Note Where Rape is there must be penetratio emissio Seminis in the Case Co. 12. 37. For altho' there be emissio Seminis yet if there be no penetration that is res in re it is no Rape for the Words of the Indictment be Carnaliter cognovit c. 3 Inst 60. But emissio Seminis may be an Evidence in case of Rape of Penetration 3 Inst 59. See Hutton's Rep. 116. in the Lord Audley's Case At what Age a Woman may be Ravished THE doubt that was made in 14 Eliz. Dyer f. 304. before at what age a Woman Child might be Ravished was the cause of the making of the Act of 18 Eliz. cap. 6. for plain declaration of the Law That if any Person should unlawfully know and abuse any Woman-Child under the age of Ten Years every such unlawful and carnal Knowledge should be Felony and the offender therein being duly convicted shall suffer as a Felon without allowance of Clegry 3 Inst 60. A Woman Attainted Ravished IF a Woman attainted be Ravished after Pardon she shall have an Appeal of Rape 3 Inst 215. We read in Story that chast Lucretia being Ravished she was found in extream heaviness and it was demanded of her Salvan ' She answered Quomodo Mulier salva esse potest laesâ Pudicitiâ And yet thereof it is truly said Duo fuerunt unus commisit Adulterium Non compos Mentis A MAN Non sanae Memoriae gives to himself a mortal Wound and before he dies he becomes of sound Memory and after dies of this Wound here he shall not be felo de se but if one gives himself such a Wound while he is of sound Mind and after becomes non sanae Memoriae and dies thereof there he shall be felo de se Deodand IF a Man fall from a Ship Cart or other Vessel in aqua dulci fresh Water 't is a Deodand otherwise in salt Water being any Arm of the Sea tho' it be in the body of the County because of the dangers it is subject to upon the raging Waves in Windy and Tempestous Weather 3. Inst 58. If an Infant within the age of discretion scil Fourteen be slain by a fall from a Cart Horse Mill c. no Deodand but if slain by a Horse Bull or c. then a Deodand ibid. A Lodger kills one that assaults a House no Felony IF one break a House with intent to rob it or kill any therein and one within the House tho' not the Master but a Lodger or a Sojourner kill him this is no Felony Cro. Car. 544. Cooper's Case Physician kills his Patient IF one that is no Physician allowed take upon him to give Physick and kill his Patient this is Felony but if he be a Physician allowed and do so out of Ignorance or Negligence Contra. Stamf. lib. 1. pag. 16. Fitz. Coron 163. To provoke Love by Witchcraft the Second offence Felony IF one shall the Second time use any Conjuration or Witchcraft to provoke Love in a Maid this will be Felony by 1 Jac. cap. 12. Servant kills one that hath killed his Master IF one hath killed my Master and I in a hasty and fresh pursuit of him kill him no Felony Kytch 25. If he be a Thief 21 H. 7. 41. Two Persons of the same Name pretend to a Legacy IF there be a dispute between two Persons pretending to the same Legacy as if the Devise be to Thomas Styles without other distinction of the Person and there be two of that Name of equal respect with the Testator or both alike his Friends or Acquaintance here the Executor hath his election to deliver the Legacy to which of them he please Yet some are of opinion that in such case the Legacy is void by reason of uncertainty Orphan's Legacy 441. 10. Faith and Troth A WRIT was ad Respondendum I. S. Fidei Uxori ejus The Defendant pleaded in Abatement of the Writ because the Name of the Wife was Faith in English and pretended it should be Fidi Rhodes said he knew a Wife who was called Troth and Named Trothia in Latin and well And the Writ was adjudged good in the former Case Goldsb Rep. fol. 86. Where Chattels shall go to the Heir SEE some instances hereof in Dr. and Stud. lib. 2. cap. 12. and 1 Inst 8. a. in fine 18. b. in med and 185. b. fine and the office of an Executor 81. and 84. If a Man be seized of a House in Fee and a Window or Door of the House be taken off to be mended during which the owner of the House dies yet his Heir shall have them by descent and not the Executors for tho' in fact they are for a time divided from the House yet in judgment of Law they always remain parcel of it 1 Rol. Rep. 102. Devise good to him in Remainder tho' the particular Tenant die before the Testator ALTHO' where a Legatary dies before the Testator a Bequest of Goods or Chattels to such Legatee becomes void to his Executors yet if there be a Devise of Land to one for Life the Remainder to another in tail and the Devisee for Life die before the Testator the Devise of the remainder continues good See Perk. Sect. 567 568. Where a Remainder may depend without a particular Estate A LEASE is made to A. for the Life of B. the remainder to C. in Fee A. dies now before an Occupant enters here is a Remainder without a particulur Estate and yet good 1. Inst 298. a. in medio Which Case disproves the opinion of Justice Clinch Owen's Rep. 39. viz. That every Occupant ought to be in possession at the time of the death of the Tenant and that otherwise the Law casts the Interest upon him in the Reversion which opinion is there likewise denied by Gawdy and Chute Justices And as my Lord Coke says He is in Law called an Occupant because his Title is by his first Occupation which sure cannot be supposed in the time of the particular Tenant A Remainder is defined to be the residue of an Estate in Land depending upon a particular Estate and created together with it yet as it may in some case depend without a particular Estate So the continuance of the particular Estate is not always requisite to support the Remainder as if a Lease be limitted to an Infant the Remainder over and after the Infant refuses yet the Remainder is good So if a Copy-holder in Fee surrender to the use of the Lord for Life the Remainder over So if Tenant for Life and he in the reversion grant their Estate to the Tenant himself for Life the Remainder over it is good 1. Siderf 360. A Remainder vesting in an Instant yet good A RENT is granted to the Tenant of the Land for Life the Remainder in Fee this is a good Remainder tho' the particular Estate continued not for eo instante that he took the particular Estate eo instante the Remainder vested and the
I suppose Vide Hob. 304. Again The Law construes things with equity and moderation and therefore restrains a general Grant if there be any mischief or inconvenience in it and therefore if a Corody be granted to one and his Servant to sit at his Mess he cannot bring a Servant that hath some filthy or noisome Disease So if a Common be granted to one for all his Beasts yet he shall not have Common for Goats nor Geese nor other Beasts not commonable Finch his Law 56. So if a Man grant Common in all his Lands the Grantee shall not have Common in his Orchards Gardens or Meadows 3 Leon. 250. Where one may have an Estate Tail yet all the Issues barred to inherit BARON and Feme Tenants in special Tail with Remainder to the Barons right Heirs they have Issue A. the Baron dies A. in the Life of his Mother levies a Fine with Proclamations to I. S. and resolved it should barr the Estate Tail tho' 't was clearly admitted that the Feme remained Tenant in Tail Co. 3. 50. If the Son of Tenant in Tail levy such a Fine in his Fathers Life it barrs the Tail from descending yet the Father remains Tenant in Tail Co. 9. 141. for the Son is concluded and cannot enter against his own Fine See Stat. 32. H. VIII Name DEBT upon Bond was brought against one Jaacob Aboab by the Name of Jacob he pleaded that he was called and known by the Name of Jaacob and not Jacob but it was over-ruled Mod. Rep. 107. 3 Keb. 284. See a notable Case in Stiles Rep. 389. 390 c. the Report of it is very long but this is the short on 't One Mills seised of Lands in Fee devised them to Elizabeth his Daughter in Tail with a provisoe that if she Married one of his own Sirname that then she should have the Lands in Fee-Simple She Married one Mill but commonly called and known by the Name of Mills also In this Case the Court held that Mills and Mill are not one and the same Sirname for the Testator had a particular Eye to his own true Sirname and the common reputation of Mill and Mills to be the same Name shall not make Mill to be the Testator's true Sirname Note This is a special Case and goes not according to the ordinary Rules of Names that sound alike Hence I shall take occasion to treat of Names what Names are the same in Law and what are not It is held that Sain John and Saint John are several Names So are Elizabeth and Isabel so Margaret Marget and Margerie so Gillian and Julian so Agneis and Anne so Cozen and Cousin so Edmund and Edward so Randulphus and Randal and so Randulphus and Randolphus so Randolph and Ranulph so Isabel and Sibil for all which see 1 Anderson 211. 212. 2 Cro. 425. 558. 640. 2 Roll. 135. But Piers and Peter are one Name 2 Cro. 425. so Saunders and Alexander so Garret Gerrard and Gerald. 2 Roll. 135. so Joan and Jane 2 Cro. 425. Note Tho' James and Jacob are several Names yet Jacobus is Latin for both and will serve for either of ' em 2 Roll. 136. Sir John Hathwaie was bound in a Bond thus Noverint Universi me Jean Hathwaie teneri c. this was a good Obligation for Jean shall be taken for an abbreviation of Johannem and so the same Name Cro. Car. 416. 418. 2 Roll. 136. Note If the Name of the Obligor be subscribed it is sufficient tho' there be a blank or blot for his Christian Name in the Bond. 2 Cro. 261. Dobson and Key 's See more of Names 1 Keb. 427. What one cannot do by another THERE are some things personal and so inseparably annexed to a Man's Person that he cannot do them by another as the doing of Homage and Fealty So it is holden that a Lord may beat his Villain for cause or without cause and the Villain is without remedy but if the Lord command another to beat him without cause who does accordingly the Villain shall have an Action of Battery against him So if the Lord destrain his Tenant's Cattle when nothing is behind yet the Tenant for the Reverence and Duty that appertains to the Lord shall not have Trespass vi armis against him but if the Lord command his Bailiff or Servant to destrain in such case where nothing is behind the Tenant shall have an Action of Trespass vi armis against them Co. 9. 76. a. in Comb's Case Where a Commoner shall have an Action upon the Case against the Lord. If the Lord surcharge the Soil with Conies the Commoner upon this particular loss may have an Action upon the Case against him Yelverton 104. 105. See Cro. Car. 387. 388. Words ending in Ment. JUSTICE Doderidge saies It has been wittily observed that all Words which end in Ment shall be taken and expounded according to the Intent as Parliament Testament Arbitrament c. Latch 41. 42. Where one shall be remitted against his own Discontinuance and Reprisal BARON and Feme Tenants in special Tail He aliens in Fee and takes back an Estate to them for their Lives this is a Remitter to both maugre the Husband for it cannot be so to the Wife without also to him because they are but one Person in Law tho' he be estopped to claim and so it is a remitter in him against his own alienation and reprisal Lit. Sect. 672. Note if he had taken the Estate to him alone he could not have been remitted against his own alienation but when the Estate is made to Husband and Wife tho' they are but one Person in Law and no Moieties between 'em yet because she can't be remitted unless he be remitted also and because remitters are favoured in Law the more ancient and better rights being thereby restored therefore in Judgment of Law both are remitted quod nota 1 Inst 354. Where a Wife may convert Goods to her own use THE common Doctrine is That a Wife cannot convert Goods to her own use because she has no property during the Husband's Life yet note In some Case there may be a Conversion of Goods by the Wife to her own use as if she find or take Barley from another as the Case was and bake it into Bread and eat it herself March fol. 60. and Jones 443. per Jones Justice Note When the Baron and Feme joyn it is the Act of the Baron only and the Feme in such Case cannot convert to her own use But an Action of Trover well lies for conversion by the Feme before Marriage or by the Feme only during the Coverture for she may do a Tort solely and the Husband shall he sued with her but not where she joyns with the Husband Cro. Car. 254. Rhemes and Humphreys and fol. 494. Perry and Diggs acc ' See 2 Cro. 5. Where a Wife may give Evidence against her Husband THE Lord Coke in his 1 Inst fo 6. b.
carriage being ill beloved in the Country was found Guilty but reprieved by the Judges and hearing the Lord Treasurer had a Secretary of his Name applied himself to him promising to give him all his Estate having no Children if his Lord would bring him out of the danger he was in which by his power with the King he did and the Secretary within a short time after by the others death enjoyed an ample Estate Stewes and Brothel-Houses KING Henry VIII suppressed all the Stews or Brothel-Houses which long had continued on the Bank-side in Southwark and those infamous Women were not buried in Christian Burial when they were dead nor permitted to receive the rites of the Church whilst they lived This was by Proclamation under the Great Seal 30 Martii 37 H VIII Before the Reign of H. VII there were Eighteen of these Houses and that King for a time forbad them But afterwards Twelve only were permitted and had Signs painted on their Walls as The Cardinal's Hat The Boar's Head The Cross Keys c Stow. and 3 Inst 205. Many wicked and common Women had seated themselves in a Lane called Water-Lane next to the House of the Friers Carmelites in Fleet-street this being known King Edw. III. to the end these Friers might perform their Vows one of which was To live in perpetual Chastity took order for removing of these Women ibid. So odious and dangerous was this Vice the fairest end whereof is Beggery that Men in making of Leases of their Houses did add an express Condition That the Lessee c. should not suffer harbour or keep any Feme putiene within the said Houses ibid. 206. Nota Tho' Adultery and Fornication be punishable by the Ecclesiastical Law yet the keeping of a Bawdy-House being as it were a Common Nusance is punishable by indictment at the Common Law by Fine and Imprisonment ibid. Accessary IF I. S. counsel or command one to kill a Man and he kill another or to burn one Man's House and he burn another's or to steal a Horse and he steal a Cow or to steal a black Horse and he steal a white one or to steal a Goldsmith's Plate from him going to such a Fair and he go to his Shop in Cheapside and rob him there and break open his House to do it in these Cases the Counsellor shall not be Accessary because this is another Felony Plowd 475. But if one command a Felony and it be done in another Fashion Time or Place only than it was commanded he may be Accessary to it As if one bid another to rob I. D. on Shooters-Hill and he does it on Gads-Hill or to rob him one day and he does it another day or to do it himself and he does it by another or to kill him by Poyson and he does it by a Sword in all these Cases he shall be an Accessary ibid. See Stamf. 1. 45. If one counsel a Woman to murder the Child in her Body and after the Child is born alive and then she murders it in the absence of him that gave her the Counsel in this case he is an Accessary Dyer 186. Plowd 475. One Saunders had Poyson given him by another to poyson his Wife the Husband gave it to his Wife in a roasted Apple who eat part of it and gave the rest to her Daughter being an Infant the Wife recovered but the Child died and it was held That he that gave it for the Wife was not accessary to the murder of the Daughter For the Consent must not be extended farther than it was given Plowd 474. Saunder's Case Yet if I perswade or command one to go and beat another Man only and he do beat him and kill him by this I am made Accessary not only to the Beating but to the Murder for I commanded the unlawful Act which caused his death So it is Murder to kill one tho' the Malice be against another as if I strike at A. and kill B. because I had a malicious and felonious intent Felony to cut out Tongues Eyes c. BEFORE the Statute of 5. H. IV. cap. 5. which makes it Felony to cut out the Tongue or put out the Eyes of any of the King's Subjects of malice prepensed the mischief was that when one had been beaten wounded or robbed the Misdoers to the end the Party grieved might not be able to accuse them cut out their Tongues or put out their Eyes pretending the same to be no Felony which is therefore ordained and established to be so by this Act which has so terrified offenders that where before it was every days practice now it is very rarely done See 3 Inst 62. It extends not to cutting off Ears which is no Felony as appears by the Stat. of 37 H. VIII cap. 6. The offender had the benefit of his Clergy but that is now taken away by Stat. 22 and 23 Car. II. cap. 11. which enacts that if any Person on purpose and of malice fore-thought and by lying in wait shall unlawfully cut out or disable the Tongue put out an Eye slit the Nose cut off a Nose or Lip or cut off or disable any Limb or Member of any Subject of his Majesty with intention in so doing to Maim or Disfigure him in any of these Manners he is declared a Felon without benefit of Clergy But Note by this Act it is provided that he shall forfeit neither Lands Goods or Chattels The cutting off a Man's Privy Members was Felony by the Common Law for Bracton lib. 3. fol. 144. b. says Quid dicitur si quis alterius virilia absciderit illum libidinis causa vel convitii castraverit tenetur sive hoc volens fecerit vel invitus sequitur poena aliquando capitalis aliquando perpetuum exilium cum omni bonorum ademptione Agreeable to this is the Record in Bracton's time viz. Henricus Hall A. uxor ejus capti detenti sunt in Prisonâ de Evil-chester eo quod rectati fuerunt quod ipsi absciderunt virilia Johannis Monachi quem idem Henricus deprehendit cum praedictâ A. uxore ejus c. But Fleta says lib. 1. cap. 38. Si quis Castratus fuerit talis pro Mahemiato poterit adjudicari And so was the Law holden in my Lord Coke's time as he says 3 Inst 63. and 118. Where an Attaint lies tho' every word of the Verdict be true A MAN shall have an Attaint in some special Case where every Word of the Verdict is true As if one hath had Common Appendant to his Land time out of mind and brings an Assise of the Common and makes Title that he hath had Common time out of mind c. without speaking of the Appendancy and it is found for him The Defendant shall have an Attaint for the Plaintiffs Title is for Common in Gross and not Common Appendant yet the words of the Verdict are true that he hath had Common time out of mind c. but not
the Realm or Lord of Parliament Scil. Baron Viscount Earl Marquiss and Duke propter honoris respectum are not to be sworn on Juries and if neither Party will challenge him he may challenge himself for 't is provided by Magna Charta Quod nec super cum ibimus nec super eum mittimus nisi per legal◠judicium parium suorum aut per legem terrae Co. 6. 52 53. But note If a Peer is to be tried by his Peers he cannot challenge any of ' em 1 Inst 156. b. Where an Infant shall not reverse his Fine IF an Infant being a Feme covert or other Infant levy a Fine by grant and render to her or him in tail or for Life and the Husband die the Wife shall not have a Writ of Error because she is Tenant of the Land and she cannot have a Writ of error against herself so that she is without remedy So in the case of the other Infant per Catlyn Owen 33. Where one shall have a Formedon of Land that was never given 'T IS holden in 42 Edw. III. 53. cited in Mary Pottington's Case Co. 10. 37. b. that in some case a Man shall have a Writ of Formedon of Land that was never given as if Lands in tail are lost and the Tenant in tail recovers other Land in value the Issue in tail shall have a Formedon of the Lands recovered in value and yet those Lands were not given Livery and Seisin over a Wall IF one that is seised in Fee of an Orchard makes a Feoffment of it to I. S. and goes into the Orchard and cuts a Turf or a Twigg and delivers it in the name of Seisin to the Feoffee over a Wall of the same Orchard the Feoffee then being in other Land not mentioned in the Feoffment this is a void Livery 2 Roll. 6. numb 5. Note If it appears that the Feoffor intends to make an actual Livery it shall never amount to a Livery in Law 2 Roll. 7. n. 40. Where a Man shall give and take by his own Livery IF there be Dean and Chapter and one of the Chapter is sole seised of Land in Fee in his own right and thereof enfeoffs the Dean and Chapter by Deed and makes Livery and Seisin according to the Deed here the Feoffor gives and takes by the same Livery Perk. Sect. 205. So of a Mayor and Commonalty c. William the Conqueror 's Charter to Norman Hunter I WILLIAM the Third Year of my Reign Give to thee Norman Hunter To Me that art both Leef and Dear The Hop and the Hopton And all the Bounds up and down Under the Earth to Hell Above the Earth to Heaven From Me and Mine To Thee and Thine As good and as fair As ever they were To witness that this is Sooth I bite the White Wax with my Touth Before Jug Maud and Margerie And my youngest Son Henry For a Bow and a broad Arrow When I come to hunt upon Yarrow Vide Speed 424. b. 2 Roll. 181. Meriton's Anglorum Gesta in Vita W. I. Whether one can take and loose a Fee by the same Livery TENANT in Tail makes a Lease for his own Life the Remainder to the Donor in Fee this gift of the Fee is void because the Donor had it before But if Tenant in Taile make a Lease pur auter vie the Remainder to the Donor this vests a new Fee in him because that by the discontinuance he devested the ancient Fee out of him and gave him a new Fee-Simple by Marvine But Knightly denied this to be Law and that there should not be a new Fee-Simple in the Donor because then he should take a Fee and loose a Fee by the same Livery at an instant which cannot be ideo quaere Dyer 8. a. 9. a. Slander A. THE Attorney of B. brought an Action against C. for saying to B. Your Attorney is a bribing Knave and hath taken Twenty Pound of you to cozen me Judge Warburton held the Words not Actionable for an Attorney cannot take a Bribe of his own Client But Hobart said he might when the reward exceeds measure and the end against Justice as to raze a Record c. and Hob. says after he had spoken Justice Warburton began to stagger in his opinion and so the Plaintiff had Judgment Hob. 8 9. and 1 Roll. 53. Infant AN Infant brought an Action of Trespass by her Guardian the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff was above Sixteen Years old and agreed for 6 d. in Hand paid that the Defendant have licence to take two Ounces of her Hair to which the Plaintiff demurred and adjudged for her for an Infant cannot licence tho' she may agree with the Barber to be trimmed 3 Keb. 369. Scroggam against Stewardson Trespass for shaking a Sword at him A WOMAN shook a Sword in a Cutler's Shop against the Plaintiff being on the other side of the Street and in Trespass of Assault and Battery there was a Verdict of the Assault and not guilty of the Battery 'T was prayed to give no more Costs than Damages and so granted which was a Noble 3 Keb. 283. Smith and Newsam Where a Man shall be forced to spend his Money against himself I. S. PRAYED a Prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Court at Salisbury because his Wife Sued him there to be separated propter saevitiam and Sentence was given for him and he enforced to pay all the Costs for his Wife afterwards she appealed and because he would not answer the Appeal against himself and pay for the transmitting of the Record he was excommunicated and now prayed a Prohibition it was thought by the Court a very hard case that he should be obliged to spend his Money against himself but because it was alledged that the Course was so in the Spiritual Court they would advise c. and proceedings stayed in the mean time Cro. Car. 16. Green's Case One Indicted for taking away a young Woman and Marrying her ONE Brown was Indicted on Stat. 3 H. VII cap. 2. for forcibly taking away and marrying the Daughter of one Sommers a City Orphan in the Custody of the Chamberlain Note The Child herself being about Fourteen Years old was held a good Witness to prove the Fact and the evidence was that she was worth 5000 l. that she was menaced by the Defendant in a Vizard and carried away in a Coach to Westminster and the next day with her own consent but caused by the precedent menace she married him but was not defiled having been surprised that day he was found guilty and had judgment to die and was accordingly executed 3 Keb. 193. See the Lady Fullwood's Case Cro. Car. 482 484 488 492. and Halès Pla. Cor. tit Felonies by Stat. that the taking a Woman against her Will and marrying her is Felony by the said Statute But such Maid Widow or Wife must have Lands Tenements or Goods or be Heir Apparent so that the Motive of taking away is Lucre and
the end Luxury viz. Marriage or Defilement Action against a Cook TRIN. 8. H. IV. Rot. 57. Willielmus Milburn recuperat per Juratam per Billam suam in qua queritur versus Johannem Cutting Cook de eo quod ipse Johannes apud Westmonasterium vendebat dicto Willielmo unum Caponem pistum corruptibilem recale factum qui Capo assatus per quatuor dies in Hospicium Domini Regis iterum calefactus pistus extitit de quo postquam edit vomitum horribilem fecit ita quod infirmabatur per duas septimanas recuperat inquam Viginti Solidos pro damnis And Roll says he was informed that it appears upon the Record at large that the Judges increased the damages 1 Roll. 89. Burglary A. LEASES to B. a Shop parcel of his dwelling House to work in where B. works in the day but never lodges in it this Shop is broke open in the night and several Goods stollen out yet not Burglary by the opinion of Tanfield Chief Baron and Justice Hutton because by the severence thereof by Lease to him who had it as a Shop and his not inhabiting therein it was not any Mansion-House and so no Burglary but ordinary Felony Hutton 33. Fine and Hales Pla. Cor. 83. A Chamber in an Inns of Court where a Person usually lodges is a Mansion-House within the Law so is the Church so is a Shop not severed by Lease Dalton's Justice cap. 151. Hales ubi sup A Thief goes down a Chimney to rob it is Burglary tho' here was no actual breaking for one is not bound to stop up his Chimney ibid. A Guest comes to a common Inn and the Host appoints him his Chamber and in the night the Host breaks into his Guest's Chamber to rob him this is Burglary Nota Dalton cap. 151. Challenges and Duels IT is against the Law of Nature and of Nations as well as against the Law of God for a Man to be Judge in his own proper Cause especially in Duello where Fury Wrath Malice and Revenge are the rulers of the Judgment And there is nothing honourable whatever some pretend that is against the Laws of one's Country and the Law of Nature and Nations 3 Inst 157. The Killer is in a worse Condition than the Killed HE that slayeth is in worse case than he that is slain for the Murderer loseth not only his Lands and Goods but his Life also and his Honour which he so much respected for by his Attainder his Blood shall be currupted and if he were Noble or Genteel before he thereby becomes Ignoble and Base and he that is slain by Law loseth none of them so as hereof it is truly said Infoelix pugna ubi majus periculum incumbit Victori quam Victo ibid. Bare Challenge punishable IF any Subject by Word Writing or Message challenge another to Fight with him this is an Offence before any Combat be performed and punishable by Law and it is contra pacem coronam dignitatem for Quando aliquid prohibetur prohibetur omne per quod devenitur ad illud ibid. Much more if they Fight tho' no Death ensue nor Blood drawn which being an Affray and a great breach of the King's Peace is to be punished by Fine and Imprisonment and to find Sureties for their Good Behaviour ibid. What Duel allowed by Law THERE is a Duellum allowed by Law depending a Suit for the Trial of Truth see 2 Inst W. 1. c. 40. which kind of Battail in case of Appeals and Writ of Right is by publick authority and course of Law whereunto all the people by an implied consent are Parties and as some hold has it's Warrant by the Word of God by the single Battel between David and Goliah which was strucken by publick Authority ibid. Where Kings of England have offered to try their Title by single Combat KING Edward III. in the 16th Year of his Reign having War with the French King for his right to the Kingdom of France out of the greatness of his Mind for the love of his Subjects the saving of Christian Blood and a speedy Trial of the right offered the single Combat with the French King but He refused it So after long and chargeable Wars between the Crowns of England and France for the right of the Kingdom of France it was an honourable offer which King R. II. made to Charles the French King for saving of guiltless Blood and to put an end to that bloody and lingring War 1. Either a single Combat between the two Kings 2. Or a Combat between the two Kings and three of their Unkles on either side 3. Or that a fit day and place might be assigned when under the universal conflict of both their Armies an end might be put to the War The Duke of Lancaster according to his Commission made these offers from the King of England to King Charles of France but he was auditus sed non exauditus for King Charles liked none of these offers And in Anno Domini 1196. Philip King of France sent this Challenge to our Richard the First That King Richard would choose him five for his part and He the King of France would appoint five for his part which might fight in Lists for trial of all matters in controversie between them for the avoiding of shedding of more guiltless Blood King Richard accepted the Offer with condition that either King might be of the number but this condition would not be granted See 3 Inst 159 Justs and Tournaments IF at a Just or Turnament or at the Play with Sword and Buckler by the King's Command one Man kills another this is no Felony It was enacted in the Reign of King H. II. that if in such case one was slain it should be no Felony for that in friendly manner they contended to try their strength and to be able to do the King service in that kind upon occasion 3 Inst 56. Otherwise of fighting at Barriers or running at Tilt or Justs without the Kings Command whereby a Man is slain and altho it were by the King's Command yet it was holden Felony by the Justices tempore H. VIII for it was against Law Bro. Coron 228 229. Dalton pag. 352. But it is holden otherwise now Hob. Rep. 134. in Weaver and Ward 's Case Battel Champion AN Approver that kills the party accused in Battel or a Champion that kills the other Champion in a Writ of Right or the Plaintiff or Defendant in an Appeal that kills the other in Duello in these cases the party killing shall forfeit nothing for these Combats or Duels are such trials as the Law appoints in such cases 3 Inst 221. Whoever takes upon him to be a Champion for another and becomes recreant i. e. a crying Coward or Craven he shall lose liberam legem for his perjury that is become infamous and of no credit never to be a Witness or Juror ibid. You may read the form hereof and the
they may be gone before he can take them But you cannot destrain in the Night time for Rent behind 1 Inst 142. a. A Rent is payable at a day he has all the day 'till Night to pay it but if it is a great Summ he must be ready to tell it before Sun set for the other is not bound to tell it in the Night ibid. Livery and Seisin in the Night by an Attorney good Cro. Eliz. 42. said there to be so adjudged Yet an Atturnment which is in lieu of Livery 1 Inst 49 a. cannot be made after Sun-set Stiles Pract. Reg. 47. yet sure 't is less solemn than Livery which must be upon the Land or in view of it whereas an Atturnment is but an Assent which may be given any where ergo Quaere License to sow Land no Lease IN Sir William Essex his Case Hob. Rep. 35. The Lord Hobart says he is clearly of Paston's opinion in 21 H. VI. 37. That if one license me to sow his Land that is no Lease of the Land and therefore if I sow the Land the Owner shall reap it Gift A BORROWED 100 l. of F. and at the day brought it in a Bag and cast it upon the Table before F. and F said to A. being his Nephew I will not have it take it you and carry it home again with you Per Curiam it is a good gift by paroll being cast upon the Table for then it was in the possession of F. and A. might well wage his Law Otherwise if A. had only offered it to F. which had been only a chose in Action not to be given without a Writing Noy 67. Flower 's Case Where one that is no Party to a Record shall have Error to reverse it A FEME covert was Sued as a Feme Sole but by her Husband's Name she appeared and pleaded and Judgment was given against her The Baron and Feme joyn in a Writ of Error The Court said a Stranger to the Record may not have a Writ of Error to reverse it but that is because he may have another remedy to avoid the prejudice But in this case the Baron hath no other remedy for his Wife is taken in Execution and by this means he shall lose her Society and so it was reversed Stiles Rep. 254. 280. Hayward and Williams Where an Attaint may be brought by one that is no Party to the Issue IF two commit a joint Trespass there can be but one Satisfaction and therefore if they be sued in one Action tho' they may sever in Pleas and Issues yet one Jury shall assess damages for all and note as to the damages he that is no Party to the Issue shall have an Attaint as well as his Fellows Hob. 66. Cock and Jennor 2 Cro. 349. accord that if the damages be too great any of the Defendants may have an Attaint tho' he be not the same Party against whom the Verdict was found The reason hereof is given in Sir J. Heydon's Case Co. 11.5 b. that although he be a Stranger to the Issue yet because that by the Law he is privy in charge he shall have an Attaint Vessels go with the Wines as Accessories in a Bequest A BEQUEST of Wines doth convey the Vessels wherein they are to the Legatary not as if a Man in his Liquor should think for no Man else would the Vessels were part of the Wines as Medals of Gold or Silver are part of such Metals but because the Testator's intention in the Eye of the Law seems to bequeath them as Accessories to the Principal excepting such which by reason of the greatness of their Bulk and wide Capacity cannot without much difficulty be removed out of the Cellars where they are Orphan's Legacy 474. 103. A Legacy taken away under a Condition is understood as given under the contrary condition as if a Testator saith A. B. shall not have 100 l. if my Ship which I expect home should chance to perish in the Sea in this Case A. B. shall have 100 l. if that ship shall safe arrive Orphan's Legacy 464. 24. Christian Name DECLARATION in Assumpsit quod cum quidam ...... Alison was indebted to the Plaintiff for Wares sold the Defendant in consideration the Plaintiff would forbear did promise to pay if the said ...... Alison did not pay After Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff error was assigned that no Christian Name was alledged Chief Justice Rainsford and Twisden were of opinion That the Plaintiff must averr the certainty of his Praenomen or Christian Name and that Verdict helps it not no more in Suit against the third Person than against the Party hiself to whom the Goods were sold and it cannot be intended that quidam was the Christian Name it being with a blank The other Judges contra because he may be a Jew or an Anabaptist that hath no Christian Name and the forbearance only is the ground of the Action Indictment for stealing Goods de quodam ignoto good because the stealing is the substance And tho' the Defendant might have demurr'd yet after Verdict it is well enough 3 Keb. 769. Bechino and Gumly Adjornatur Bond not to exercise his Trade A MAN was bound in an Obligation to another that he should not use his Art in such a Town for two Years Hull swore by God if the obligee were present he should go to Prison 'till he had paid a Fine to the King because the Bond is contra Legem terrae 2 H. V. fol. 5. b. See tit Imprisonment Fitz. 14. Justice Reeve said March Rep. 193 he was confident you shall never find one Report against this opinion of Hull such Bond being void because it takes away a Man's livelihood which is one reason against Monopolies which is grounded upon the Law of God for in Deuteronomy Chap. 24. Ver. 6. it is said No Man shall take the nether or the upper Milstone to pledge for he taketh a Man's Life to pledge Which may also be the reason that the Utensils of a Man's profession cannot be destreined for thereby the means of his Livelihood should be taken away See Noy 180. It may not be impertinent to set before you the following differences under this Head for some Books say that a promise not to exercise ones Trade in such a Town is good but that a Bond in such case is void March Rep. 77. pl. 121 and 191. pl. 238. Barrow and Wood. Broad and Jollyffe's Case 2 Cro. 596. is That one may Upon Consideration agree and promise that he will not keep Shop in such a Vill or Street for that Volenti non fit injuria And in the Case of Prugnel and Goss Allen's Rep. 67. Roll. Just takes these differences Where a Bond or Promise restrains the exercise of a Trade altho' it be as to a particular place only yet if it be upon no consideration the Bond and Promise is void But if there were a Consideration for the restraint as if A.
assign a Shop or sell braided Wares to B. there in respect of the apparent prejudice which may accrue to B. if A. should continue the Trade such a Bond or Promise is good adjudged so in Froward's Case upon a Writ of Error But note although there be such a consideration yet if the restraint be general throughout England it is void Vide 1 Roll. 16 17. and Moor 115. and 242. Cunning Practice A MAN was Arrested in an Action of Debt and presently made a Warrant to an Attorney to acknowledge a Judgment for him upon which he was discharged but afterwards he revoked the Warrant of Attorney before the Judgment was confessed the Court observing this cunning practice commanded the Attorney to plead Non sum informatus that Judgment might be entred and said they would defend him against the Party if he brought an Action against him Latch 8. Trick in the business THE Court was moved that there might be a Rule of Court for I. S. upon satisfaction made of a Judgment obtained by him to acknowledge Satisfaction but the Court denied it and said there was some Trick in the business for no doubt but the Party upon receipt of what is due to him will acknowledge Satisfaction without a Rule to compell him Stiles 164. The River of Thames a High-Way MR. Attorney General prayed Judgment in an Information against Smith for laying Logs which is a Nuisance on the River Thames The Defendant pleaded the general Pardon but Nuisances on the High-Way being excepted therein and this being as much a High-Way as the Road and the Hundred answerable for Robbery thereon Judgment was given for the King 3 Keeble 759. Intention of the Parties A. CONTRACTS with B. for 18 Barrels of Ale paying a certain summ of Money and A. would have kept the Barrels after the Ale was spent but adjudged he should not for the intent of the Parties never was that the Vendee should have them but only the Ale and the common usage is that the Vendor shall have the Barrels again 27. H. VIII 27. b. cited 1 Bulls 175. So if one covenant with another that if he come to his House he will give him a Cup of Wine and he comes he shall not have the Cup also because it was never the intent of the Party ibid. Countermand of Arrest A. DELIVERS a Writ to the Sheriff to arrest I S. and after forbids him and desires the Writ again the Sheriff refuses and arrests I. S. Quaere if I. S. may have faux Imprisonment against the Sheriff It seems he may not Whether shall A. have an Action upon the Case against the Sheriff it seems he shall for it may be he is prejudiced Whether the Sheriff shall have an Action against A. for his Fee Latch Rep. 19. Slander by an Infant and against an Infant AN Action upon the case for Words lies against an Infant of Seventeen Years of Age for Malitia supplet aetatem Noy 129. An Infant brought an Action against one Child for these words I charge thee with Felony and had a Verdict and Judgment tho' moved in arrest c. because not averred the Plaintiff was of an Age to commit Felony for the Defendant must plead that and shall not be averred by the plaintiff to avoid his own Action Noy 124. Baily against Child Grant of the next avoidance by Letter I. S. BROUGHT a Quare impedit declaring upon a grant of the next Avoidance the Defendant demanded Oyer of the Deed and the Plaintiff shewed a Letter which was written to his Father by the Patron wherein he tells the Father that he had given to his Son the Plaintiff the next avoidance Whereupon the Defendant demurred and adjudged for him for the Letter was a meer banter and the grant not good without Deed. Owen 47. and Cro. Eliz. 163 164. A. granted the next Avoidance to B. and C. and was bound to B. in an obligation that he should enjoy the said Presentment without any disturbance or claim of the said A. C. released to A. his interest in the said Advowson the Church became void A. offered to joyn with B. in the presentation It was holden the obligation was forfeited notwithstanding that A. had a puisne Title after the Bond entred into 4 Leon. 18. Bluet's Case Legacy of Books A TESTATOR saith I give my Physick Books to my Son if hereafter he shall study Physick but if he make the Law his Profession then let him have my Law Books the Son after studies Law and Physick both he shall have the Testator's Books of both Professions Orphan's Legacy 472 89. If the Testator saith I bequeath or commit my Estate as well as my Soul to God whoever hath his Soul his parish Church shall have his Estate Orphan's Legacy 471 81. Bequest of Horses IF a Man bequeath all his Horses his Mares shall go too but not è contra nor by a bequest of Geldings ibid. 467 53 56. and fol. 441 12. Devise A. DEVISES that B. shall be his Heir and C. devises Lands to A. and his Heirs B. shall have those Lands as Heir to A. for a Devise shall not be construed void when it possibly by any probable construction can be made good So note a Man may be Heir ex vi Testamenti before he is Heir ex vi Doni 2 Siderf 27. Heir by descent of an Estate that by possibility could not be in his Ancestor LAND is given to A. and B. so long as they jointly together live the Remainder to the right Heirs of him that dies first A. dies the Remainder vested not during the Life of A. his Death must precede the Remainder and yet his Heir shall have the Land by descent 1 Inst 378. b. Note whensoever the Ancestor takes a Freehold and after a limitation is made to his right Heirs they shall not be Purchasers tho' in Words it be limited by way of Remainder But if a Lease for Years be made to A. Remainder to B. in tail Remainder to the right Heirs of A. there the Remainder vests not in A. but the right Heirs shall take by Purchase if A. die during the Estate tail 1 Inst 22. b. 376. b. 319. b. 2 Roll. 417. Where a Prisoner shall not be judged in Execution tho' he yield himself unto it A PRISONER having been in execution was suffered by the Gaoler to go out and then came into the Gaol again and remained there till the time of another Sheriff and then escaped the new Sheriff is not answerable for it by Hobart For when he was let to go abroad voluntarily by the Gaoler the Execution was utterly discharged so as he could not be taken again legally nor so judged in Execution tho' he would yield himself unto it or the Creditor so allow him Neither can two Sheriffs be chargable Simul Semel for two escapes out of one and the same Execution at the same time Hob. 202. Sheriff of Essex his Case Note it was agreed by
Civil IN many cases the Law will not punish Capital offences in so high a degree except the Malice of the Will appears and this in favorem vitae but in Civil trespasses and wrongs of a lower nature the Law rather regards the damage of the Person injured than the Malice of the wrong-doer And therefore the Law makes a difference between killing one upon Malice prepensed and upon present Heat but if I give a Man slanderous Language and thereby damnify hi in his Name and Credit it is not material whether I use them upon sudden Choler and Provocation or of set Malice for in an Action upon the Case I shall render Damages alike So if a Man be killed by Misadventure as by an Arrow at Butts it is pardoned of course but if a Man be hurt or maimed only an Action of Trespass lies tho' it is done against the Parties Will who shall be punished in the Law as deeply as if it had been done malitiously Hob. 134. the Case of Weaver and Ward So if Baron and Feme commit a Felony together she is neither principal nor accessory in respect of her obedience to her Husband's Will but if they joyn in committing a Trespass upon Land or c. the Action may be brought against them both See Dalton 104. that if Husband and Wife do both a Felony it is Felony in both and both arraigned for it But Hales in his Pla. Coron says Nota that Books old and latter and practice is otherwise fol. 65. If an Infant within years of Discretion or a Mad-man kill another he shall not be impeached for it but if they put out a Man's Eye or do him any corporal hurt he shall be punished in Trespass Hob. 134 and Bac. Elem. 32. One born Deaf and Dumb kills another IF one that is Dumb killeth a Man it it is Felony yet Quaere how he shall be arraigned Dalton cap. 147. pag. 351. A Man born Deaf and Dumb kills another that is no Felony for he can't know whether he did evil or no neither can he have a felonious intent Otherwise if not born so ib. See Bro. Coron 101. and 217. that a Man which can neither hear nor speak may commit Felony and shall be imprisoned c. A Release of a right to one that hath neither Freehold in Deed or in Law yet good THE Demandant may release to the Vouchee and yet the Vouchee hath nothing in the Land but the reason is because when the Vouchee entreth into the Warranty he becomes Tenant to the Demandant and may render the Land to him in respect of the Privity 1 Inst 265. b. If the Tenant alien hanging the Praecipe the Release of the Demandant to the Tenant to the Praecipe is good and yet he hath nothing in the Land ibid. If a Disseisor lets the Land for Life the Disseisee may release all his right to the Disseisor in reversion tho' he has nothing in the Freehold because he hath an Estate in him viz. the Reversion Lit. Sect. 449. Curtesie of England IF a Woman seised of Lands in Fee takes Husband and by him is big with Child and in her Travail dies and the Child is ripped out of her Body alive yet shall not the Husband be Tenant by the Curtesie because the Child was not born during the Marriage nor in the life time of the Wife but in the mean time the Land descended and in pleading he must alledge that he had Issue during the Marriage 1 Inst 29. b. Co. 8. 35. a. b. in Pain 's Case A Secret of Law LITTLETON says In every Case where a Man takes a Wife seised of such an Estate of Tenements c. as his Issue by her may by possibility inherit As Heir to the Wife in such case after her Death he shall have 'em by the Curtesie of England and otherwise not In the Words As Heir to the Wife my Lord Coke has discovered a Secret of Law for except the Wife be actually seised the Heir shall not make himself Heir to the Wife which is the reason that a Man shall not be Tenant by the Curtesie of a Seisin in Law 1 Inst 40. a. Co. 8. 34. in Paine 's Case Another reason is because it lies always in his Power to reduce the Seisin in Law by his entry to an a actual Seisin and so it shall be accounted his own laches for it is otherwise in case of Rents and Advowsons where if the Wife die before the Rent became due or the Church void yet the Husband shall hold by Curtesie because he could by no Industry attain to any other Seisin which is likewise the reason why a Woman shall be endowed of a Seisin in Law of Lands because it lies not in her power to reduce it to an actual Seisin Corporalis injuria non recipit aestimationem de futuro THE Law in many Cases that concern Lands or Goods deprives a Man of his present remedy and turns him over to a farther circuit of remedy rather than to suffer an Inconvenience but if it be a question of personal Pain the Law will not compel him to sustain it and expect remedy because it holdeth no damage that may be given a sufficient recompence for a Corporal wrong Therefore if one menace me in my Goods and that he will burn certain Evidences of my Land which he has in his Hand if I will not make unto him a Bond yet if I enter into Bond by this Terror I cannot avoid it by Plea because the Law holds it an Inconvenience to avoid a specialty by such matter of Averment and therefore I am put to my Action against such Menacer but if he restrain my Person or threaten to beat me or burn my House which is a safety and protection to my Person and upon such menace or duress I make a Deed I shall avoid it by Plea So if a Trespasser drive my Cattle over the ground of I. S. and I pursue to rescue them yet am I a Trespasser to I. S. but if one assault my Person and I fly over anothers Ground I am no Trespasser So if the Sheriff make a false return that I am summoned whereby I lose my Land yet because of the inconvenience of drawing all things to incertainty and delay if the Sheriff's return should not be credited I am excluded of my Averment against it and am put to my Action of Deceit against the Sheriff and Summoners But if the Sheriff upon a Capias return a Cepi Corpus quod est lauguidus in prisona there I may come in and falsifie the return to save my Imprisonment 5 Edw. IV. 80. 3 H. VI. 3. Bac. Elem. 29 30. 1. Roll 92. Felony and Chancemedley PLAYING at Hand-Sword Bucklers Foot Ball Wrestling and the like whereby one of them receives hurt and dies thereof within a Year and a Day In these Cases some hold that this is Felony of Death others that they shall have their Pardon of course as
for Misadventure for that such their Play was by consent and because there was no former Malice but done only for disport and trial of Manhood Dalt 352. See tit Justs and Chance-medley in hoc Libro Justification in case of Necessity THE Ferry-Man of Gravesend took Forty seven Passengers into his Barge to go to London amongst whom was one Mouse the Barge being upon the Water a great Tempest arose insomuch that the Barge and all the Passengers were in danger to be drowned if a Hogshead of Wine and other ponderous things were not cast out among which things there was a Casket with 113 l. of Mouse's which I. S. took and threw over-board whereupon Mouse brought Trespass c. It was resolved per Curiam that in case of necessity for saving the Passengers lives it was lawful for I. S. being a Passenger to cast the Plaintiff's Casket out of the Barge with what was in it Quod quis obtutelam corporis sui fecerit jure id fecisse videtur and 't was directly proved that the Men had been drowned if the things had not been heaved out But 't was agreed also that the Owners in such Case shall have their Remedy upon the surcharge against the Ferry-Man and if there is no surcharge but the danger comes by the Act of God then every one must bear his own Loss 12 Rep. 63. and 2 Roll. 567. One may justifie the felling of a Tree in the Ground of another in Case of necessity 6 E. 4. 8. See 22 Assise 5 6. that a Man may justifie the beating another if he be in a Rage So Estrays may be fettered if they are fierce and unruly Hut Rep. 67. and Winch 67 124. If a Man has a way over my Land for his Cattle to pass and they in passing eat the Grass against his Will this is justifiable 2 Roll. 566 567. Reeve and Downs Note this for a Rule That in all Trespasses there must be a voluntary Act and also a damage otherwise an Action of Trespass lies not In Trespass for Ploughing his Land the Defendant said the Plaintiff's Land is adjoyning to his and that when he was Ploughing his own Land the Horses were unruly and by violence carried the Plough into the Land of the Plaintiff contra voluntatem suam and held a good Justification for if a Man be doing a lawful Act which afterwards becomes illegal against his Will that is damnum sine injuria 22 E. 4. 8. One cannot justifie a Trespass upon another for fear IN Trespass for breaking of a House and Close the Defendant pleaded that Duodecem homines ignoti modo querrino armati tantum minabantur ei quod de vitae suae amissione dubitabat and after requirabant compulsabant the Defendant to go with 'em to the House quodque ob timorem minarum per mandatum compulsionem dictorum duodecem hominum he did enter the said Close and House and returned immediately through the said Close which is the same Trespass c. Adj. no Plea upon demurrer for one cannot justifie a Trespass upon another for fear and the Defendant has remedy against those that compelled him the pleading too was naught because he did not shew that the way to the House was through the Close Allen 35. Gilbert and Stone vide the same Case Stiles 72. with this further reason that the Person injured shall have no satisfaction if such Plea be allowed for he cannot have it of those that threatened But see Stiles 65. in Trespass pedibus ambulando the Defendant pleads he was carried upon the Land by force and violence of others and was not there voluntarily which is the same Trespass c. upon Demurrer Roll. Justice said it is the Trespass of the Party that carried the Defendant upon the Land and not the Defendant's Trespass as he that drives my Cattel into anothers Land is the Trespassor and not I who am the owner of the Cattle Presumption of Law IN many Cases the Law will admit no proof against what it presumes Therefore If a Rent be behind for 20. Years and the Lord make an Acquittance for the last that is due all the rest are presumed to be paid against which presumption the Law will admit no proof Dyer 271. a. 11 H. IV. 55. So if a Man be within the Four Seas and his Wife hath a Child the Law presumes it is the Child of the Husband and will admit no proof to the contrary 7 H. IV. 9. 1 Inst 373. a. unless the Husband be castrated 1 Roll. 358. An innocent person is accused of Felony and being afraid flies for it tho' he after judicially acquit himself thereof yet if it be found that he fled for the same he shall forfeit notwithstanding his innocency all his Goods and Chattels Debts and Duties for as to the forfeiture of these the Law will allow no Proof against the presumption in Law grounded upon his flight 1 Inst 373. a. b. So if the Uncle of the Issue releases with Warranty to the Discontinuee of Tenant in tail and dies without Issue this is a collateral Warranty to the Issue in tail barring him without any Assets or Estate descended from him that made the Warranty the Law presuming that the Uncle would not unnaturally disinherit his Lawful Heir being of his own Blood of that right which himself never had without leaving him greater Advancements 1 Inst 373. a. Forfeiture TWO Joynt-Tenants for Life the one grants his Estate for the Life of his Companion it was held a Forfeiture for first it is a severance of the Joynture and then a Lease for another's Life 4 Leon. 236. Remainder for the Life of Tenant for Life good IF a Remainder be limited to one for term of the Life of Tenant for Life the Remainder is good but for this reason only because that by possibility the Tenant for Life may alien in Fee and so forfeit his Estate whereby the Remainder shall enter for the Forfeiture and enjoy the Estate during the Life of the Tenant for Life who committed such forfeiture Co. 2. 50 51. The King of Spain Out-lawed in Westminster-Hall THE King of Spain was Out-lawed in Westminster-Hall I being of Councel against him says Selden the Case was this A Merchant had recovered Costs against him in a Suit which because he could not get we advised to have him Out-lawed for not appearing and so he was As soon as Gondimer heard it he presently sent the Money by reason that if his Master had been Out-lawed he could not have the benefit of the Law which would have been very prejudicial to him there being then many Suits depending betwixt the King of Spain and our English Merchants Vide Stiles Pract. Reg. 382. that Mich. 22. Car. B. R. the King of Spain was Non-Suit in England for if a foreign Prince will have benefit of the National Laws here he must proceed and abide by the Rules and Orders of the Court wherein he prefers his
Tenant dies here the Lord shall have the Land against his own confirmation for 't is ruled in Beaumont's Case Co. 9. 141 b. that a confirmation cannot add a discendible quality to him that is disabled to take by descent But vide Cro. Car. 478. by Jones and Croke a Deed shall never be void when by any Intendment it may be allowed good and to have any operation and that altho' in Beaumont's Case the Heir in tail was barred by the fine of his Ancestor yet they hold he was restored to the Estate tail by the Confirmation of him in the Reversion for as the Fine was an Estoppel to the Heir to claim against the Fine so the Indenture of Confirmation is an Estoppel to him in Reversion to say that the Heir shall not hold it in tail and there it is an Estoppel against an Estoppel which sets the matter at large See Jones 394. Fine levied by a Woman born Deaf and Dumb. ONE Martha Eliot that was born Deaf and Dumb came before Chief Justice Bridgman to levy a Fine she and her three Sisters had a House and Land and an Uncle had maintained her and was to buy the House and Land of them and agreed to maintain this Woman if she would pass her Land for Security As to her intelligence the Sisters said she knew and understood the meaning of all this the Chief Justice demanded what sign she would make for passing away her Lands and as 't was interpreted to him she put her Hands that way spreading them out where the Lands lay This matter being communicated by the Chief Juslice to his Brethren Judge Archer with whom Tyrrel and Brown agreed said that the rule in Law is that in Fines and Feoffments c. if there be a good intelligence they may well do such Acts they may be admitted to make contracts for their good They are allowed upon examination to Marry and to receive the Sacrament they may make contracts for their Persons and by the same reason for their Lands and so his Lordship took the Fine Cartor's Rep. 53 54. Vide Perkins Sect. 25. that one born Deaf and Dumb may make a gift if he have Understanding but that 't is hard such a Person should have Understanding for that perfect intelligence comes by hearing And see 1 Inst 8. a. that one born Deaf and Dumb may be Heir to another tho' it was otherwise held in ancient time and so if born Deaf Dumb and Blind for in hoc casu vitio parcitur naturali but note it is there said that such persons cannot contract Alien suffers a Common recovery LAND was given to an Alien in tail the Remainder to I. S. in Fee the Alien suffered a Common Recovery and died without Issue all which being found by Office the Court resolved the Recovery was good and should bind the Remainder-Man 4 Leon. 84. Note it has been adjudged where an Alien and I. S. were Joint-Purchasers and the Alien died that I. S. should not have the whole by Survivor but that the King should have the Moiety upon Office found The Wife of I. D. levies a Fine with I. S. as his Wife and I. D. can 't prevent it I. S. and the Wife of I. D. levied a Fine of her Lands by the name of I. S. and Jane his Wife I. D. came into Court and shewed this matter and prayed to stay the Fine but the Court would not stay it for the Court shall not determine loyalty of Matrimony and if it be true that she is not the Wife of I. S. it shall not hurt the rightful Husband 2 Roll. 19. Keblethwaite and Wade Wife prays the Peace against her Husband ON a difference between the Lord Leigh and his Lady about Pin-Money viz. the settlement of 200 l. per annum in case of Separation she upon Affidavit of hard Usage and that she went in fear of her Life prayed security of the Peace against him and 't was granted Note Hale Chief Justice said here the Salvâ Moderatâ castigatione in the Register is not meant of Beating but only of Admonition and Confinement to the House in case of her Extravagance Curia acc ' she being not as an Apprentice c. but they were reconciled afterwards 3 Keb. 433. See 1 Keb. 637. Bradley's Case The Court refused to bind him to the Peace at his Wife's Suit unless her Life were in danger because by the Law he has power of Castigation and the Bishop of London had certified that he used to beat her but that she used to provoke him Fine Sur Grant Lender Executory A MAN by Fine acknowledges all his right in certain Land to me and I render it back again to him in Fee where neither of us hath any thing in the Land and after I purchase the Land this Fine shall bind me for it was executory upon me 2 Roll. 20. Witness excused from swearing the whole Truth IN a Cause between Sparke and Sir Hugh Middleton Mr. Aylet having been Counsel for the Defendant desired he might not be sworn on the general Oath as Witness for the Plaintiff to give the whole Truth in evidence which the Court granted after some dispute and that he should only reveal such matters as he either knew before he was of Counsel or that came to his knowledge after from others and the particulars to which he was sworn were particularly proposed viz. what he knew concerning a Will in question that P. G. made and the Court only put the question Whether he knew of his own Knowledge 1 Keble 505. See Stiles 449. Waldron and Ward That a Counsellor is not bound to make answer to matters which may disclose the secrets of his Client's cause by Roll. Chief Justice and so he was forborn to be examined Vide March 83. pl. 136. that a Lawyer of Counsel may be examined upon Oath as a Witness to the matter of Agreement not to the validity of an Assurance or to the matter of Counsel Extinguishment IF a Man Lessee for Years take the Feme Lessor to Wife his Term is drowned for a Man cannot have a Term for Years in his own right and a Free-hold in auter droit to consist together 1 Inst 338. b. Baron Lessee for Years and the Inheritance descends to his Feme Resolved per Cur. praeter Williams That here the Term is not extinct 2 Cro. 275. So note a difference where the Feme has the Reversion before Marriage and where the Fee descends to her after Marriage Jenkins cent fo 73. the first is the Act of the Husband the other the Act of the Law which shall not prejudice him If a Man Lessor Marry the Feme Lessee the term is not drowned but he is possest of it in her right during the Coverture So if the Lessee make the Lessor his Executor the term remains for a Man may well have a Free-hold in his own right and a Term in auter droit Pl. Com. 418. 1 Inst 338.
Persons would carry their Estates in their Pockets Therefore Keeling said If one lose 1000 l. in ready Money and also give Bond for 100 l. it is not within the Statute Two Joynt-Tenants hanged in one Cart the Survivor's Wife demands Dower IN a Writ of Dower the Title of the Feme to recover Dower was this Father and Son were Joint-Tenants to them and the Heirs of the Son they committed Felony and were both hanged in one Cart but because the Son as it was deposed by Witnesses did survive as appeared by some Tokens viz. his shaking his Legs his Wife thereupon demanded Dower and upon issue nunques seisie que Dower it was found for her Cro. Eliz. 503. For the better understanding of which Case I shall give you the following Opinion If there be two Joint-Tenants in Fee and one of 'em is attainted of Felony and then the other dies in the Life of him that was attainted his part shall survive to him that was attainted by Brampston in the Case of Harris and Wardell 2 Roll. 88. and he held that the Lord of whom the Lands are holden should not have this part by Attainder if he were afterwards pardoned But Berkley conceived that he should forfeit by his Attainder all the Land which comes to him during his Attainder and so the Lord should have this Moiety also A. and B. Joint-Tenants A. is attainted and hanged yet there is no severance of the Jointure but the Land shall survive to B. untill the Lord enter for the forfeiture Harris and Wardell's Case 2 Roll. 88. Plea in Bar of Dower A WOMAN brought a Writ of Dower in Kent and demanded the third part of certain Lands whereof her Husband was seised the Tenant pleaded in Barr That the Lands were of the nature of Gavelkind whereof by Custome she is to have a Moiety for her Dower and adjudged a good Plea in Barr quod nota Savil's Rep. 91. Where a Right of Free-hold shall drown in a Chattel IF a Disseisor make a Lease for Years the Disseisee cannot release to him because he hath no Estate of Free-hold And yet in some case a right of Free-hold shall drown in a Chattel as if a Feme hath a right of Dower she may release to the Guardian in Chivalry and her right of Free-hold shall drown in the Chattel because the Writ of Dower lies against him and the Heir shall take advantage of it 1 Inst 266. a. Coparceners but one Heir A. MAKES a gift in Tail reserving 2 s. Rent to himself during his Life and if he die his Heir within age then a Rent of 20 s. to his Heirs for ever A. dies having Issue two Daughters one of full age the other within age here the Donee shall hold by Fealty only inasmuch as the one Daughter as well as the other is his Heir and both of 'em make but one Heir ergò his Heir is not within age neither is his Heir in that Case of full Age But if the reservation had been and if he die his Heir neither within age nor of full age there it had been good note if it begins not in his next heir it shall never begin because the precedency is not performed 1 Inst 164. a. Special Tail LAND is given to I. S. and to the Heirs which he shall engender on the Body of an English Woman he Marries a French Woman and she dies and then he Marries an English Woman this is now a good Estate in special Tail by Cataline Owen's Rep. 32. One Tenant in Common takes all IF there be two Tenants in Common of Timber or other Goods and one of them takes the Timber and puts it into his several Land the other cannot justifie his entry into the Land to retake it for inasmuch as in Law 't was no tort for him to take it all to his own use by reason of the Trust that is between them the other cannot justifie a Trespass in the Land to retake it but must take it when he may without doing a Trespass 2 Roll. 566. Masters and Polley One Ship takes another in the presence of a third THE Civil Law is That if two Ships meet at Sea together altho' they went not forth as Consorts yet if one of them in the presence of the other take a Ship with Goods in it the other shall have a Moiety of the Ship and Goods taken for her presence there at the time of the taking was a Terror to the Ship which is taken sine quo the other Ship could not so easily have taken her 2 Leon. 182. Tenant in Common with himself IF Lands be given to John Bishop of Norwich and his Successors and to John Overal Doctor of Divinity and his Heirs being one and the same Person he is Tenant in Common with himself for he takes both in his natural and politique capacity which in such case cannot stand in Jointure therefore it is a Tenancy in common But note This Rule holds not in Chattels reals and personals for if a Lease for Years be made or a Ward granted to a Bishop and a Secular Man or if Goods he granted to them they are Joint-Tenants because they take not in their politique capacity 1 Inst 190. a. See 2 Roll. 91. between the Dean and Chapter of St. Peter's of York and Power One entred into an obligation to the Dean and Chapter of York and to A. B. and C. D. of 2000 Marks the Dean and Chapter are Tenants in Common with A. B. and C. D. for that the Body politique having a several capacity from the Body natural cannot take in Jointure with it Vide Ley's Rep. 82 acc ' that if an Obligation be made to I. S. and a Corporation and I. S. die the Obligation shall not survive but the Corporation and the Executors of I. S. must join in Suit Where one may vouch himself A MAN shall not regularly vouch himself as Assignee of a Fee-simple for the Law will not suffer things inutile and unprofitable and yet if the Father be enfeoffed with warranty to him and his Heirs and he enfeoffeth his Heir apparent in Fee and dies he as it is said shall vouch himself and the Heir in Borough English by reason that the Act in Law determined the Warranty between the Father and the Son 1 Inst 390. a. See Plowd Com. fol. 7. b. Manxel's Case that if a Father being enfeoffed with warranty enfeoffeth his Son and Heir with warranty and dies the Son in a Praecipe brought against him may vouch the Feoffor of his Father for the Law will not suffer him to vouch himself and when he comes in as Vouchee then to deraign the first Warranty for the circuit of Voucher Vide Finch's Law 55. A. mixes his Money with B's at play and B. keeps it all A. AND B. being at Play A. thrust his Money into B's heap and mixed it and B. kept it all whereupon they striving for the Money A. brought Trespass of
Assault and Battery quod cumulum pecuniae containing Five Marks cepit and the whole Court was of opinion in regard the Plaintiff's own Money cannot be known and this his intermedling is his own Act and his own wrong that by the Law he shall lose all for if it were otherwise a Man might be made to be a Trespasser against his Will by the taking of his own Goods to avoid which inconvenience the Law will justifie the Defendant's detaining all Querens nihil capiat per Billam 2 Cro. 366. Ward and Ayres and 2 Roll. 566. So if I voluntarily intermingle my Corn with another Man's he may take all ibid. and 1 Siderf 38. the end accord ' by the Chief Justice Action for playing with false Dice A. ENTICED B. to play with him at Dice at a Game called Passage whereupon he played with him and when it came to B's turn to throw A. delivered in true and fair Dice with which he play'd but when it fell to his own turn he threw with false Dice such as he knew would run Five or Six upon every Die and so B. lost 10 l. whereupon he brought an Acton upon the Case for this Deceipt and recovered 1 Roll. 100. Hartwell and Oak's Case Note It was resolved in Martin Leeser's Case That if common Players with false Dice to couzen the People at Play do enter into the House of another Man and desiire him to play at Dice and with their false Dice couzen him of his Money by Play altho' this be not Felony nor an Offence for which he shall lose Life or Member yet he shall be set upon the Pillory where the Offence was committed 2 Cro. 497 498. Motion to quash an Indictment against two for being Common Players at Cards and defrauding the Plaintiff of 40. s. not saying Vi Armis but per Curiam it 's needless 2. to say Angl. a Trick at Cards without a Latin Word there being none for it is good 1 Keb. 652. Where the Owner may retake his Goods tho' altered in Form A WRONG-Doer cuts down Trees and carries them away and makes Timber or Boards of 'em yet may the owner retake 'em in the Land of the Tort-feasor For in all Cases where a thing is taken wrongfully and altered in Form yet if that which is the principal part of the substance remains the notice of the thing is not lost as if a Man should tortiously take away my Cloak and make himself a Duoblet of it yet I may retake it from him So if one take from me a Piece of Cloth and after sow Silver or Gold into it yet I may take it from him Quia major pars substantiae remanet Moor. pla 67. Note If I. S. bequeaths a Pack of Wool to I. D. and after the Testator converts it into Cloth and dies possessed of it I. D. shall not have the Cloth Doderidge English Lawyer 132. Where Property shall not be altered by a Sale in Market Overt 'T IS the opinion of some that the Goods of a Bankrupt tho' he has sold them in Market Overt are notwithstanding that liable to the sale of Commissioners by Twisden And 't is clear they are liable if sold out of Market Overt 1 Siderf 272. initio See Dyer fol. 99. placito 68. A Man bought stoln Beasts out of Market and gave Five Shillings to have election to refuse in the Market to be holden the next Day and then in the Market he agreed to have the Beasts and payed Toll It was held in this Case that the property was not altered for that the Agreement relates to the Contract out of the Market quod nota In Trover by Gibbs against Basil for a Gelding the Case was one Porter stole this Gelding from the Plaintiff and sold him to the Defendant in open Market by the name of Lister and 't was entred so in the Toll Book that Lister sold him This is no good sale to bar the Plaintiff for the Stat. 2 and 3 Philip and Mary cap. 7. provides that no property of stollen Goods shall be altered that are sold unless the Name and Sirname of the Parties to the sale be entred in the Toll Book Owen 27. Justification IF a Man hath a heap of Corn by my heap of Corn and he takes a handful out of my heap I may take a handful out of his and justifie for he shall not take advantage of his own wrong 2 Roll. 566. n. 10. To justifie the taking anothers Goods without being a Trespasser IF one Saddles my Horse and then puts him into his own Ground I may well come and take my Horse out and keep the Saddle and not be liable to Trespass for so doing and because he puts his Saddle upon my Horse I may justifie keeping it 'till he brings Action to recover it So if one load my Cart with his Corn or my Boat with his Coals or the like I may well take my Cart and Boat away and keep and detain the Goods without being a Trespasser 'till he bring a Detinue to recover 'em fron me 1 Buls 96. Demurr to a Demurrer NOTE One may demur to a Demurrer for the doubleness of it for a Demurrer should be formal and certain to avoid Barbarism and inveigling the Court but if he demurs not to it when he may but joyns in the Demurrer he hath now slipped the advantage and he cannot demurr afterwards A Demurrer is double when he that demurrs assigns therein for cause of it one Error in Fact and another in Law which he ought not to do for if either of the Causes be true it is sufficient to overthrow the Plea and it is at his liberty to insist upon that which is best for his own advantage but not upon both for this were to puzzle the Proceedings See Stiles Pract. Reg. 133. Accessary to an Accessary IF one feloniously receive another that is an Accessary to a Felony the Receiver is an Accessary Stamf. lib. 1. One of ill fame demands the Rent without Authority c. LEASE for Years rendring Rent with re entry for Non-payment at the day a Stranger came to demand the Rent the Lessee asked him by what Authority and because he was a couzening Fellow and notoriously infamous and would not shew any Authority from the Lessor the Lessee would not pay the Rent and so the Lessor entred and adjudged lawful for that a command to receive Rent may be by Parole Cro. Eliz. 22. Sir John Souch's Case Serjeant Moor reports a Case without Name in the same Year with this but another Term A Lease for Years upon condition to re-enter for not-payment of the Rent at the last day there came upon the Land a Man of an ill fame who was Out-lawed in Forty Actions and conversed all the day with the Lessee but said not a Word for what cause he came and at the last instant of the day he demanded the Rent the Lessee asked him what authority he had to receive
suspension in Judgment of Law grew after the taking of the particular Estate 1 Inst 298. a. in medio A Rent is granted to B. for the Life of A. the Remainder to the Heirs of the Body of A. this is a good Remainder and yet it must vest upon an instant 7 H. 4. 6. immediately upon the Death of A. who is cestuy que vie the Remainder vests in his Heir See Finch's Law 69. Tenants in Common LEASE for Life Remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. and I. D. who are living their Heirs shall take it in common not Jointly for that they cannot take at the same time for by intendment both Fathers will not die together 18 E. 3. 28. Felonious Taking A. SEEING the Horse of B. in his Pasture and having a mind to steal him comes to the Sheriff and pretending the Horse to be his own obtains him to be delivered unto him by a Replevin yet this is a Felonious and Fraudulent taking for the Replevin was obtained in fraudem Legis 3 Inst 108. 1 Siderf 254. Felony to take his own Goods A MAN delivers Goods to another and afterwards the Bailor privately steals them from the Bailee with an intent to charge him c. this is Felony and in judgment of Law he is said in this case to take the Goods of another the Bailee having Jus possessionis or a special property and the Bailor Jus Proprietatis 3 Inst 110. Keilway 70. Ha. Pl. Cor. 67. One Farr a Solicitor had obtain'd Judgment against the casual Ejector upon which he sued an Hab. fac possessionem and the Sheriff's Bayliffs entred the House with him and broke a Door where certain Goods were and took the Woman to whom they belonged and required special Bail of her for default whereof they carried her to Newgate and then Farr took the Goods which were of a great Value For which being Indicted and it appearing he did all this with intention to take the Goods without any colour of Title for his Client he was found guilty of Felony and tho' he was a Solicitor and had been convicted of Forgery before yet he could not read and so he was hanged 1 Sid. 254. Felony to steal a Winding-Sheet ONE William Haines digged up the several Graves of three Men and one Woman in the Night and took their Winding-Sheets from their Bodies and buried them again 'T was resolved The property of the Sheets remained in the owner scil in him or them who had property therein when the dead Body was wrapped therewith viz the Executors Administrators or other owner of 'em vide 11. H. 4. If Apparel be put upon a Boy it is a gift in Law ' cause the Boy hath capacity to take it but a dead Body being but a lump of Earth hath no capacity Also it is no gift to the Person but bestowed on the Body for the reverence towards it to express the hope of Resurrection Besides one cannot relinquish the Property he hath to his Goods unless they are vested in another Note Haines had his Clergy and escaped death Co. 12. 113. and 3 Inst 110. Woman Bailiff A WOMAN may be sued in Account as Bailiff for she may well discharge the Office of a Bailiff 19 H. 6. 5. b. Felo de se yet the killing involuntary A. GIVES B. such a Stroak as he fells him to the Ground B. draws his Knife and holds it up for his own defence A. in haste meaning to fall upon B. to kill him falls upon B's Knife whereby he is wounded to death he is felo de se for B. did nothing but what was lawful in his own defence 3 Inst 54. Ha. Pl. Cor. 28. and Bac. Elem. 4. So if a Gun be discharged with a murtherous intent at I. S. and the Piece break and strike into the Eye of him that dischargeth it and killeth him he is felo de se and yet his intention was not to hurt himself but in criminalibus sufficit generalis malitia intentionis cum facto paris gradus for if one perswade another to kill himself and is present when he doth so he is a Murtherer But Quaerae If A. lay impoisoned Fruit for a Stranger and his Father or Mother come and eat it Whether this be petty Treason because it is not altogether Crimen paris gradus See Bacon's Elem. 59 60. A Non compos mentis wounds himself mortally and dies Compos ONE during the time that he is Non compos mentis gives himself a mortal Wound but dies not thereof till he has recovered his memory he is not Felo de se because the Stroak which caused his death was given when he was not compos mentis Et Actus non facit Reum nisi mens sit Rea. 3 Inst 54. A Man that is Non compos mentis kills another this is no Felony the same for a Lunatick during his Lunacy But Note He that incites a Madman to kill another is a Principal Murderer A Non compos mentis can't commit Treason THE ancient Law was that if a Mad-man had killed or offered to kill the King it was Treason 4 Rep. 124. Nec veniam laeso numine casus habet Ovid. But now by Stat. 25. E. 3. by force of these Words Fait compasser ou imaginer la mort He that is not Compos Mentis and totally deprived of all compassings and imaginations cannot commit High Treason by compassing c. 3 Inst 4. 6. Where Execution was done upon a Man for the death of a Child the Child being then alive IN the County of Warwick there were two Brethren the one having Issue a Daughter and seized of Lands in Fee devised the government of Her and his Lands until she came to Sixteen Years to his Brother and died The Uncle brought up his Neece very well both at her Book and Needle and she was eight or nine Years old Her Uncle for some offence correcting her she was heard to say Oh good Uncle kill me not after which time she could not be heard of tho' much enquiry made Whereupon the Uncle being suspected of her Murder and the rather because her next Heir was upon Examination 8 Jac. Regis committed to Goal for suspicion of Murder and admonished by the Justices of Assize to find out the Child and so bailed him until the next Assizes Against which time for that he could not find her and fearing what would fall out against him took another Child as like unto her both in Person and Years as he could find and apparelled like the true Child and brought her the next Assizes but upon view and examination she was found not to be the true Child and upon these presumptions he was Indicted found Guilty had Judgment and was Hanged But the truth of the case was The Child being beaten over night the next morning when she should go to School ran away into the next County and being well Educated was received and entertained of a Stranger and when
she was Sixteen Years old at which time she should come to her Land she came to demand it and was directly proved to be the true Child Herein is a double caveat First to Judges that in case of Life they judge not too hastily upon bare presumption Secondly to the innocent Man that he never seek to excuse himself by false or undue means lest thereby offending God he overthrow himself as the Uncle did 3 Inst 232. A Non compos mentis shall not suffer Execution for Felony or Treason c. IF a Man commit Treason or Felony and confesses the same or be thereof convict and after become De non sanae Memoriae he shall not be called to answer Or if after judgment he become De non sanae Memoriae he shan't be executed for it cant be an Example to others 3. Inst 4. In Felony the Will was anciently taken for the Deed. A YOUTH was arraigned for that he would have stollen the Goods of his Master and came to his Master's Bed where he lay asleep and with a Knife attempted with all his force to have cut his Throat and thinking he had indeed done it he fled whereupon the Master cried out and his Neighbours apprehended the Youth and all this Matter being found by special Verdict in the end he was adjudged to be hanged 3 Inst 5. Quia voluntas reputabitur pro facto But Note For a bare compassing or plotting the death of a Man either by Word or Writing he should not have died but there must have been an overt deed tending to the execution of his compassing as in the case aforesaid ibid. If one beat another grievously and leave him for dead and he recover this is not Felony now Words not Treason unless set down in Writing SINCE the Stat. of 25 E. 3. divers latter Acts of Parliament have ordained that compassing by bare Words or sayings should be High Treason but all they are either repealed or expired And it is commonly said That bare Words may make an Heretick but not a Traytor without an overt Act. And the wisdom of the makers of Stat. 25 E. 3. would not make Words only to be Treason seeing such variety amongst the Witnesses are about the same as few of them agree together But if the same be set down in Writing by the Delinquent himself this is a sufficient overt act within this Stat. Note the Act says per overt fait per apertum factum and not per apertum dictum 3 Inst 14. Cardinal Pool altho' a Subject to H. VIII and of the King's Blood being descended from George Duke of Clarence Brother to King Edw. IV. yet in his Book of the Pope's Supremacy written about 27 H. 8. incited Charles the Emperour then preparing against the Turk to bend his Force against his natural Sovereign Lord and Countrey the Writing of which Book was a sufficient overt act within this Statute and to move the Emperor the more he made H. VIII almost as ill as the Turk in these Words In Angliâ sparsum nunc est hoc semen ut vix a Turcico internosci queat idque authoritate unius coaluit ibid. But Words without an overt deed are to be punished in another degree as in High Misprision ibid. which is imprisonment during life forfeiture of all Goods Debts and Duties for ever and the Profits of his Lands during his Life 3 Inst 36. Robbery IF a Theif command one to deliver his Purse who does accordingly and then the Thief finding little in it delivers it back to him this is Robbery If the true Man's Purse be fastened to his Girdle and the Thief cut the Girdle whereby the Purse falls to the Ground this is no taking to make it Robbery for the Thief had never any Possession thereof but if the Thief take up the Purse tho' he let it fall again as in striving or c. it is robbery tho' he never take it up more for he had it once and the continuance of his possession is not required by Law If the true Man seeking to escape for the safeguard of his Money cast it into a Bush which the Thief perceiving takes it this is a taking in Law from the Person because done at one time So if the true Man had let fall his Hat or thrown off his Coat and the same lying in his presence a Thief assault him and take the Hat c. this is Robbery for that which is taken in his presence is in Law taken from his Person If a Thief compel the true Man by fear to swear to fetch him a summ of Money which he does accordingly and the Thief receives it it is Robbery for the Oath and Fear continuing made him bring the Money which amounts to a Taking in Law Note Tho' it be under the value of Twelve Pence that is taken as suppose One Penny or Two Pence it is Robbery but somewhat must be taken for the Assault only to Rob without taking some Money or Goods is no Felony and such Opinions as seem to the contrary were mained by that which then was anciently holden Quod voluntas reputabatur pro facto Nota Taking a Man's Goods out of his Shop before his Face is Robbery as if he had taken it from the Person and it is nothing to the purpose tho' the Thief say I have right to this or This is mine if indeed he has no colour Felonious taking of Goods to the value of 5 s. in the Day time out of any Dwelling-House or out-House tho' no Person be within oust of Clergy per Stat. 39 El. cap 15. See these several Cases in 3 Inst 68 69. and Hales Pl. Cor. tit Robbery Cut Purses their Nature and Punishment BOTH Cut-Purse and Robber take from the Person but the former takes it Clam Secretè without assault or putting in fear and the Robber by violent Assault and putting in fear If one out a Purse with Money in it above Twelve Pence he shall be hanged and the benefit of Clergy is taken from him 3 Inst 68. Give me leave to acquaint you here with an odd accident that happened in Northamptonshire towards the end of the Reign of King James I. out of Wilson's History pag. 279. One Harman a rich Man having some bad Tenants and being informed that one of 'em which owed him Money had furnished himself to go to a Fair walked as by accident to meet him in the way thither when he saw his Tenant he asked him for the Rent the Man willing to dispose of his Money otherwise denied he had any yes I know thou hast Money said Harman calling him by his Name I prithee let me have my Rent and with much importunity the Man pull'd out his Money and gave all or the most part of it to his Landlord This coming to some pragmatical Knowledge the poor Man was advised to indict his Landlord for Robbing him on the High-way which he did and Harman for his sordid