versus Applefourth Trin. 17. Eliz rotulo 543. The Defendant avows for a Rent charge the Plaintiffe in Barr pleads that the Defendant had presented a Writ of Annuity And that he had an Imparlance thereunto And demands Judgement if the Defendant did well make cognisance to the taking of the cattell in the said place in which c. in name of a distresse for the rent aforesaid by vertue of the said writing as Bayliffe of the said R. the said Writ of Annuity being prosecuted c. upon the said writing in form aforesaid c. And a Demurrer thereupon and Judgement by the whole Court for the Plaintiffe it is not needfull to lay a prescription to distrain for an Amerciament in a Court Leet but it is otherwise for an Amerciament in a Court Baron by the whole Court DArcy versus Langton The Defendant avows for a Rent charge and for a Nomine penae and no mention made in the Avowry of the Rent charge and the Plaintiffe was non-suit and afterwards in Arrest of Judgement this matter was alledged and at first held to be a good exception but afterwards Judgement was entred an Advowry is in the nature of a Declaration if that be vitious no Judgement can be given for the Advowant TRin. 9. Jacobi Regis rotulo 2033. Replevin for the taking of Cattell at Andover in a certain place there called R The Defendant makes cognisance for damage feasant the Plaintiffe saies that he was seised of the Messuage c. in C. in the Parish of A to which he claimed Common of Pasture And issue taken upon the prescription and a Venire Facias of A. and exception taken because it was not tryed of C. and A. or of the Parish of A. but it was adjudged to be good TRinbone versus Smith Trin. 12. Jacobi rotulo 626. In Replevin foure and twenty were returned upon the
who makes conisance as Bailiff of Sir Ed. Br. for a common Fine which was assessed upon the Plaintiff who was resident within the Leet of his Master The Plaintiff replies that Sir Edw. by his deed had released to him all rents services exactions and demands out of his Mannor except suit of Court the Defendant demurred And Nichols that suit of Court for which this common Fine was set is excepted and therefore the common Fine is not released by that but is excepted also a common Fine is assessed when the Jurors in the Leet do conceal that which they ought to find and with which they are charged and therefore the release being for exactions out of the Land And this is not for any thing by reason of the Land but because he doth misbehave himself and by the opinion of the whole Court a release of all demands doth not discharge a man of his suite to a Leet by reason of his residency because a Leet is the Kings Court to which every leige-Subject is to come and perform his allegiance to him And also because suit of Court is inseparably inoident to a Court leet which cannot be released PAllets Case Pasch 5. Jacob. In a replevin in which Pallet was Plaintiff the case was such where a man made a Lease of Lands of which Land he was seized by a good Title and of Land of which he was seised of a defeasible Title for years rendring rent and in the replevin the Lessor avows for the whole rent The Plaintiff in the replevin saith that after the lease made the Disseisee had entred upon part of the Land and a demurrer Sergeant Hicham moved for the Advowant that he ought to have a return for he agreed that the rent should have been apportioned but he said that if a man avows for many things and he hath right but to one he shall have a returh habend 5. H. 7. and 9. H. 7. And 4. Ass Pl. 6. where a man brings an assise for rent and hath right but to part yet he shall recover for that part and cited the opinion of Popham put in Walkers Cafe in the third Rep. 24. when rent reserved upon a Lease for years should be apportioned If a man in an action of debt demands more then hee ought yet upon a nil debet pleaded the Lessor shall recover so much as shall be apportioned and assessed by the Jury and shall be barred as to the residue But Yelverton was of another opinion for he said as this case is the Avowant shall not have a return habend But if the apporciament had been made by the Jury he should have had a return habend but in this case the apporciament must be made by the Judges to whom the quantity of the Land cannot appear and therefore they cannot make apportiament for they all agreed that the apportiament ought to be accotding to the value of the Land and not according to the quantity And to prove this he cited Hubberd and Hammonds Case 43. Eliz. co lib. 427. As where the Fines of Copyholders upon admittance are uncertain the Lord cannot exact excessive Fines and if the Copyholder deny to pay it it shall be determined by the opinion of the Judges before whom the matter depends and upon a demurrer to the evidence to a Jury upon the confession or proof of the annuall value of land the annuall value ought to appear to the Judges but in this case the value doth not appear to them and therefore they cannot make any apportiament and therefore the Avowant shall not have a return habend But Tâ—anfield held the Avowant should have a return habend for the whole rent for the Judges could not apportion this because the value did not appear and the eviction is matter of privity which ought to be discovered by the Lessee and he should give notice to the Lessor and he ought to shew the value of the Land from which he is inriched to the Judges And Popham is of the same opinion for he said the value of the Land ought to be shewed by the Lessee for every one ought to plead that which is in his knowledg and that was in the Lessee's knowledg and not the Lessor and Fenner of the same opinion but Yelverton and Williams against it for Yelverton said that it appeared that part of the Land was evicted and therefore it ought to be apportioned but because the value did not appear to the Judges it could not be apportioned Williams said that if the Lessee surrender part the Lessor need not shew the value and Popham agreed to that because the acceptions of the Lessor had made him privy to it KEnrick versus Pargiter Trin. 6. Jacobi The Defendant justifies the taking of the Cattell damage fesant upon a surmise of a custome that the Plaintiff being Lord hath the place in which c. wholly to himself untill Lammas day and after that day it is common for the Tenants and the Plaintiff is not to put in but only three horses c. And because the Plaintiff after Lammas put in more cattell then three horses the Defendant took them damage fesant as it was lawfull for him to do And issue was joyned upon the custome and found against the Plaintiff and Yelverton shewed in arrest of Judgment that the Defendant could not take the Cattell damage fesant for it appears that the Defendant is only a Commoner and it also appears that the place in which c. is the soile of the Plaintiff and the Cattell cannot be taken damage fesant upon his ground no more then the Tenant can have an Action of Trespass against his Lord guare vi armis c. in regard of his Seigniory as it is in Littleton and 5. H. 7. But the Court said that the matter of taking the Cattell did not come into question for nothing was in issue but the custome which is found against the Plaintiff for if the Plaintiff would have taken advantage of that he ought to have demurred And although by that he had confessed the custom yet whether such Commoner could have taken the Lords Cattell would then properly have come into debate And by Fenner Williams and Cook the taking the Lords Cattel damage fesant was good for by the custom the Lord is to be excluded but only for his stint and the Lord may well be stinted and the whole vestive and benefit of the soile is the Commoners and they have no other remedy to preserve the benefit they have in feeding their Cattell but by taking the Cattell of the Lord if he offends And the Custome hath made the Lord as meer a stranger as any other and without doubt the Commoner might take the Cattell of a stranger 15. H. 7. The chief Justice and Yelverton doubted of it And although the Commoners by the custome had gained the sole feeding in the land of the Lord Yet they ought to have shewed the custome and also the usage
to have distrayned the Cattell of the Lord damage fesant and observe his BRaxall versus Thorold Trin. 8. Jac. In Replevin for the taking of 4 Oxen at Coringham in the County of Lincoln in a place called Dowgate leys Sept. 6. Jac. The Defendant says the place contained four acres in Coringham magna which was his Free-hold and justifies the taking damage fesant The Plaintiff in his bar to the Avowry that the place where c. lies in a place called Harrerart quarter parcell of a great Common Field called E. in Coringham aforesaid and that the Plaintiff the said time and long before was seized of one Messuage and of 14. acres of Land Medow and Pasture with the appurtenances to the said Messuage belonging and that the Plaintiff and all they whose estate the Plaintiff had in the Tenements ought to have common and so prescribed to have common for him his Farmers Tenants c. for all comunable cattell levant couchant upon the Tenements c. And upon issue taken upon the Common it was found for the Plaintif and alledged in arrest of Judgment that it did not appear by the Barre to the Avowry in what place the Messuage and Land to which the Common did appertain did lie to wit whether it did lie in Coringham or in any other place or County and thisof necessity ought to have been shewed in certain because the tenure ought to be both of the place where the House and Land did lye and of the place where the Land did lye in which the Common was claimed and therefore of necessity ought to have been shewed incertain and shall not of necessity be intended to be in Coringham where the Common is For a Common may be appendant or appurtenant to Land in another County And the trvall shall be of both Counties and Judgement was arrested by the whole Court TRuelock versus Riggsby Mich. 8. Jacobi In Replevin for the taking of six Kine in a place called Brisley hill in Radley in the County of Berks the Defendant as Bailiff of one Read makes Conisance that the place where c. contains fifty acres and is parcell of the Mannor of Barton whereof the place where c. is parcell and showes that E. 6. was seised of the Mannor of Barton whereof the place where is parcell and granted it by Letters Patents to R. Leigh and divers other Lands by the name of the Coxleyes c. and amongst other particulars in the Patent the King granted Brisley hill in Barton and deduces the Free-hold of the Mannor of which the place In which c. is parcell to Read and he as Bailiff to him took the Kine damage Fesant the Plaintiff replies and shows that one Hide was seised of a Messuage and divers Acres of Land in Radley and that he and those whose estate he hath for himself his Farmers and Tenants used to have Common in the said place called Brisley hill in Radley when the said Feild called Brisley hill in Radley was fresh and not sowed all that yeare with their Cattell Levant and Couchant and when the Field was sowne with Corne and when the Corne was carried away untill it was referred and so justifie the putting in of six Kine using his Common because the Feild was not sown with Corne at the time to which the Defendant pleads and saies that part of the Feild called Brisley Hill in the Avowry named was at that time sown with Corn c. and the Plaintiff demurres and adjudged for the Plaintiff for two reasons The first was because the Defendant in his Avowry referres the taking of the Cattell to another place then that set forth in the Avowry which is not in question and in which the Plaintiff claims no Common for the Plaintiff may claim Common in Brisley hill in Radley and the place named in the Defendants Avowry to which he referres his Plea is Brisley hill in Barton for Brisley hill in Radley is not named in the Avowry by any speciall name but onely by implication by this name the place in which c. and for that reason the rejoinder doth not answer the matter in the replication The second cause was because the Plaintiff claims Common when Brisley hill in Radley was unsown with Corn and the Defendant to that although his Plea should referre to the same Brisley yet hath he given no full answer for he saith that parcell of the said Feild was sowed with Corn and the Court held that sowing of parcell of the Feild shall not hinder the Plaintif from using his Common in the residue for that may be done by covin to deceive the Plaintiff of his Common for the Plaintif claiming his Common when the Field that is the whole Feild is sown shall be barred of his common by sowing of parcell of it notwithstanding that parcell be sowed the Plaintif shall have his common by the opinion of the whole court GOdfrey versus Bullein Mich. 8 Jacobi Bullein brought a Reple vin against Godfrey for the taking of six Beasts in such a place in Bale in the County of Norfolk the Defendant as Bailif of R. Godfrey makes conisance because before the time and at the time in which c. the said R. Geffrey was seised of a Court Leet in Baile of all the inhabitants and râ—â—dent within the Precinct of the Mannor of Baile to be holden within the Precinct of the Mannor as appertaining to his Mannor and shews how that he had used to have a Fine of ten shillings called a Leet Fine of all the cheif pledges of his Leet and if they failed to pay the Steward had used to amerce them that made default in payment shewed how that at a Court holden within the Mannor such a day it was presented that the Plaintif in the Replevin being an inhabitant in B. and resident within the Precinct of the Mannor made default in payment of the said Fine of ten shillings being then one of the cheif pledges of the Court by reason whereof he was amerced at five pounds which being not paid the Defendant took the Beasts and the Issue was whether Bullein at that court was a chief Pledge or no and the Venire to try his Issue was onely of the Mannor and found for the Plaintif and damages and costs to thirty pounds given against Geffrey upon which he brought a Writ of Error in the late Kings Bench and adjudged Error and the Judgement reversed for the Venire facias should have been both of Bail which was the Village as of the Mannor for although the Court be held within the Mannor yet the Leet it self is within the village of Baile and the Plaintiff was an inhabitant and resident within the village which village is within the Precinct of the Mannor and though Fleming cheif Justice held that nothing was in question but whether the Plaintiff was cheif pledge at the Court held within the Mannor or no and so nothing within the
GOodwin against Welsh and Over Pasch 7. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Trespass for severall things against the two Defendants and declares to his damage c. The Attorney for the Defendants pleads non sum informat and thereupon Judgment was given severally for the Plaintiff and Writs to inquire of the damages issued out and were returned and it was moved that the Writs should not be filed because the Plaintiff at the time of the inquiry did not prove that the goods did appertain to him but only proved the value of the goods for Serjeant Nichols took a difference between an Action confessed and non sum informat for in the first case the property of the goods is also confessed to be in the Plaintiff but it is not so in the other case for here Judgment passes without the privity of the Defendant and only for want of pleading as in the case of a nil dicit but by the whole Court it was all one And the Plaintiff is not bound to prove the property in any of the Cases and the reason is because the Writ commands only the value to be inquired of and no more and that only is the charge of the Jury And the whole Court were of opinion that they themselves as Judges if they would in such Case might assesse Damages without any Writ if they would trouble themselves for the Writ goes onely because it is known what Damages are but it is otherwise when not guilty is pleaded for then the Trespasse is denyed which must be proved and tryed by the Jury and there both the value and property come in proof and observe the Judgement is that he should recover and if upon a Writ of inquiry he should be bound to prove the property and fail thereof it would be in destruction of the first Judgement which cannot b. observe this TAilor against Markham Trin. 7 Jacobi An Action of Trespass and Battery brought for c. The Defendant pleads that he at the time of c. was seised of the Rectory of c. where the Battery was supposed in Fee and that at the time in which c. Corn was severed from the nine parts at the place aforesaid and because the Plaintiff came to carry away his corn and the Defendant stood there in defence of his corn and keeping the Plaintiff from taking it away and the hurt that the Plaintiff had was of his own wrong c. the Plaintiff replies that it was of his own wrong with the such cause alledge c. and the Defendant demurred in Law and adjudged for the Plaintiff for that generall replication is good and doth not behove the Plaintiff to answer the Defendants Title because the Plaintiff by his Action doth not claim any thing in the Soil or corn but only damage for the Battery which is altogether collaterall to the Title but when the Plaintiff makes a Title by his Declaration to any thing and the Defendant shall plead another thing in destruction thereof or if the cause of Action in such Cases the Plaintiff must reply specially and not say without such cause as it is in 14 H. 4. Trespasse brought for taking a servant the Defendant shews that the Father of him that the Plaintiff supposes to be the servant held of him in Knights Service c. and died seised his Heire the Servant being within age by reason whereof he seised as his Ward as it was lawfull for him to do and there the Plaintiff replied that he did it of his own wrong and without such cause and disallowed by the Court because he did not answer to the Seigniory to wit that he did that of his own wrong without it that the Father of him that is supposed to be the Servant held of him in Chivalry and the reason was because the plaintiff by his Action made Title to the Servant according to 16 E. 4. and Judgement given accordingly ALlbon against Dremsall Mich. 7 Jacobi The plaintiff declares in an Action of Trespasse that the Defendint the twentieth day of February 5 Jac. did break the plaintiffs Close at c. called Sandy Heath and entered it and spoiled his grasse and kiiled took and carried away a hundred Conies and also that the Defendant the same day the free Warren of the plaintiff at Sandy aforesaid did enter and chase without license and killed fifty Conies and took carried them away to his damage of c. the Defendant to the whole Trespasse except the entring and breaking of the Close called Sandy Heath not guilty and in Issue joyned upon that and as to the breaking the Close the plaintiff ought not to have his Action for he said that William Lord Russell and Elizabeth his Wife were and yet are seised in Fee in the Right of his Wife in a certain peice of Heath containing ten acres in Sandy close adjoining on every side separated from the place called Sandy Heath that they and all those whose Estate they have in part in that peice of Heath have used to have for themselves and Farmers of the said peice of Heath and for their Servants a passage unto the said peice of Heath and from the said peice in by and through the said Close called Sandy Heath in which c. the whole year at their pleasure to take and receive the profits of the said peice of Heath and the Defendant further sayes that long before the Trespass supposed to be committed very many Conies were wandering in the said peice of Heath and divers Cony holes were there made in which the said Conies did delight to live in and at the time in which c. they were in the said peice of Heath eating the grasse growing there and the Defendant as Servant to the Lord Russell and by his command the time in which c. in by and through the said Close in which c. towards and unto the said peice of Heath did walk over to hunt and take the said Conies in the said peice of Heath then being and feeding as it was lawfull for him to do which walking in by and through the said Close in which c. for the cause aforesaid is the same breaking the Close and entring thereof whereof the Plaintiff complains and averres that the place by which the Defendant walked for the cause aforesaid to Sandy Heath in which c. was the next passage by which he could go to the said peice of Heath to which the Plaintiff demurres and adjudged for the Plaintiff for a passage is properly a passage over the water and not over Land and the Defendant ought to have prescribed for the way and not for the passage for he ought to have observed the usuall words and such as are known in the Law for a prescription and usage is for a way and not for a passage and see 32 Assis 58. and 11 H. 4. 82. b. Secondly the prescription is not good
his house which he could not do for the entring is one act done and ended at the going out again And therefore if he re-enter it is a new Trespass and the continuando is only alledged for the aggravation of damages 2 R. 3. 15. 10. E. 3. 10. 16. E. 3. 24. That a continuando cannot be for breaking the House but Doddridge and Haughton Justices the rest being silent were of opinion that it might be alledged that a continuando for although it might be that if hee went forth and re-entred it should be a new Trespass but if upon his first Entry he continued divers dayes it might be alledged with a continuando And see for that Mich. 38. El. in the Common Pleas fol. 118. If a Disseisee re-enter he shall have an Action of Trespass against the Disseisor with a continuando And so is Fitzherberts Nabrevium 91. L. that a continuando may be laid as well for breaking a House as eating the Grass and so is 10. E. 3. 10. and 20. H. 7. 30. by the opinion of Gapley GEush against Mynne Pach. 11. Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes the Close of the Plaintiff did break c. The Defendant justified by reason there was a report that a Vermine called a Badger was found there to the great damage of the Inhabitants by reason whereof he uncoupled his Beagles in the place where c. and hunted there and found the Badger and pursued him untill he Earthed in the place where c. by reason whereof he digged the ground and took the Badger and killed him and afterwards hee stopped up the Earth again which is the same Trespass and demands Judgment whereupon the Plaintiff demurs And upon reading the Record Scamber of the Inner Temple was for the Demurrer and that the Defendant could not justifie as this case was And first he was of opinion that the Common Law warrants hunting such noysome Beasts although it be in the Lands of another because it is good and profitable to the Common-wealth that such hurtfull Beasts should be extirpated according to the 8. E. 4. 15. And Fishermen may justifie their Nets upon anothers Land 13. H. 8. 16. 22. H. 6. 49. A man may justifie entring into a house to serve a Subpaena 3. H. 6. 336. A man may justifie the entring into anothers Land with the Sheriff to help him to distrain but otherwise it is for things of pleasure as 38. E. 3. 10. B. You cannot justifie the Entry when your Hawk hath killed a Pheasant in anothers Land and so for hunting of Hares or Conies in the Free-hold of another but although the Law allows and permits such Entries as aforesaid yet the Law requires that such things shall be done in an ordinary and usuall manner as 12. H. 8. 2. A Commoner cannot digge the Land to make Trenches although it be for the benefit of another and this is confirmed and explained by the Statute of 8. Eliz. cap. 15. For although that Statute gives reward for the killing of Vermins yet the Statute further saies that it must be with consent and with reasonable Engines and Devices 2. R. 2. Barr. 237. Grant of Fish in the Pond one cannot dig the Land and make a Sluce but must take with them Nets And so if a man grant to me all his Trees in such a place I I cannot grub up the roots out of the earth if there be any other way to take them but if there be no other way then it is otherwise as 9 Ed. 4. 35. a. A grant to put a Pipe in my Land and afterward it is stopped I may dig to mend it by the opinion of the Court and therefore there being an Ordinary course to wit hunting to kill the Badger the digging for that is unlawfull and the Action will well ly Mich. 36. and 37 Eliz. 60. Nicholas Case expressely for a Fox and Fenner held it was not lawfull to break a Hedge in the pursuit MIles against Jones Pasch 11 Jac. Miles brought an Action of Trespasse against Jones wherefore by force and Arms his goods c. The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff 5 Jacobi acknowledged a Recognisance of 100. l. at Mich. at which day he did not pay it and that two years after the Recognisance was extended upon his goods because the monies were not satisfied at the day nor at any time after the Plaintiff replies that they were paid in the sixth year of James and desires this that it may be inquired onely by the Countrey and the Defendant likewise and upon the Triall it was found for the Plaintiff and it was new moved in arrest of Judgement by Goldsmith that there was no Issue joyned for an Issue ought to be joyned upon a thing alledged by the party DOyly against White and Webb Trin. 11 Jacobi Doyly brought an Action of Assault Battery and imprisonment of his wife against White and Webb The Defendant pleads a speciall Justification to wit that in November 2 Jacobi an Action of Trespass was brought in the Common pleas by one A. against Julian Goddard and upon the generall Issue it was found for J. G. and Judgement given for her and afterwards and before Execution J. G. takes to Husband the now plaintiff and afterwards brings a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and upon a Scire Facias against the said Julian the Judgement in the Common pleas was reversed and costs given to A. the plaintif in the Writ of Error and aftewards a Capias ad satisfaciend was directed to the now Defendants to take the said I. G. by Force of which the said Defendants took the woman of the now plaintif with an averment that the said I. G. and the Wife of the now Plaintif were one and the same person and the plaintif demurres upon this plea and Yelverton moved that this justification was not good for divers causes first when the Sherif is to execute a process he is to do it duly and upon the right person at his perill and for that see 11 H. 4. 90. b. If the Sherif take the goods of another in Execution he is a trespassor 5 E. 4. 50. a. If a Capias be to take I. S. and there be two of the same name he ought to look to take the right man at his perill and as he ought to take notice so he must pursue his authority and for this see 10. E. 4. 12. b. if a Capias issue out against I. S. the Son of A. and he take I. S. the Son of B. false imprisonment lies against him and in a Case when his Warrant is against I. G. there is no such J. G. for by her marriage with the Plaintiff she had another name and he is therefore a Trespassor for the taking of J. Doyly and his averment cannot help him because it agrees not with his Warrant and so cannot be intended to be the same person but if the variance was
John W. was seised of three hundred Acres of Land in R. aforesayd of which the place in question called G. is parcell and that 30 H. 6. the sayd John Whithing reciting that whereas N. de la moore 31 E. 1. the Plaintiffs Ancestor Son and heire of H. de la Moore grants to William de la Moore Corsum aque which runs from W. thorow the middle of the Land of the sayd M. And shews further that by meane discents it discends to the Defendant c and so justifies The Plaintiff replies if W. S. was seised of the place where c. and made a Lease thereof to him for yeares and traverses that the three hundred Acres of Land were parcell and Issue joyned upon that and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Defendant had not made any answer to the Plaintiff and so no Issue joyned for the Plaintiff layes the Trespass in G. in L. the Defendant sayes he was seised of three hundred Acres of which the place c. was parcell but he conveys no title to himselfe but by a course of water thorow the middle of the Land of M. but whose Land that was it doth not appeare and is another thing and therefore an Issue upon that which the Defendant doth not claime is voyd and although Issue be joyned yet it is not helped by the Statute of Jeofailes of 18 Eliz. or 32 H. 8. for it is as no Issue when it is of a thing not in question but if the Issue had been of a matter in question although ill joyned yet it is ayded as Nichols Case is 5 Rep. 43. upon payment pleaded without Deed And Doddridge and Crooke Justices agreed to that but Haughton seemed to incline that it was an Issue and so helped by the Statute FVller against Pettesworth Knight Mich. 11. Iacobi Fuller brought an Action of Trespass against Pettesworth and his Servant for breaking his Close and taking one Cow in D. in the County of B. One of the Defendants plead not guilty the Servant pleads that the Plaintiff holds of Sir Peter P. as of c. in the County aforesayd and for services behinde by the command of his Master he seised the Cow c. The Plaintiff traverses c. and one Venire facias was awarded out of both the Villiages and being found for the Plaintiff it was new moved in Arrest of Judgement by Finch of Grays Inne that two Venire facias ought to have been awarded because the Issue is of things in severall places for if there be severall Issues in one place one Jury shall be onely Impannelled but if in severall places for severall things locall severall Juries shall be but the whole Court held that one Jury onely should be impannelled and one Venu onely should be awarded out of both the places and it is all one as if it had been in one place but it had been otherwise if in severall Counties as 41 Eliz. DAme Petts Case Mich. 11. Iacobi In an Action of Trespass brought by the Lady Petts upon not guilty pleaded the Jury being at Bar the matters following came in question upon the evidence by Haughton and the other Justices If A. be seised of a great Close where c. and a Stranger enter and occupy part of the Close yet notwithstanding A. continues the posaession of the residue whether this shall preserve his possession in the residue and he shall be judged to be in possession of that because it is an intire thing 5 E. 4. 2. and 8 E. 3. 13. Seisin of part of the services is the seisin of the whole and so is Bettisworths Case 2. Rep. The possession of the House is the possession of the Land for the Lessee against his Lessor of that which passes by one demise But if a stranger enter and sever part by metes and bounds nothing is wrought by the possession of the residue Another question was this A Lessee for yeares of ten Acres paying twenty shillings Rent the Lessee is outed of parcell yet he payed all the Rent to him in Reversion the Lessor having notice of the enter whether this protects the Reversion so that nothing is gained by the entry but the interest of the Lessee and shall be no disseisin And Yelverton at the Barr was of opinion that it should be no Disseisin Rithen Sect. 590. saith That so long as the particular Tenant continues his possession so long is the reversion in the Lessor for in such case as to the Lessor the Lessee shall be alwayes deemed in possession by force of the Lease and the reason why the Lessee shall be adjudged in posaession of all as to the Lessor is because the Lessor cannot have notice of the alteration of the posaession for when the Lessee by his owne Act or sufferance doth a thing in alteration of the posaession of which by common intendment the Lessor cannot have or take notice there the Law will not prejudice the Lessor And see for that Farmers Case in the third Rep. 79. If Tenant for life levy a Fine having Land in the same Villiage this shall not bind the Lessor if five yeares pass before he take notice of what Land the Fine is levied And the same Law if Tenant for life make a Feofment to one who hath land within the same Village levies a Fine and in this cafe if the Lessee hath continually payd all his Rent the Lessor cannot intend or suspect but that the Lessee is absolute Tenant of the whole and in Farmers Case it is sayd That if the Lessor levy a Fine the Disseisee is barred without claime for it is impossible but he to whom the wrong is done shall presently know it But if he that hath the particular estate by Grant or trust reposed in him shall secretly practice although he pay the Rent and continue posaession yet it is otherwise But the Reporters opinion was that if in the principall case no Rent had been reserved then the Reversion had been devested by the entry for there had been no act done to mislead or hinder the knowledge thereof and also although rent be reserved and all payd yet if he had express notice thereof the reversion had been devested And secondly if it should be a Disseisin a great mischeif would follow for if a discent should be it would take away the Lessors entry and yet no fault in them because in common presumption the Lessee alwayes continued Tenant but Cook of a contrary opinion for he said it could not be denyed but that the Lessee is out of the posaession and then it follows of necessity that the Lessor must be out of his reversion And as to notice to make his claime he must take notice at his perill 4 M. Dyer 143. b. But note that this is when the Law intends that he may take notice which it will not intend in this Case Haughton was of opinion that it was a
Disseisin and Doddridge sayd It would be mischeivous if it should Hill 6. Iac. In the Common Pleas that if in the Common Barre in Trespass the place in the Common Barre is alledged to be Blackacre the Plaintiff may plead that it is his Free-hold and then it was held by the whole Court that an abuttall of one side is sufficient without alledging it of every side SWaine against Becket An Action of Trespass brought for cutting down of Trees And upon a speciall verdict the question was that whereas there is a Mannor wherein are Copi-holders for life which have used to lopp Trees growing upon the Copy-holds for their necessary fire and repairing of their customary Tenements the Lord of the Mannor maketh a Lease of the Mannor for yeares excepting the Trees the Lessee of the Mannor granteth a copy for life the Copy-holder loppeth the Trees growing on his Copy-hold whether by law he might do it or no was the doubt of the Jury And it was held by all the Court that the Copy-holder might lopp the Trees because he is in by the custome which is above the Lords Estate after he is admitted and that the copy-hold doth not depend upon the Lords interest And that the Trees excepted and the Soil remained parcell of the Mannor because the Lease was but for years but if the Lease had been for life it had been otherwise because it had been severed from the Mannor And whereas it was objected that the Tenant should not be in a better condition then his Author it was answered that a Lord of a Mannor at will may grant a copy for life or in fee and it is good If the Lord cut down all the Trees so that the Copy-holder can have no lopping he may have his Action upon the Case against the Lord as it was adjudged in Gosnolds case If the Lord sell away his waste and the Copy-holder dye and the Lord grant a new copy he shall have his Common If the Lord sell away the Trees so that the Copy-holder cannot have Estovers because the Bargainee felleth down the Trees the Copy-holder shall have his Action against the Bargainee Common and lopping are incident to the copy-hold Judgment for the Defendant HArris against Ap-John An Action of Trespasse brought the Defendant pleads not guilty and verdict found for the Plaintif And in Arrest of Judgment it was alledged that the venire facias was de placito debiti and so also was the habeas corpus and it should have been de placito transgressionis And it was amended by the whole Court MYnwinnock against Bligh Trin. 16. Jacob. rotulo 1697. An action of Trespasse brought for breaking the Plaintiffs Close done Septemb. in the 13. year of King James The Defendant pleads as to part of the Trespasse in award and that the Defendant submits himself to the award the 15. yeare and that the Arbitrators in the 13. yeare which was before the submission made the Award and traverses that he was guilty of the Trespasse after the award made And the Plaintiff replies that the Arbitrators the said day in the 13. year made not any award c. And after Tryall exception was taken that the issue was ill joyned being of a thing that was void yet notwithstanding Judgment was given for the Plaintiff and they resembled to a payment upon a single Bond and conditions performed at a Feast not contained in an Obligation Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 3044. An Action of Trespass brought wherfore by force and armes his Goods and Chattels to wit a thousand posts and forty railes took and caryed away and damages given intire and after a verdict exception taken because Rales was pretended to be no Latine word nor to have any exception but Judgment was given for the Plaintiff DVncomb against Randoll Hil. 9. Jac. rotulo 2267. Three issues in Trespasse One issue was upon a prescription to wit that they had accustomed to have for himselfe his Farme and Tenants of the same Mannor common of pasture in the said c. for all his Sheep which are levant and couchant in and upon the Demesne Lands of W. which lye and are in A. aforesaid every yeare And exception was taken for the uncertainty because it did not appear that those were demesne Lands which lye in A. for it was ill pleaded and ought to be averred but notwithstanding it was held good after a tryal and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff and in this case an exception was taken to the venire facias because it was of A. and of the Mannor of C. and because it was made in this manner to wit de visu de A. and de visu manerij de C. but it was disallowed because against the form used in the Common Pleas. DOwnes against Skrymsher Trin. 9. Iac. rotulo 334. An Action of Assault and Battery brought and there was a Demurrer upon the Evidence And the case was that the Defendant the day specified in the Declaration said that the Plaintiff assaulted the Defenant and in defence of himselfe justifies the beating the Plaintiff replies that he did it of his own wrong without any such cause and in the Evidence the Defendant maintained that the Plaintiff beate him the day mentioned in the Declaration and in the same place And the Plaintiff perceiving that gave in evidence that the Battery was made another day and place to wit c. which was the cause of the speciall verdict for if there be two Batteries made between the Plaintiff and Defendant at divers times the Plaintiff is bound to prove the Battery made the same day in his Declaration and shall not be admitted to give another day in evidence by the opinion of the whole Court HEydon against Mich. 8. Jac. rotulo 839. An Action of Battery brought against three two of them pleaded not guilty and Judgment by non sum informat against the third and the two were found guilty for all And the Jury gave damages severally against one a 100 l. and against the other a 100 s. and what Judgement should be given was the question and at first the Court was of opinion that the Plaintiff should not have Judgment at all for where the Defendants are found guilty of all the Trespass in this case the damages shall be intire but if one shall be found guilty of part or at another time in this case the damages shall be severall otherwise not And they thought a Venire de novo ought to issue out because the Jury had mis-behaved themselves in severing the damages but afterwards it was resolved that the damages that were given by the first Jury to wit one 100 l. should be recovered against all the Defendants in that Writ named and that in Trespass the first Jury taxes the damages for the whole Trespass and that shall bind all the Defendants and therefore execution was given against all the Defendants for the hundred pounds Trin. 9. Jam. rotulo 1835.
condition to re-enfeoff and she with her Husband makes the re-enfeoffment it is good so a Woman being Lessee for Life and with her Husband attorn upon a Grant of Reversion is good and shall binde the Wife after the Death of the Husband 3 Ed. 3. 42. 4 Ed. 3. Attornment 12. 15 Ed. 3. Attornment also this Estate was made to the Wife when she was sole and for that it shall be accounted her folly that she would take such a Husband that would forfeit her Estate but with that agreed the reason of the Booke of 20 H. 6. 28. Where a woman Tenant was bound by the ceasing of her Husband and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and so it was adjourned see another argument of this case in Michaelmas Tearm 9. Jacobi 1611. by Haughton and Nicholls Serjeants Pasch 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. Pitts against Dowse IN an Ejectione firme upon not guilty pleaded The Case was this A man makes his Will by these words I bequeath all my Lands to my Son Richard except my Chauntery Lands And I devise all my Chauntery Lands to be devided amongst all my Children men and women alike except my Son Richard And if Richard die without Issue the remainder to A. My second Son the remainder to B. My third Son the remainder to C. My fourth Son the remainder to my next of blood and so from Heire to Heire And so likewise I would to be done upon my Chauntery Lands and Tenements in case all my aforesaid Children die without Issue Then I would the one halfe of my Chauntery Lands to remaine to the next of kin and the other half to the Hospitall of M. And the question was what estate the Heire of the eldest Son shall have in the Chauntery Lands and it was argued by Dodridge the Kings Serjeant that the Heire of the eldest Son shall have estate tayl in the Chauntery Lands the Devisor devises no estate to Richard his eldest Son in the Chauntery Lands nor limitts any estate of that in certaine and for that he seemed that the youngest Sons and Daughters shall be Tenants in Common for life and by this manner of Interpretation every part of the Will shall be for first he excludes Richard himselfe so that he shall have nothing in that and then by the Limitation to the younger Children to be equally divided between them makes them Tenants in Common see 28. H. 8. 25. Dyer 155. And he cited Lewin and Coxes Case to be adjudged Michaelmasse 41. and 42. of Eliz. Pasche 42. Eliz. Rot. 207. Where a man devises Lands to his two Sons to be equally divided and adjudged that they are Tenants in Common so devise to two part and part like and equally divided and equally to be divided is all one and for that there is no other words to make an estate of Inheritance it shall be an estate for life and the remainder shall be directed according to the estates limited of the other Land And he seemed that the words in the last sentence all my aforesaid Children shall extend to Richard his eldest Son as well as to the others and so all the Will shall stand in his force which may be Objected that Richard the eldest Son shall be excluded out of the Possession and for that see 6. Eliz. Dyer 333. 29. Chapmans Case and also he cited one case to be adjudged Trinity 37. Eliz. Rot. 632. betweene Bedford and Vernam where a man deviseth all his lands in Alworth and afterwards purchaseth other Lands in the same Town and afterwards one comes to him to take a Lease of this Land newly purchased which the Testator refused to Let. And said that these Lands newly purchased should goe as his other Lands And upon his Death bed adds a Codycell to his Will but saith nothing of his purchased Lands and adjudged that the purchased Lands shall passe and so concluded and praied Judgement Harris Serjeant that it is a new Sentence and Richard is excluded and it shall be a good Estate tayl to the youngest Children and foresayd Children shall be intended them to which the Chauntery Lands are limited see Ratcliffes case 3. of Coke adjudged that they shall be Tenants in Common by the devise to he equally divided and thall not be surviving but every youngest Children shall have his part in tayl though that the first words do not containe words of Inheritance yet the last words in case all my Children die without Issue declares his intent that they should have an estate tayl see the 16. of Eliz. Dyer 339. 20. Claches Case that when he hath disposed of part devised to Richard then disposeth of the residue and the sentence begins with And so likewise and that shall be intended in the same manner as he had disposed of the Lands devised to Richard for he hath devised the remainder otherwise that is to an Hospitall and so concludes and praies Judgement accordingly Coke cheife Justice saith that it was adjudged between Coke and Petwiches 29. Eliz. that if a man devise a house to his eldest Son in tayl and another house to his second Son in tayl and the third house to the third Son in tayl and if any of them die without Issue the remainder to the other two equally this shall be but for life for this enures to the quantity of the Land and not to the quality of the Estate And he said that Richard is excepted without question for it is but a Will and every of the youngest Sons therein shall have the Chauntery Land one after another and Richard shall have no part and the Chauntery shall have nothing till they all are dead and he likened that to Frenchams Case where Lands were given to one and to his Heires Males and if he died without Issue the remainder over the Issues Females shall not take though that it be if they die without Issue for expresse it makes to cease only and so it was adjourned Petoes Case PEto suffers a common Recovery to the use of himselfe for life the remainder to his eldest Son in tayl with diverse remainders over to the intent that such Annuities should be paid as he by his last Will or by grant declares so that they did not exceed the summ of sixty pound and if any of the said Rents be behind then to the use of him to whom the Rent shall be behind till the Rent be satisfied with clause of distresse Rent of twenty pound was granted to his youngest Son for his life the grantee distraines for the Rent and in Replevin avowes the Plaintiffe replâ—es that by the non-paiment the use riseth to the youngest Son by which it was objected that the Rent shall be suspended Quere if without demand or if the distresse shall be demanded or that the use shall not rise till after the distresse and to the distresse well taken and agreed by all that the Plaintiff shall take nothing by
Mannor held in cheife and of other Mannors and Lands held of a Common person in socage and had Issue foure Sonns Thomas William Humphrey Richard And by his Deed 12 Eliz. covenants to convey these Mannors and Lands to the use of himself for his life without impeachment of wast and after his desease to the use of such Farmors and Tenants and for such Estates as shall be contained in such Grants as he shall make them and after that to the use of his last will and after that to the use of VVilliam his second sonn in tayle the Remainder to Humphrey his third Son in tayle the Remainder to Richard the fourth Sonn in tayle the Remainder to his own right Heires with power of Revocation and after makes a Feoflment according to the covenant and after that purchases eight other acres held of another common person in socage and after makes revocation of the said Estates of some of the Mannors and Lands which were not held by Knights service and after that makes his Will and devises the Land that he had purchased as before and all the other Land whereof he had made the Revocation to Thomas his eldest son the Heirs Males of his body for 500. years provided that if he alien and dye without Issue that then it shall remaine to William his second sonne in tayle with the like proviso as before and after dyed and the Jury found that the Lands whereof no revocation is made exceeds two parts of all his Lands Thomas the eldest sonne enters the 8. Acres purchased as before and dyes without Issue male having Issue a Daughter of whom this Defendant claimes these eight Acres and the Plaintiff claims them by William the second Son And Dodridge the Kings Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff intending that the sole question is for the 8. acres purchased and if the devise of that be good or not by the Statute of 34. H. 8. And to that the point is only a man which hath Lands held in cheife by Knights service and other Lands held of a common person in Socage conveys by act executed in his life time more then two parts and after purchases other Lands and devises those if the devise be good or not And it seems to him that the devise is good and he saith that it hath been adjudged in the selfe same case and between the same parties And this Judgment hath been affirmed by writ of Error and the devise to Thomas and the Heirs males of his body for 500. years was a good estate tayle and for that he would not dispute it against these two Judgments But to the other question hee intended that the devise was good and that the Devisor was not well able to doe it by the Statute of 34. H. 8. And hee intended that the statute authoriseth two things 1. To execute estates in the life time of the party for advancement of his Wife or Children or payment of his debts and for that see 14. Eliz. Dyer and that may be done also by the common Law before the making of this statute But this statute restrains to two parts and for the third part makes the Conveyance voyd as touching the Lord But the statute enables to dispose by Will a parts where he cannot dispose any part by the Common Law if it be not by special Custome but the use only was deviseable by the common Law this was altered into possession by the statute of 27 H. 8. and then cometh the statute of 32. and 34. H. 8. and enables to devise the Land which he had at the time of the devise or which he purchased afterwards for a third part of this Land should remain which hee had at the time of the devise made and if a third part of the Land did not remain at the time of the devise made sufficient should be taken out of that but if the Devisor purchase other Lands after hee may those wholly dispose And for that it was adjudged Trin. 26. Eliz. between Ive and Stacye That a man cannot convey two parts of his Lands by act executed in his life time and devise the third part or any part so held by Knights service and also he relyed upon the words of the statute that is having Lands held by Knights service that this shall be intended at the time of the devise as it was resolved in Butler Bakers Case That is that the statute implies two things that is property and time of property which ought to be at the time of the devise But here at the time of the devise the Devisor was not having of Lands held by Knights service for of those he was only Tenant for life and the having intended by the statute ought to be reall enjoying and perfect having by taking and not by retaining though that in Carrs Case cited in Butler and Bakers Case rent extinct be sufficient to make Wardship yet this is no sufficient having to make a devise void for any part Also if the Statute extend to all Lands to be after purchased the party shall never be in quiet and for that the Statute doth not intend Lands which shall be purchased afterwards for the Statute is having which is in the Present tence and not which he shall have which is in the Future tence and 4. and 5 P. and M. 158. Dyer 35. A man seised of Socage Lands assures that to his Wife in joynture and 8. years after purchases Lands held in cheife by Knights service and devises two parts of that and agreed that the Queen shall not have any part of the land conveyed for Joynture for this was conveyed before the purchase of the other which agrees with the principall case and though to the Question what had the Devisor It was having of Lands held in Capite insomuch that he had Fee-simple expectant upon all the estates tayl he intended that this is no having within the Statute but that the Statute intend such having of which profit ariseth and out of which the K. or other Lord may be answered by the receipt of the profits which cannot be by him which hath fee-simple expectant upon an estate tayle of which no Rent is reserved and also the estate tayle by intendment shall have continuance till the end of the world and 40. Edw 3. 37. b. in rationabili parte bonorum it was pleaded that the Plaintiff had reversion discended from his Father and so hath received advancement And it seems that was no plea in so much that the reversion depends upon an estate tayle and upon which no Rent was reserved and so no advancement So of a conveyance within this Statute ought such advancement to the youngest sonne which continues as it is agreed in Binghams Case 2 Coke that if a man convey lands to his youngest sonne and he convey that over to a stranger in the life time of his father for good consideration and after the Father dies this
to whom the private damage is done may have action And he said that the Register contains many Writs for publique wrong when that is done to private men as fol. 95. A man fixes a pale crosse a navigable River by which a Ship was cast away and the Owner maintained action of Trespasse And fol. 97. A man brought Trespasse against one which cast dung into a River by which his Medow was drowned so if the River be infected with watering Hemp or Flax he which hath fishing there may maintain action of Trespasse and 2 H. 4. 11. Action of Trespasse by one for ploughing of Land where one had a common way and so it is 13. H. 7. 17. One brings an action of Trespasse against another for erecting a Lyme Kill where many others are annoyed by that So by an assault made upon a servant the Master and servant also may have severall actions and so in the other cases many may have actions and yet this is no reason to conclude any one of them that hee shall not have his action for in truth those are rather actions upon the Case then actions of Trespass for the truth of the Case is contained in the Writ Also in this case it doth not appeare that there are any other Commoners which have Common there and for that this Objection is not to the purpose and it appears by Heisman and Crackesoods Case 4 Coke 31. That Copy-holder shall have Common by prescription in the demesnes of the Lord and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Coke cheife Justice said that it was adjudged in this Court Trinity 41 Eliz. Rot. 153. b. between Holland and Lovell where Commoner brings an action upon the Case as this Case is against a stranger which pleads not guilty and it was found by verdict for the Plaintiff and it was after adjudged for the Plaintiff for insomuch that the Plaintiff may take them damage feasant that proves that he hath wrong and this is the reason that he may distraine doing dammage And by the same reason if the Beasts are gone before his comming he may have action upon his Case for otherwise one that hath many Beasts may destroy all the Common in a night and doe great wrong and shaâ—l not be punished and it is not like to a Nusance for that is publique and may be punished in a Leet but the other is private to the Commoners and cannot be punished in another place nor course and he also cyted one Whitehands case to be adjudged where many Copy-holders prescribe to have Loppings and Toppings of Pollards and Husbands growing upon the Waste of the Lord and the Lord cuts them and one Copy-holder only brings his action upon the Case and adjudged that it was very well maintainable notwithstanding that every other Copy-holder may have the same remedy And he said also that so it was adjudged in the Kings Bench Hillary 5 Jacobi Rot. 1427. in George Englands Case And 2 Edw. 2. b. Covenant 49. If a man Covenant with 20. to make the Sea banks with A. B. and every one of them and after he doth not doe it by which the Land of two is drowned and damnified and they two may have an action of Covenant without the others Quere for it seems every one shall have an action by himselfe But Foster and Wynch Justices seemed that the Plaintiffe ought to sue in his Court that the Beasts of the stranger escaped in the Common or were put in by the Owner for it may be they were put in by the Lord which was owner of the Soile or by a stranger in which cases the Owner of the Beasts shall not be punished But Coke and Warburton seemed the contrary and that this ought to be averred and pleaded by the Defendant in excuse of the Trespasse as in action of Trespasse why he broke his Close And so it was adjourned see Gosnolds case 490. see Judgment Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Henry Higgins against George Biddle IN Replevin the Defendant made Conusance as Bayliff to Sir Thomas Leigh and Daine Katherine his Wife intimating that Isabel Bradburn was seised of the place where c. in their demesne as of Fee and so seised the first of June 15 H. 8. gives this to the Lord Anthony Fitzherbert and Maud his Wife and to the Heirs males of their bodies which have Issue Thomas Fitzherbert Knight John Fitzherbert and William Fitzherbert Anthony and Maud dyed and the said place where c. discended to Sir Thomas Fitzherbert as Heire to the Donees to the Intayl and the said Thomas Fitzherbert the 5. of Aprill 6 Edw. 6. of that enfeoffed Humphrey Swinnerton Ralph Cotton and Roger Baily to the use of William Fitzherbert and Elizabeth his Wife for their lives and after to the use of Sir Thomas Fitzherbert and the Heirs of his body the remainder to the use of the right Heirs of the said William Fitzherbert William Fitzherbert dyed Sir Thomas Fitzherbert disseised the said Elizabeth and the said John Fitzherbert had Issue Thomas and dyed Sir Thomas Fitzherbert dyed without Heir of his body and the said place where c. discended to the said Thomas as Cousin Heir of the said Sir Thomas and Son and Heir of the said John Fitzherbert which enters and was seised to him and to the Heirs Males of his body as in his Remitter And the said Thomas Fitzherbert 4 of Novemb. 39. Eliz. by Indenture of Bargain and Sale enrolled in the Chancery within six moneths bargained and sold the said Land to Sir William Leighton his heirs and Sir William Leighton 5 of Novemb. 43. Eliz. by Indenture enrolled within six moneths for 4000. l. bargained and sold the said land where c. to Sir Thomas Leigh and Dame Katherine as aforesaid and so avowed the taking for doing damage And the Plaintiff for Barr to the said Avowry pleads that well and true it is that the said Sir William Leighton was seised of the said place where c. in his Demesne as of Fee as it was alledged by the Defendant But further hee saith that the said Sir William Leighton so being thereof seised 1 Decemb 44 Eliz. enfeoffed the Plaintiff in fee and by force of that the Plaintiff was seised and put in his Beasts into the said place where c. without that that the said Sir William Leighton bargained and sold the said Land in which c. to the said Sir Thomas Leighton and Katherine his Wife as in the Conusance hath been alledged by the Defendant upon which the Defendants joyn Issue and it was agreed by all the Justices that notwithstanding this admission of the Parties is an Estoppell by the pleading yet as well the Plaintiffe as the Defendant were admitted to give another evidence to the Jury against their own pleading that is that Sir William Leighton was not seised and so nothing passed by the bargain and sale and also
Port-reeve Jurates and Inhabitants of Gravesend brought Debt against one Edmonds a Water man which plyed the Ferry betwixt Gravesend and London and counts that Gravesend and Milton are ancient Townes and next adjoyning to the River of Thames and that the Inhabitants of these Townes have had time out of minde c. ancient passage from thence to London and have used to make By-Lawes and constitutions for the Government of that passage and have provided Water-men Steer-men and Rowers for the said Passage the which used time out of minde to take of every Passenger and his Fardell two pence and that for their maintenance and ought to hold the Passage if their benefit at this rate amounted to foure shillings or more and that the Queen Elizabeth by her Letters Patents under the great Seale of England incorporated the said Inhabitants by the name of Port-reevs Jurats and Inhabitants of Milton and Gravesend and this was in the tenth yeare of her Raigne and also that they injoyed the said Ferry without any Interruption and that they held the tide and Ferry and that the Port-Reeve Jurat and twelve of the Inhabitants had power to make By-Laws and Coustitutions for the government of the sayd Ferry and that every Water-man should observe his turn and also to impose Fines for the not observing of them and that in the thirty seventh yeare of the said Queene Elizabeth a Constitution was made by the then Port-reeve Jurats and twelve of the Inhabitants of the said Towns insomuch that many Water-men ply poore Passengers before that the Barge was furnished and so that many other Passengers were inforced to loose their passage by the Barge insomuch that the passage did not amount to four shillings so that they did not hold their tyde so that the Barge which had such preheminence that is that no Water-men shall ply any Faire or passenger till the Barge had received so many of their passengers by which they might receive four shillings at the Rate aforesaid and be removed from the Bridg at Gravesend unto the Land marke and that if the Tiltboate or any other Water-man received any passenger before that the Barge be so furnished that he should pay the sayd Port-reeve Jurats and Inhabitants for the maintainance of the said Barge for every passenger so received two pence and so assigned breach of the By-Law in the Defendants and that he had received so many of the passengers before the Barge was furnished which amounted to as much as is demanded by which Action accrued to the Plaintiff to demand it to which the Defendant pleads that he oweth nothing to the Plaintiffs in manner and forme as they have demanded it and by the Jury at the Barr it was found for the Plaintiffs and after that upon motion in the behalfe of the Defendant the Judgment was arrested and now at this day Judgement was prayed for the Plaintiffs By Dodridge Serjeant of the King and he conceived that the custome was good notwithstanding that it was alledged in the Inhabitants and he sayd it was no prescription but Custome and it is declared to be a good and laudable custome and usage by the Statute of 6 H. 8. Chapter 7. Rastall Passage 8. and he agreed that Inhabitants cannot prescribe to have matter of benefit but to have matter of Ease he conceived they might very well as it is 15 Ed. 4. 29. 22 H. 6. Prescription 46. 18 Ed. 4. 2. 18 H. 8. 1. Secondly As to the Objection that the living of the other Watermen which are not imployed in the Barge is by that abridged and that when the Water-man is willing to carry and the Passenger to be carried by him it is no reason that a By-Law should abridge this voluntary act of a man upon which his lively-hood depends he sayd that so it is not for nothing is challenged by the By-Law but only preheminence and that provision be made for the Poore which is for the publick good for every one may go with any that he will paying two pence to the Barge or after the Barge is furnished paying nothing and he conceived that the Liberty of the subject ought to be so abridged but not alltogether abolished as it is agreed in the Arch-Bishop of Yorkes Case in the Register in the Writ of Trespasse fol. 105. b. c. 8 Coke 125. a. Wagoners Case 8 Ed. 3. 37. a. 3 Ed. 3. 3. Where the Bishop of York claimes in the Mannor of Ripon such liberty that is that he and all his Predecessors time out of mind c. have had a custome that none in the said Town ought or had accustomed to use the office or mistry of a Dyer without Licence of the said Arch-Bishop or his Bayliff of the said Town And also he cited a case in the Register where the Abbot of Westminster prescribed to have a faire in Westminster upon Saint Edwards day and for ten daies after And that no Citizen nor other in London during that time should sell any thing in London but in this faire and after the Abbot remitted this priviledg and had of the Citizens of London for that one thousand five hundred pound And so it was adjudged in Sir George Farmers Case for a bake-house in Tossiter and that none shall bake any Bread to sell but in his bake-house and good And so he conceived that Custome may be restrained all passengers till the Bardge be furnished as in 2. Ed. 3. 7. Granâ— that all Ships laded and unladed in such a Haven shall be laded and unladed in such a place and a good grant notwithstanding that it restraines all people to a certaine and if this be good by grant then a Fortiore shall be good by custome and to the other objection that this custome shall only bind the Inhabitance and not strangers he conceived that custome might tye strangers that came into the said Town very well as it is agreed in 22. H. 7. 40. So the By-Law shall bind strangers when it is only for Acts to be made within the Town and for the publike good as it is agreed in the 44. Ed. 3. 13. and 8. Ed. 2. assis 413. ordinance against him which estops passage by water and good and so he agreed in the Chamberlaine of Londons Case that By-Law made in London shall bind all as well strangers as Citizens which sell any Drapery in the Hall there though that they Inhabit in any place out of the City And also he said that the Bardge-men which have the losse shall have the benefit for they shall have the two pence for every one that passes otherwise before that they are furnished and this is recompence for them which are tyed to perpetuall attendance and he conceiveth that the demand is very well made notwithstanding that the duty accrues from many times for he hath carried so many men at one time and so many at another the which in all amonnts to the sum demanded And so he
appears by 9 Edw. 4. 33. 37 H. 6. 32 H. 6. 1. Ed. 4. 2. 50. Ed. 3. And he conceived that the burying is not any Administration nor the taking of the goods into his custody to preserve them no more then in Trover and Conversion when a man takes the goods for to preserve them And he agreed that where a man intitles himselfe to goods by Administration committed by any but by the Bishop he ought to pleade specially that he which committed it had power to doe it But here it is not so but only conveiance and for that need not here such precise pleading of that insomuch it is only execution of Administration and for that it is good without intitleing the Arch-Deacon And he agreed that an Executor of his owne wrong may pay Debts due to another and shall be discharged And he agreed also that the Confession of one Executor shall bind his Companion and that Judgement shall be given upon that for the Plaintiff And they all agreed that the pleading that the Defendant hath no goods besides the goods which do not amount c. it was not good and for these causes they all agreed that Judgement ought to be given to the Plaintiff Trinity 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Tyrer against Littleton 9. Jacobi Rot. 299. IN Trespasse for taking of a Cow c. Upon not guilty pleaded by the Defendant the Jury gives speciall Verdict as it followes that is that the Husband of the Plaintiff was seised of eighty Acres of Land held of the Defendant by Harriot service that is the best Beasts of every Tenant which died seised that he had at the time of his death and that the Husband of the said Defendant long time before his death made a Feoffment of that Land in consideration of marriage and advancement of his Son to the use of his Son and his Heires with such agreement that the Son should redemise to his Father for forty yeares if he so long lived and that after the marriage was had and the Son redemised the Land to his Father and the Father injoyed that accordingly and paied the Rent to the Lord and after died and that the Plaintiff had no notice of his Feoffment and that the Husband at the time of his death was possessed of the said Cow and that the Defendant took it as the best Beast in name of Harriot and also found the Statute of 13. Eliz. of fraudulent conveiances to deceive Creditors and so praied the direction of the Court and this was agreed by the Plaintiff aforesaid Nicholls Serjeant first that all conveiances made upon good consideration and Bona Fide are by speciall Proviso exempted out of the Statute of 13. Eliz. chap. And he conceived that this is made upon good consideration and Bona Fide and for that it is within the said Proviso and also he said that as upon the Statute of Marlebridge there is fraud apparent and fraud averrable as it appeares 12. H. 4. 16. b. Where in ward the Tenant pleads that his Father levied a Fine to a stranger the Lord replies that this was by Collusion to re-enfeoff the Heire of the Tenant at his full age and so averred that to be by Collusion to out the Lord of his Ward and this is fraud averrable But if the Tenant had enfeoffed his Tenant immediately in Fee-simple this is apparent without any averment and the Court may adjudge upon it And so upon the Statute of 27. Eliz. chap. 4. it appears by Burrells Case that the Fraud ought to be proved in Evidence or confessed in pleading or otherwise this shall not avoid conveiance for it shall not be intended 6 Coke 78. a. and see 33. H. 6. 14. b. Andrew Woodcocks case upon which he inferred that this is but a fraud averrable if it be a fraud at all and of this the Court could not take notice if it be not found by the Jury and he said upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. Of Devisees as it appeares by Knights Case 8 Coke and 12. Eliz. Dyer 295. 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. And so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Harris Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the Circumstances which are found in the speciall Verdict are sufficient to satisfie the Court that it is fraud for as well as the Court may give direction to the Jury upon Evidence that it is fraud and what not as well may the Court Judge upon the special matter being found by special Verdict at large as in 9 El. Dyer 267. and 268. that is the special matter being found by special verdict at large as in 9 El. Dyer 267. 268. that is the speciall matter is found by Inquisition upon Mandamus and leave to the Court to adjudge if it be fraud or not and in 12 El. 294. and 295. 8. the speciall matter was found by Jury upon Eligit directed to the Sheriffe and by him returned to the Court And in Trinity 27. Eliz. between Saper and Jakes in Trover the Defendant pleades not guilty and gives in Evidence as assignement of a Tearme to him with power of revocation And the Court directed the Jury that this was fraudulent within the Statute of 27. Eliz. to defraud a purchasor and in Burrells Case 6. Coke 73. a. before the fraud to the Court upon Evidence to the Jury and the Court gave direction to the Jury that it was fraud and that upon the Circumstances which appeares upon the speciall Evidence And so in this case he conceived that insomuch the circumstances appear by the Verdict that the Jury may very well adjudge upon it and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant Coke cheife Justice that the Statute of 13. Eliz. Doth not aid the Defendant insomuch that the Feoffment was made for good consideration and for that shall be within the said Proviso for if that shall be avoided at all that shall be avoided by the Statute of Marlebridge which is ouly affirmance of the Common Law and this is the reason that not withstanding the Statute speakes only of Feoffment by the Father to his Son and Heire apparent yet a Feoffment to a Cosin which is Heire apparent is taken to be within the Statute and in the 24. of Eliz. in Sir Hamond Stranges Case It was adjudged that if the Son and Heire apparent in the life time of his Father purchase a Mannor of his Father for good consideration this is out of the Statute and so it was adjudged in Porredges Case also he said that the Law is an Enemie to fraud and will not intend it being a conveiance made for consideration of a marriage to be fraudulent no more then if the Father had made a Feoffment to the use of a stranger for life the remainder in Fee to his Son and Heire the which is not within the Statute of Marlebridge as it is agreed in Andrew Woodcocks Case 33.
charge to the King and to the Common Wealth and the execution of Writs may be prejudicall and penall to the Sheriff himselfe And for that he may well provide that he shall have notice of every execution which are most Penall And also in all the Indenture now made he doth not constitute him to be his under Sheriff but only for to execute the Office and for these reasons he seemed the Obligation is good and demands Judgement for the Plaintiff But it seemes to all the Court that the Covenant is void and so by consequence the Obligation as to the performance of that void but good to the performance of all other Covenants And Coke cheif Justice said that the Sheriff at the Common Law was elligible as the Coronor is and then by the death of the King his Office was not determined and also it is an intire Office and though the King may countermand his Grant of that intirely yet he cannot that countermand by parcells and also that the under Sheriff hath Office which is intire and cannot be granted by parcells and this Covenant will be a meanes to nourish bribery and extortion for the Sheriff himselfe shall have all the benefit and the under Sheriff all the payn for he is visible the under Sheriff and all the Subjects of the King will repaire to him and the private contracts between the Sheriff and him are invisible of which none can have knowledge but themselves And Warburton sayd that in debt upon escape c. are against the Sheriff of Notingham he pleaded Nihil debet and gives in evidence that the Bayliff which made the Arrest was made upon condition that he should not meddle with such executions without speciall warrant of the Sheriff himselfe and his consent but it was resolved this notwithstanding that the Sheriff shall be charged in and in the principall case Judgement was given accordingly that is that the Covenant is void Note that the Sheriff of the County of Barkes was commited to the Fleete for taking twenty shillings for making of a warrant upon a generall Capias utlagatum for all the Justices were of opinion that the Sheriff shall not take any Fees for making of a warrant or execution of that Writ but only twenty shillings and foure pence the which is given by the Statute of 23. H. 6. for it is at the Suit of the King But upon Capias utlagatum unde convictus est which is after Judgement it seemes it is otherwise A man grants a Rent to one for his life and halfe a yeare after to be paid at the Feasts of the Anunciation of our Lady and Michaell the Archangell by equall portions and Covenants with the Grantee for the payment of that accordingly the Grantee dies 2. Februarâ—… and for twenty pound which was a moyity of the Rent and to be payd at the anunciation after the Executors of the Grantee brings an Action of Covenant and it seems it is well maintainable And Coke cheife Justice sayd That if a man grants Rent for anothers life the Remainder to the Executors of the Grantee and Covenant to pay the Rent during the Tearm aforesayd this is good Collective and shall serve for both the Estates and if the Grantee of the Rent grant to the Tenant of the Land the Rent and that he should distrain for the sayd Rent this shall not be intended the same rent which is extinct but so much in quantity and agreed that when a Rent is granted and by the same Deed the Grantor covenants to pay that the Grantee may have annuity or Writ of Covenant at his Election Michaelmas 7. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. Waggoner against Fish Chamberlain of London JAMES Waggoner was arrested in London upon a Plaint entered in the Court of the Maior in Debt at the suit of Cornelius Fish Chamberlain of the sayd City and the Defendant brought a Writ of Priviledge returnable here in the Common Pleas and upon the return it appears that in the City of London there is a custome that no forrainer shal keep any shop nor use any Trade in London and also there is another Custome that the Maior Aldermen and Commonalty if any custome be defective may supply remidy for that and if any new thing happen that they may provide apt remedy for that so if it be congruae bonâ— fidei consuetudo rationi consentiae pro communi utilitate Regis civium omnium aliorum ibidem confluentium and by Act of Parliament made 7 R. 2. All their customes were confirmed and 8 Ed. 3. The King by his Letters Patents granted that they might make By-Laws and that these Letters Patents were also confirmed by Act of Parliament and for the usage certified that in 3 Ed. 4. and 17. H. 8. were severall acts of Common Councell made for inhibiting Forrayners to hold any open shop or shops or Lettice and penalty imposed for that and that after and shewed the day in certain was an Act of Common counsell made by the Mayor Aldermen and Commonalty And for that it was enacted that no Forrayner should use any Trade Mistery or occupation within the said City nor keep any Shop there for retayling upon payn of five pound and gives power to the Chamberlain of London for the time being to sue for that by Action c. in the Court of the Mayor in which no Essoyn nor wager of Law shall be allowed and the said penalty shall be the one halfe to the use of the said Chamberlain and the other half to the poor of Saint Bartholomewes Hospitall And that the Defendant held a shop and used the Mistery of making of candles the seventh day of October last and for that the Plaintiff the ninth day of the same month then next insuing levied the said plaint And upon this the Defendant was Arrested and this was the cause of the taking and detaining c. And upon argument at the Bar by Serjeant Harris the younger for the Defendant and Hutton for the Plaintiff and upon sollemne arguments by all the Justices Coke Walmesley Warburton Danyell and Foster it was agreed That the Defendant shall be delivered and not remanded And the case was devided in to five parts The first the custome Secondly the confirmation of that by Act of Parliament Thirdly the grant of the King and the confirmation of that by Act of Parliament Fourthly the usage and making of Acts of common councell according to this Fiftly the Act of common councell upon which the Action is brought and upon which the Defendant was Arrested And to the first which is the custome it was also said that this consists upon three parts That is first if any custome be difficult Secondly if it be defective Thirdly if Aliquid de novo emergit The Mayor Aldermen and Commonalty Possunt opponere remedium and that there are foure incidents to that remedy First it ought to be Congruum Retione
part this shall not extend to other persons Commoners and it is like to the case in 9 Eliz. Dyer 257. 13. A man makes a Lease for years and covenants that the Lessee shal injoy the Tearm without eviction of the Lessor or any claiming under him if he be evicted by a stranger this shal be no breaking of the Covenant for a stranger is no party to the Deed nor claims under the Lessor and for this his Entry shal not give Action to the Lessee and so is the Case in 21 H. 7. between the Prior of Castleton and the Dean of Saint Stephens which was adjudged the 18 of H. 7. Pasch Rot. 416. Though that no Judgment be reported where it appears that the King Ed. 3. seised al the Lands of Priors aliens in time of War for that that they carried the Treasure of the King out of the Realme to the Kings Enemies and so it was made by H. 4. also during the time of his Reign and then in the second year of the Reign of King H. 5. by a statute made between the King and the sayd Priors aliens al the Possessions of the sayd Priors were resumed into the hands of the sayd King and adjudged in 21. H. 7. 1. before that this shal not extend to the Prior of Castleton which had Annuities issuing out of the Possessions of the sayd Priors for the said Prior of Castleton was not party to the sayd act of Parliament and for that he shal not be prejudiced by that and so it was adjudged 25. and 26. Eliz. In the Court of VVards in the case of one Boswell where the King made a Lease for years which was voydable and after by another Patent granted the Inheritance and then came the statute of 18. Eliz. to confirm al Patents made by the sayd Queen within her time and adjudged that the sayd Act shal not make the sayd patent voyd to the Patentee which is a stranger to the act of the Parliament but only against the Queen her Heirs and successors for by the statute it is made only against one person only and shal not be good against another though there be no saving of such person in the sayd Act. And also he conceived that the statute of 22 Ed. 4. Doth not extend to any woods in forrest in which another hath Common for it doth not extend only to such woods which a common person hath in the Kings forrest or common person and that it may be inclosed for the space of three years after the cutting of the wood in this before the making of the sayd statute and this was no wood in which an Estranger had Common as it appears by the Preamble of the sayd statute and then after in the sayd statute it is sayd such woods may be inclosed And also he conceived where the statute sayth that they may inclose the same Grounds with such sufficient hedges able to keep out all manner of Beasts and Cattell out of the same Grounds but this refers to the quality of the hedge for before it ought to be a small Ditch and by this statute it ought to be with such hedg which shall be able c. And it shall not be referred to the manner of the Cattell But for the difference between Beasts of Forrest Beasts of Chase and Beasts of Warrain see the Register fol. 96. 43 Ed. 3. 13. 12. H. 8. 12. b. Hollinsheads Cronicle fol. 20. b. 32. And he conceived that Sir Francis Barrington is such a Vendee of Wood that is within the statute though that he be Vendee of Inheritance and hath a greater Estate then Vnica vice but for that that he conceived that it was not within the statute for other reasons before cyted he would not dispute it But he conceived if this had been the question of the Case that this was within the statute and also he conceived that this was a generall statute of which the Judges shall take notice without pleading of this And this reason was for that that the King was party to it and this which concernes the King being the head concernes all the Body and Common Wealth and so it was adjudged in the Chancery in the case of Serjeant Heale that the statute by which the Prince is created Prince of VVales was a general statute and for that see the Lord Barkleyes case in the Commentaries Also he conceived that the said statute of 22 of Ed. 4. was repealed by 35. H. 8. for this was in the Negative that none shal cut any wood but only in such manner as is prescribed by the said statute and for that shal be a repeale of the first and that by the first Branch of the sayd statute it appeares that if such giving of Wood in his own Soyl within any forrest he cut to his own use he cannot inclose and by that Branch Commoner is not excluded but by the second Branch it is provided that he may inclose the fourth part of his Wood and cut that in such manner as is appointed by the said statute and then he shal loose his own Common in the three other parts and so he concluded that Judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff which is the Commoner and Judgment was entred accordingly Pasch 1610. 8. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Cesar against Bull. THomas Cesar Plaintiff in Assise against Emanuel Bull for the Office of Clock-Keeper to the Prince this he claims by grant of the King during his own Life with the fee of two shillings a day for the exercising of it and three pound yearly for Livery and the patent purports only the Grant of the Office and not words of creation of the Office as Constituimus officium c. And the Plaintiff could prove that it was an ancient Office and for that was non-suited in the Assise though that the Tenant had made default before Pasch 1610. 8. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Heyden against Smith and others THE Plaintiff counts in Trespasse against these Defendants and these Defendants justifie as Servants to Sir John Leventhorp who was seised of a free-hold of Land in which the Tree for which the action was brought was cut and so demands Judgment if action the Plaintiff replyes that the place where c. was parcel of a house and twenty Acres of Land which time out of mind c. have been demised and demisable by Copy of Court Roll which was parcel of the Mannor of A. of which the sayd Sir John Leventhorp was seised in his Demesne as of see and by Copy at a Court held such a day and year granted the said Messuage and twenty acres of Land whereof c. To the Plaintiff and his Heirs according to the custome of the said Mannor and prescribes that within the sayd mannor was a Custome that every Copy-holder may cut the boughs of all the Pollingers and Husbands growing upon his Copy-hold for fire to be burnt upon his
was Error and for this cause and another exception to the Record which was not much materiall he reversed the Judgment And at another day Flemming cheife Justice rehearsed the case and this argued and to the first matter he conceived First That it is no such entry that abates the Writ Secondly Admitting that it were yet this cannot be assigned for Errour And to the first matter he took this ground That every entry which may abate a writ ought to be in the thing demanded and for that he sayd if a man brings an Assise of Rent or common and hanging this Assise he enters into the Land this is not any Entry which will abate the Writ and he sayd that the Park and the keeping of the Park are two distinct things and for that the entry into one that is the Park will not abate the Writ for the keeping of that and to that which is sayd that he took a Fee that is a shoulder of a Buck that doth not make any matter for two reasons First he hath not shewed a Warrant he had to kill the Buck. Secondly the taking of the fee is no entring into the Office but the excercising of that but admit that this were an entry or the thing it self yet he sayd every entry into the thing shall not abate the Writ and to that he sayd that if this entry of the Earl of Rutland to hunt was no such entry that shall abate the Writ for his office was not to hunt and for that his entry being to another purpose it shall not be sayd an entry to abate the Writ and for that he cited a case which hath been cited as he sayd by Justice Yelverton that if a man have Common in the Land of J. S. between the Annunciation of our Lady and Michaelmas and the Commoner brought an Assise of his Common and at Christmas put in his Beasts and this shall not be any entry to abate his Writ for it cannot be intended for the same Common which case is agreed to be good Law and he cited the case put by Brooke in Assise of Freshforce before remembred Com. 93. Where hanging a Formedon the Tenant pleads in abatement of the Writ that the Demandant hath entred after the last continuance and upon the evidence it appears that many were cutting wood upon the Land and the Demandant comes into the Land to them and warnes them upon the perill that might ensue to them that they should do no more then they could do by Law and this was found no entry Also the case of 26. Assise before cited by Justice Crooke and he sayd that the Statute of Charta de Foresta chapter 11. willeth that every Arch-Bishop Bishop Earl or Baron comming to the King by his command and passing by his Forrest c. Was licensed to take one Beast or two by the sight of the Keeper c. Put case then that the King had sent for the Earl of Rutland and he had passed through this Park and had killed a Buck had this beene an entry to abate this writ Quasi diceret non for this was entry to another purpose so he sayd in the principall case the entry to hunt and so no entry to abate the Writ but admitting that this had been an entry which would abate the writ then let us see if this entry hath so abated the writ being Mesne between the Verdict and the Judgment it cannot be assigned for errour and to that he agreed the diversity before taken by Crooke and Williams where the writ is abated by Plea and without plea and he cited a Judgment in the Kings Bench between Jackson and Parker 2 Eliz. where in Ejectione firme the Plaintiff entred Mesne between Verdict and Judgment and this was assigned for Errour in the Exchequer Chamber and the Judgment notwithstanding affirmed and he sayd that if Memorandum had been made of it or if a Jury had found it and it had been prayed that that might be Recorded yet this had not been materiall and that that be not assigned for Errour And to the matter moved by my Brother Williams that there should be a variance between the plaint and the Title he conceived that there is no such variance that shall make the Judgment errronious and to that he examined the matter First that the Assise was of a Free-hold in Clepsom and his title is made of the parke of Clipson that that cannot be otherwise intended but that of necessity it ought to be the same park For first there is but one park by all the Record Secondly the plaint saith De parco predicto which hath reference to Clepsom park and there is but one park put in view by all the record Fourthly It shall be so taken according to the common speaking Fiftly when he hath made his plaint of the custody of the park of Clepsom and of the Herbage and paunage of the park aforesaid called Clepsom these words called Clepsom are but Idle and Trifles and that which is but Surplusage shall not annoy Also he said that J. and E. are letters which do not much differ in pronunciation and they are all one as I and he shall be pronounced as hi and he cited the Book of 4 H. 6. 26. Where in Debt variance was taken between the writ and the Obligation that is Quatuordecem pro Quatuordecim and this variance was not materiall but that the writ was awarded good and so he conceived that in this case the variance of Clepsom and Clipsom shall not be such a materiall variance that shall make the Judgment erronious and to the title First to Markhams grant that is where the Jury have found Quod ulterius concessit c. And doth not say Per easdem he held that good without scruple and this for the necessary relation that this had to any thing before granted for he sayd that this should be a strange and marvelous patent which begun in such a manner that is Et ulterius Rex concedit c. And there was not any thing granted before And for that he cited the case of 11 Ed. 4. 2. where Debt was brought upon an Indenture against the Abbot of Westminster and the Indenture was between the Abbot of the Monastry of the blessed Mary of Westminster and rehearsed divers Covenants for performance of which Covenants the Abbot of Westminster bound himself in twenty pound and doth not say that the aforesayd Abbot and yet good for it shall be intended the same Abbot for he is party to the Deed and the case of 10 H. 7. 12. Where in Assise of Common the plaintiff makes his plaint of Common appurtenant to his Free-hold in D. and shews for Title that he was seised of a Messuage and of a Carve of Land in D. to which the Common is appurtenant and that he and his Ancestors and all those whose Estates c. have used Common of pasture with ten Beasts and exception
taken to the title because he saith that he was seised and not saith that he is and yet good by this word Fuit for that shall be intended that he continues seised so he sayd that things which are necessarily to be intended though they be not so particularly expressed yet shall be good by Implication and so he concluded that this is no Error for which the Judgment shall be reversed And to the challenge he conceived that this is not any principall challenge and to that he put this difference that if a man brings an Assise of certain Land and hath an Action of Trespass hanging against the Sheriff for entring into the same Land there shall be a principall challenge to the Array but if it be for entry into other Land not in demand otherwise it is and what is principall challenge and what not he cyted the Bookes of 3 Ed. 4. 12. 6 Ed. 4. 1. 21 Ed. 4. 67. 14 H. 7. 1. 21. Ed. 4. 10. And to the point in question he cyted the Bookes before remembred by Crooke and Williams and no others and for that I omit to recite them and he agreed also that in actions which concern life Honesty Mayme Battery to say that he hath such action hanging against the Sheriff shall be a principall challenge but Trespass for entring into Land not for in Trespass there is no Land to be recovered also no damages but to the value of the Trespass And in Debt a man shall recover more then in Trespasse And yet it is agreed that this is no principall Challenge to say that he hath an Action of Debt hanging against the Sheriff as the Book of 11 H. 4. is which hath been remembred and for this I conceive it no principall challenge And to the seisin of the Paunages if a Horse may take seisin of that it seemes that yea for I conceive that the taking of seisin doth not consist in the eating or not eating of that of which the seisin is to be taken and for that he cited that if a man grant to me the Herbage and Paunage of his Parke and I come into the Parke and take the Grasse and Herbs into my hands or if I gather Akornes this is sufficient seisin for me to have Assise though that I do not eate the Grasse nor the Akornes and for that let us put the case that a man hath Herbage granted to him and he puts in his Beasts and before that they eate the grasse they are driven out none will deny but that that shall be good seisin for so is the Book of the 22. Assise 84. Where a man hath Common granted to him and he takes the Beasts of a stranger and puts them in and them forthwith drive out that shall be a good seisin of the Common to have Assise so that he said that the eating is not to purpose also he said Horses will eate Akornes as well as Cowes And he saith that in the Country where he inhabits being a Wood-land Country they will not suffer the Beasts to go into the Woods at a certaine time of the yeare and this is when Crabs are ripe for then their Beasts will eate Crabs and set their teethes an edge and then not being able to chew Akornes do swallow them whole and then those Ackornes being swallowed whole will grow in the Mawe of the Beast and so kill them And he saith that though that Horses be not so proper Beasts to take seisin of Paunage as Porkes are yet being put in for the same purpose if they are disturbed that shall be Seisin and Disseisin and it seemes to him that when things are granted to one that it shall not be strange to say that seisin of one shall be seisin of both and for that if a man grants all his arrable Land all his Meadow and all his Wood Livery and Seisin in one suffices for all but I conceive that this is in respect of the soyle which passeth and so are all of one self same nature and so he conceives that this is sufficient Seisin and Disseisin found to have Assise And lastly to the Title of the Earle of Rutland he said that this was good and to the Grants of the King he said two things are necessary in all Grants of the King that is a Recitall and a certainty and when a recitall shall be necessary and when not and he said that in all cases when a common person makes a Lease for years or for life and the reversion is conveied to the King if the King will make Estate to another he shall not recite this Lease for this not being of Record the King cannot take notice of it and so he shall not recite But in all cases when the King makes a Lease for life or for years and after will make a Grant to another he ought to recite the first Estate because that is of Record And Justice Yelverton as I heard of those which were next unto him put this case That if the King grants a Lease for yeares rendring Rent and after the King reciting the Lease grants that to another for years or grants the reversion to another and doth not recite the Rent which was reserved upon the first Lease that this second Grant shall be void for the not recitall And the cheife Justice cited one Phillpotts Case to be adjudged in the 2. of Eliz. That where the King made a Lease for one and twenty yeares and after reciting the said Lease grants the reversion to another and before that the second Letters Patents were sealed the first Lessee surrendred And said that the second Grant was adjudged void for the King intended to passe a reversion and now he shall have a Possession and all that which is said to be in case of Land Now let us see how it shall be in case of office and for that if a common person hath â—n office in Fee and grants that for life and after grants the Fee simple to the King and the King will grant that to another there he ought to recite the common persons Grant as well as if it had been his one Grant for there is not properly a reversion of an office as the Book cited by my Brother Williams sayd Secondly if the office be recited in Esse and be not in Esse the Grant is void as Blanyes Case is in the Lord Dyer 3 Eliz. 197. 47. And this sufficeth for recitalls Then for certainty of the Kings Grant it is said in the 2. R. 3. it is said that the Grants of the King ought to be made in certaine and for that where the King there Grants to Sir John Spencer that he shall not be Sheriff this was void for the incertainty of the place But if the Grant had been of such a County or such a County the Grant should be good Also there ought to be certainty of Estates as it is in 18. H. 8. Where the King gives Lands to