had Issue John his eldest Son and others viz. Christopher Richard c. and being seized of Land in Fee oâ— 100 Marks per annum value his eldest Son being dead and his Grandchild John withâ—n age he gave direction for a Lease to be made of a Faâ—m called Roushal to Christopher during the minority of his Grand-child rendring the antient Rent with power of Revocation and of Lands in Yatesbury to Richard in the same manner and the same time Chrâ—stopher and Richard by the Covin of one Woodruff a Serivener 25 Eliz. drew two Leases to Christopher and Richard for 51 years rendring 4 d. per annum and without any power of Revocation John Shulter the Grandfather being blind with age and Woodruff telling him they were according to his direction And thereupon John Shulter thâ— Grandfather sealed and delivered them And it was resolved by the Lord Ellesmere Chancellor and two Chief Justies That the said Indentures could not bind the said John Shulter because he was blind and the effect was declared to him other than in truth it was Iâ— fully agreed with Mansers Case in the second part of my Reports fol. 4. Mich. 9 Jacobi Regis Sir Anthony Ashley's Case The Case was this Sir James Creyton had bought a pretended Right of and in the Mannor of â—yddy and Millisent and divers oâ—her Lands of which Sir Anthony had long possession Upon which divers Motions were made concerning Fines acknowledged to be staid c. in the Common-Bench and Sir James not prevailing in it entred into a wicked Conspiracy with several other Defendants in the Cause to accuse the said Sir Anthony of some Capital Crimes whereby he should forfeit all his Lands Goods and Chattels which they should share amongst them and in the end Henry Smith formerly a Servant to Sir Anthony was suborned to accuse the said Sir Anthony of the Muâ—ther of William Rice late Husband of Mary Rice one of the Defendants which William was dead 18 years before and Smith was to have 500 l. for his pains to have a place procured him in the Kings Guard in Ordinary a Proteâ—tion also from the King against his Creditors and a General Pardon Of all which Smith would have assurance before he would make any Accusation of the said Sir Anthony Whereupon Articles in Writing were drawn ingrossed and sealed between Sir James Creyton of the one part and John Cantrel Servant to Hunnings by Smith's Consent and to his use on the other part By which Sir Jaâ—es Covenanted that the said Cantrel and his Heirs after the Conviction and Attainder of Sir Anthony shall have a sixth part of his Mannors c. In consideration whereof Cantrel Covenanted that he should procure Witnesses to Convict the Plaintiff of Murther or other Capital Crimes c. Which Articles were sealed 16 of Feb. 7 Jac. And for the performance of the said Articles Sir James gave Bond of 8000 l. to Cantrel Within two dayes after Smith counterfeits himself sick and then pretending to disburthen his Conscience reveales the said Murther and accused himself for poysoning the said William Rice by the said Sir Anthonies Command so that he himself was Principal Upon this Sir James procures Mary Rice the Widow of the said William Rice to prefer a Petition to the King importing the Accusation aforesaid Which Petition the King referred to the Chief Justice of the Kings-Bench who after full Examination certified the King that he found a false Conspiracy to indict Sir Anthony without any just ground and certified also the effect of the Articles Upon which the King by Advice of the Privy-Councel thought the matter fit to be sentenced in the Star-Chamber Which in the same Term upon ordinary proceeding was heard by six dayes And it was objected by the Defendants Councel That the Bill upon the said Conspiracy did not lye and that it would be dangerous to maintain it for it will deter men to prosecute against great Offenders whereby they will pass unpunished And by the Law Conspiracy lyes where a man is indicted and legitimo modo acquietus but here he was never indicted c. But to this it was Answered and Resolved by the Lord Chancellor the two Chief Justices and all the Court That in this Case the Bill was maintainable though the Party accused was not indicted and acquitted before as it was Resolved in this Court Hill 8. Jac. in Poulter's Case Besides be Sir Anthony guilty or no the Defendants are punishable for promising Bribes and Rewards to Smith to accuse the Plaintiff and the Articles to share Sir Aâ—thonies Estate after Attainder And there is a great Indignity offered to the King in assuming to Covenant that the King shall protect or pardon or that any man's Estate may be shared before Attainder And it appeared by many Witnesses that William Rice dyed not of any poysoning but of a horrible Disease got by his dissolute life which with Reverence cannot be spoken And in this Case it was Resolved That if Felony be done and one hath suspition upon probable matter that another is guilty of it he may arrest the party so suspected to bring him to Justice But in this Case three things are to be observed 1. That a Felony be done 2. That he that doth arrest hath suspition upon probable cause 3. That he himself who hath the suspition arrest the party Resolved also That if Felony be done and common fame and noise is that one hath committed it this is good cause for him that knowes of it to arrest the party and with this agrees the Book 2 H. 5. 15 16. 15 H. 7. 5. 20 H. 7. 12. 21 H. 7. 28. 7 Ed. 4. 20. 8 Ed. 4. 27. 11 Ed. 4. 4. 6. 17 Ed. 4. 5. 6. 20 Ed. 4 6. B. 7 H. 4. 25. 27 H. 8. 23. 26 H. 8 9. 7 Eliz. Dy. 226. Hill 9 Jac. Regis In this Term the Attorney and Sollicitor consulted with me if at this day upon Conviction of an Heretick before the Ordinary the Writ de Haeretico combunendo lyeth and it seems to be clear that it doth not for the Reasons and Authorities that I have reported Trin. 9 Jacob before But after they consulting with Fleming Chief Justice Tanfield Chief Baron and Williams and Crook And they upon the Report of Dr. Cosins mentioned in my said Report and some Prâ—sidents in Queen Elizabeth's time they certified the King that the said Writ lyeth but that the most sure way was to convict the Heretick before the High Commissioners Pasch 10 Jac. Regis The Lord Vaux his Case In this Term the Lord Vaux was indicted of a Premunire in the Kings-Bench upon the New Statute for refusing the Oath of Allegeance upon his Arraignment he prayed he might be tryed per Pares But iâ— was Resolved That he shall not for that Magna Charta cap. 29. Nec super cum ibimus nec super eum mittemus nisi per legale judicium parium suorum is onely to be
same Term the said Judges of the Kings Bench Barons of the Exchequer and Justice Fenner and Yelverton who were omitted before and We the Justices of the Common-Bench were commanded to attend the Council And being all assembled We of the Common-Pleas were commanded to retire and then the King demanded their Opinions in certain Points touching the High-Commission wherein they unanimously agreeing We viz. Coke Walmesly Warberton and Foster were called before the King Prince and Council where the King declared That hy the Advice of his Council and the Justices of the Kings Bench and Barons he will reform the High-Commission in divers Points which after he will have to be obeyed in all Points Whereupon I said to the King That it was grievous to Us his Majesties Justices of the Bench to be severed from our Brethren but more grievous that they differed from us in Opinion without hearing one another especially since in what we have done in Sir VVilliam Chancys Case aud others the like concerning the Power of the High-Commissioners was done judicially in open Court upon argument at the Bar and Bench. And further I said to the King that when we the Justices of the Common-Pleas see the Commission newly reformed We will as to that which is of Right seek to satisfie the Kings expectation and so We departed c. Trin. 9 Jac. Regis Stockdale's Case in the Court of VVards The King by Letters Patents dated 9. April the ninth year of his Reign did Grant to VVilliam Stockdale in these words Such and so many of the Debts Duties Arrearages and Sums of Money being of Record in our Court of Exchequer Court of Wards Dutchy-Court or within any Court or Courts c. in any year or several years from the last year of the Reign of H. 8. to the 13th year of Our Dear Sister as shall amount to the sum of 1000 l. To have takâ— levy c. the said Debts c. to the said VVilliam Stockdale his Executors c. And in this Case divers Points were resolved 1. That the said Grant of the King is void for â—he incertainty for thereby no Debt in certain can pass As if the King have an 100 Acres of Land in D. and he Grants to a Man 20 Acres of the Lands in D. without describing them by the Rent Occupation or Name c. this Grant is void 2. When the Patentee Claims by force of this word Arreragia It was resolved clearly That he shall not have Arrearages of Rents Reliefs and mean Rates of Lands c. in the Court of Wards c. if the Patent go not further But the Proviso in the end of the Patent viz. Provided that the said VVilliam Stockdale shall take no benefit by any means of Arrearages of any Rents c. untill Sir Patrick Murrey and others be paid the sum of 1000 l. c. hath well explained what Arrearages the King intended But clearly mean Rates are not within the words for they are the Profits of Demesne Land Trin. 9 Jacobi Regis Divers men playing at Bowles at great Marlow in Kent two of them fell out and a third man who had not any quarrel in revenge of his Friend struck the other with a Bowl of which he dyed This was held Manslaughter because it happened upon a suddain motion In the same Term a special Verdict divers years past found in the County of Hertford which was That two Boyes fighting together one was seratched in the Face and bled very much at the Nose and so he run three quarters of a Mile to his Father who seeing his Son so abused he took a Cudgel and run to the place where the other Boy was and stroke him upon the Head upon which he dyed And this was held but Man-slaughter for the Passion of the Father was continued and no time to judge it in Law Malice prepense And this Case was moved ad mensam c. Mich. 9 Jac. Regis Memorandum upon Thursday in this Term a High Commission in Causes Ecclesiastical was published in the Archbishops great Chamber at Lambeth in which I with the Chief Justice Chief Baron Justice VVilliams Justice Crooke Baron Altham and Baron Bromly were named Commâ—ssioners among all the Lord of the Council divers Bishops Attorney and Sollicitor and divers Deans and Doctors in the Cannon and Civil Laws And I was commanded to sit by force of the said Commission which I refused for three Causes 1. Because neither I nor any of my Brethren of the Common-Pleas were acquainted with it 2. Because I did not know what was contained in the new Commission and no Judge can execute any Commission with a good Conscience without knowledg for Tantum sibi est permissum quantum est Commissum 3. That there was not any necessity of my sitting who understood nothing of it so long as the other Judges whose advise had been had in this new Commission were there 4. That I have endeavoured to inform my self of it by a Copy from the Rolls but it was not enrolled 5. None can sit by force of any Commission till he hath taken the Oath of Supremacy according to 1 Eliz. and if I may hear the Commission read and have a Copy to advise upon I will either sit or shew cause to the contrary The Lord Treasurer perswaded me to siâ— but I utterly refused it and the rest seemed to incline Then the Commission was openly read containing divers Points against the Laws and Statutes of England At hearing of which all the Judges rejoyced they sate not by it Then the Archbishop made an Oration during all which as the reading of the Commission I stood and would not sit and so by my Example did the rest of the Judges And so the Archbishop appointed the great Chamber at Lambeth in Winter and the Hall in Summer and every Thursday in the Term at two a clock Afnoon and in the Forenoon one Sermon Mich. 9 Jacob. Regis In this Term the Issue in an Information upon the 〈◊〉 2 H. 6. 15. was tryed at the Bar and upon Evidencâ— upon the words of the Statute which are That evâ—â—y person that sets or fastens in the Thames any Nets or Enâ—iâ—â—s called Trincks or any other Nâ—ts to any â—â—sts c. to stand continually day and night forfeits to â—he King 100 s. for every time c. And the Defendants having set and fastned Nets called Trincks in the Thames c. to Boats day and night as long as the Tide served and nor continually The Question was If this was within the Statute and it was clearly Resolved That it was within the Statute for the Nets called Trinks cannot stand longer than the Tyde serve and for this the word continually shall be taken for so long as they may stand to take Fish for lex non intendit aliquid impossibile Mich. 9 Jacob. Regis Shulters Case in the Star-Chamber The Case was such John Shulter of Wisbich of the age of 115 years
positivi Juris est And he holds that a Portion is due by the Law of Nature which is the Law of God but it pertains to the Law of Man to assign Hane vâ—l illam portionem And saith further That Tythes may be exchanged into Lands Annuity or Rent c. And also that in Italy and other the East-Countries they pay not Tythes but a certain Portion according to the Custom And forasmuch as the Tenth Part is now due Ex Institutione Ecclâ—â—â—ae that is by their Canons and it appears by 25 H. 8. cap. 19. That all Canons c. made against the King's Prerogative c. are void and that Law was but Declaratory for no Statute or Custome of the Realm can be abrogated by any Cannon c. and that well appeareth by 10 H. 7. fol. 17. cap. 18. The second Point which agrees with the Law at this day which was adjudged in the said Record 25 H. 3. is That the Limits and Bounds of Towns and Parishes shall be trayed by the Common-Law and not by the Spirituall Court And in this the Law hath great Reason for thereupon depends the Title of Inheritance of the Layfee whereof the Tythes were demanded for Fines and Recoveries are the common Assurances of Lay-Inheritances and if the Spiritual Court should try the Bounds of Towns if they determine that my Land lyeth in another Town than is contained in my Fine Recovery or other Assurance I am in danger to lose my Inheritance and therewith agrees 39 Ed. 3. 29. 5 H. 5. 10. 32 Ed. 4. Consultation 3 Ed. 4. 14. 19 H. 6. 20. 50 Ed. 3. 20. and many other Presidents to this day And Note There is a Rule in Law that when the Right of Tythes shall be tryed in the Spiritual Court and the Spiritual Court hath Jurisdiction of the same that our Courts shall be oâ—sted of the Jurisdiction 35 H. 6. 47. 38 H. 6. 21. 2 Ed. 4. 15. 22 Ed. 4. 13. 38 Ed. 3. 36. 14 H. 7. 17. 13 H. 2. Jurisâ— 19 and when not ousted 12 H. 2. Jurisdiction 17. 13 â— 2. ibid. 19. 7 H. 4. 34. 14 H. 4. 17. 38 Ed. 3. 56. 42 Ed 3. 12. And the Causes why the Judges of the Common-Law would not permit the Ecclesiastical Judges to try Modum Decimandi being pleaded in their Court is because that if the Recompence which is to be given to the Parson in satisfaction of his Tythes doth not amount to the value of his Tythes in kind they would overthrow the same And that appears by Linwood among the Constitutions Simonis Mepham tit de Decimis cap. Quoniam propter fol. 139. b. verbo Consuetudines And that is the true Reason and therefore a Prohibition lyes and therewith agrees 8 Ed. 4. 14. and the other Books aforesaid and infinite Presidents See 7 Ed. 6. Dyer 79. and 18 Eliz. Dyer 349. the Opinion of all the Justices Mich. 6 Jacobi Regis In the Exchequer Baron and Boyse Case In the Case between Baron and Boys in Information upon the Stat. 5 Ed. 6. cap. 14. of Ingrossers after Verdict it was found for the Informer that the Defendant had ingrossed Apples against the said Act. The Barons held clearly that Apples were not within the Act and gave Judgment against the Informer upon the matter apparent to them and caused the same to be entred in the Margin of the Record where the Judgment was given The Informer brought a Writ of Errour in the Exchequer Chamber and the onely Question was Whether Apples were within the said Act. The Letter of which is viz. That whatsoever person c. shall ingross or get into his or her hands by buyiâ—â— c. any Corn growing or other Corn or Grain Butter Cheese Fish or other dead Victuall c. to sell the same again shall be accepted c. an unlawsul Ingrosser And though the Sâ—at 2 Ed. 6. 6. 15. numbreth Butchers Brewers Bakers Cooks Coster Mongers and Fruiterers as Victuallers yet Apples are not dead Victuals within the 5 Ed. 6. there being no Provisoe for Coster-mongers and Fruiterers in the said Act as there are for Buyers and Sellers of Corn and other Victualâ— Also ever since the Act they have bought Apples by Ingross and sold them again and yet no Information was ever before this for the same being for Delicacy more than necessary Food But the Stat. 5 Ed. 6. is intended of things necessary for sustenance of man where the Statute of 2 Edward the 6. 15. made against Conspiracies to enhance the Prices was done by express words to extend it to things which are more of pleasure than profit But this was not resolved by the Justices because the Information was conceived upon that Branch of the Statute concerning Ingrossers Hill 27 Eliz. in Chancery Hill 27 Eliz. In Chancery the Case was thus Ninian Menvil seized of certain Lands in Fee took a Wife and levyed a Fine of the said Lands with Proclamations and afterwards was indicted and outlawed of High-Treason and dyed The Conusees convey the Land to the Queen who is now seized The five years pass after the Husband's death the Daughters and Heirs of the said Ninian in a Writ of Errour in the Kings-Bench reverse the said Attainder M. 26 and 27 Eliz. and thereupon the Wife sues to the Queen by Petition containing all the special matter Which Petition being indorsed by the Queen Fait droit aux Parties c. the same was sent into Chancery as the manner is And in this Case divers Objections were made against the Demandant 1. That the Fine with Proclamations should bar the Wife of Dower and the Attainder of her Husband should not help her for as long as that remained in force the same was a Bar also of her Dower But admit the Attainder of the Husband shall avail the Wife the same being reversed by a Writ of Errour and so in Judgment of Law as if it had never been and against which a man might plead there is no such Record agreeing with the Book 4 H. 7. 11. and the Case in 4 H. 7. 10. b. is A. seized of Land in Fee was Attaint of Hâ—gh-Treason The King grants the Land to B. and afterwards A. committed Trespass upon the Land and after by Paâ—l A. was restored and the Attainder void This shall be as auciplable and ample to A. as if no Attainder had been Afterwards B. brinâ—s Trespass for the Trespass Mesne and it was adjudged 10 H. 7. f. 22. b. that the Action of Trespass was not maintainable because the Attainder was annulled ab initio 2. It was objected That the Wife could not have a Petition because there was not any Officâ— by which her Title of Dower was sound viz. her Marriage her Husbands Seizin and Death for it was said that though he was marryed yet if her Husband was not seized after the Age that she is Dowable she shall not have Dower And the Title of him that sueth by Petition ought to be
this was done upon the Motion of Haughton Sergeant Mich. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards Samme's Case John Samme's being seized of Grany Mead by Copy of Court-Roll of the Mannor of Tellesham the Great of which Sir Thomas Beckingham c. and held the same of the King by Knights Service in capite Sir Thomas by Deed indented dated 22 Decemb. 1 Jacobi between him of the one part and John Sammes and George Sammes Son and Heir of John on the other part did bargain sell enfeoffe c. to John Sammes the said Mead callâ—d Grany Mead to hold to the said John Sammes and George Sams and their Heirs and Assigns to the onely use of the said John and George and their Heirs and Assigns for ever and Sir Thomas by the same Indenture covenants to make further Assurance to the said John and George c. and Livery and Seizin was deliver'd accordingly John Sammes the Father dyeth George Sammes his Son and Heir within Age the Question was Whether Geo. Sammes should be in Ward to the King or no And in this Case three Points were Resolved 1. Forasmuch as George was not named in the Premisses he cannot take by the Habendum and the Livery according to the Indenture gives nothing to George it being to him as void but though the Feoffment be good onely to John and his Heirs yet the use limited to John and George and their Heirs is good 2. If the Estate had been conveyed to John and his Heirs by the Release c. as it may well be to a Tenant by Copy of Court Roll the use limited to them is good 3. But the third was of greater doubt If in this Case the Father and Son were Joint-Tenants or Tenants in common And it was Resolved That they were Joint-Tenants and that the Son in the Case at Bar should have the said Grange by the Survivor for if at the Common-Law A. had been enfeoffed to the use of him B. and their Heirs though that he was onely seized of the Land the use was jointly to A. and B. for a use shall not be suspended or extinct by a sole Seizin or joint Seizin of the Land and therefore if A. and B. be enfeoffed to the use of A. and his Heirs And A. dyeth the entire use shall descend to his Heirs as appears 13 H. 7. 6. in Stoner's Case and by the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 10. Of Uses And when it was said that the Estate of the Land which the Father hath in it as to the moiety of the use which he himself hath shall not be devested out of him To that it was Answered and Resolved That that shall well be for if a man make a Feoffment in Fee to one to the use of him and the Heirs of his body in this Case for the benefit of the Issue the Statute of Uses devests the Estate vested in him by Common-Law and executes the same in himself by force of the Statute And it is to be known that an Use of Land which is but a pernency of Profits is no new thing but part of that which the Owner of the Land had and therefore if Tenant in Borough-English or a man seized on the part of his Mother make a Feoffment to another without consideration the younger Son in the one case and the Heir on the part of the Mother on the other shall have the use as they should have the Land it self if no Feoffment had been made as it is holden 5 E. 4. 7. See 4 and 5 P. and M. Dyer 163. See Fenwick and Milford's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. So in 28 H. 8. Dyer 11. the Lord Rosses Case 13 H. 7. 6. by Butler So in the Case at Bar the Use limited to the Feoffee and another is not any new thing but the pernancy of the old profits of the Land which may well be limited to the Feoffee and another jointly But if the use had been onely limited to the Feoffee and his Heirs there because there is not any Limitation to anothers person nec in praesenti nec in futuro he shall be in by force of the Feoffment And it was Resolved That Joint-Tenants might be seized to an use though they come to it at several times as if a man make a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and to such a Woman which he shall after marry for term of their lives or in tail or in fee in this Case if he marry a Wife after she shall take jointly with him though they take the use at several times See 17 Eliz. Dyer 340. but otherwise it is of Estates which pass by the Common-Law as 24 Ed. 3. Joynder in Action 10. If a Grant be made by Deed to one man for life the remainder to the right Heirs of A. and B. in Fee and A. hath Issue and dyeth and afterwards B. hath Issue and dyeth and then Tenant for Life dyeth in that case the Heirs of A. and B. are not Joynt-Tenants because by the death of A. the remainder as to one moiety vested in his Heir and by the death of B. the other moiety vested in his Heir at several times And upon the whole matter it was Resolved That because in the principal Use the Father and Son were Joint-Tenants by the Original Purchase that the Sonne having the Land by Survivor should not be in Ward and accordingly it was so Decreed Pasch 39 Eliz. Rot. 233. In the Kings-Bench Collins and Harding's Case The Case was A man seized of Lands in Fee and also of Lands by Copy of Court-Roll in Fee according to the Custom of the Mannor made one intire Demise of the Lands in Fee and of the Lands holden by Copy according to the Custom to Harding for years rendring one intire Rent and afterwards the Lessor surrendred the Copy-hold Land to the use of Collins and his Heirs and at another time granted by Deed the Reversion of the Free-hold Lands to Collins in Fee and Harding attorned and afterwards for the Rent behind Collins brought an Action of Debt for the whole Rent And it was objected That the reservation of the Rent was an entire Contract and by the Act of the Lessee the same cannot be apportionâ—d and therefore if one dâ—mise 3 Acres rendring 3 s. Rent and afterwards bargains and sells the reversion 〈◊〉 one Acre the whole Rent is gone because the Contract is entire c. Also the Lessee by that shall be subject to two Fealâ—â—es where he was subject but to one before To these Points it was answered and Resolved That the Contract was not entire but that the same by Act of the Lessor and Consent of the Lessee might be divided and severed for the Rent is incident to the Reversion and the Reversion is severable and by consequence the Rent also for accessorium sequitur naturam suâ— principâ—lis And as to the two Fealties to that the Lessee shall be subject though the Rent
though the King cannot take the Trees of his Subject growing upon his Freehold nor Gravel in the Inheritance of his Subject for reparation of his houses as 11 H. 4. 28. Yet 't is resolved that he may dig for Saltpeter because the Kings Ministers who dig for the same are bound to leave the Inheritance of the Subject in as good plight as they found it which they could not do if they should cut the Timber growing which would be to the Subjects disinherison The Case of Gravel for reparation of the Kings Houses may not be compared to this for Saltpeter extends to the defence of the whole Realm not so the reparation on of the Kings Houses 13 H. 4. The King may charge for Murage of a Town And so for Portage but not for making a Wall about his own House When Enemies invade the Realm it is lawful to come upon any Land adjoyning to the invaded Coast to make Trenches or Bulworks 8 Ed. 4. 23. And in such Cases they may dig for Gravel 3 H. 8. fo 15. And in this Case the Rule is true Princeps et republica ex justa causa possunt rem mean auferre 3. Resolved That the taking of Saltpeter is a purveyance of it for the making of Gunpowder for the necessary defence of the Realm And therefore is an incident inseparable from the Crown and ought to be taken onely by the Kings Ministers and not converted to any other use then the defence of the Realm And 't is not like Silver or Gold Mines for there the King hath Interest in the Mettall and may dig Quia quando lex alicui concedit aliquid Concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest Vide Plow Com. in le Case de Mynes so the King may dig for Treasure Trove eadem ratione 4. The Ministers of the King cannot undermine weaken or impair any the Walls of Foundations of any Houses or Buildings whatsoever Nor dig in the Flore of a Mansion-house which serves for the Habitation of a man because it is his place of refuge and defence There are two notable Presidents that the King by his Prerogative had power to prohibit Depopulation and provide for Habitation The one in the 43 Ed. 3. Rot. claus in turri num 23. provillade Southampton The other An. 21. R. 2. in dorso claus par 1. N. 15. Neither may the Kings Ministers dig in any Barn-floore used for Corn Hay c. but they may dig in the floores of Stables and Oxehouses so that they leave room for the Horses and other Cattel of the Owner and put it in convenient time into as good plight as they found it Also they may dig in Cellars and Vaults and and Mud-walls being not Walls of a Mansion-house and in the ruines and decayes of any Houses or Buildings 5. They ought to make the places where they dig as commodious to the Owner as before 6. They may work in the possession of the Subject but betwixt Sun-rising and Sun setting 7. They may not place any Furnace or other Vessels in any Subjects House without consent nor so near it as to prejudice the same 8. They are not to stay over long in a place nor to return thither again in a long time 9. Resolved That the owner of the Land cannot be restrained from digging and making Saltpeter for the King hath no Interest in it the property is in the owner of the Land Before the 31 Eliz. no King or Queen of this Realm granted any Licence for taking Saltpeter but in that 31 year there were two the one to George Constable Esque and the other generall to George Evelin Richard Hills and John Evelin And after Scilicet 18 Octob. 2. Jacob. Commission was granted to Evelin and others to take Saltpeter c. So that there were but three Licences ever made Case of Treason In this very Term one George Leake a Chancery Clark had upon an ordinary piece of Parchment by great deceit fixed with a kind of Glew another Parchment so thin that it appear but one piece And upon the thin piece he writ by good Warrant a Li ense which brought to the Chancellor was sealed with the Great Seal After the George took the thin piece upon which the writing was from the other to which the Seal was fixed and then all was blank with the Great Seal annext upon which blank the said George writ a Grant of the King of certain Lands and what Offence this was was the Question And after a long debate upon the 25 Ed. 3. 2 H. 4. 25. Stamford l. 1. fol. 3. 40 Ass pla 33. 37 H. 8. Title Treason 2 H. 4. Claus 42 Ed. 3. memb 8. in dorso where the Case was That King Richard the First by his Charter granted divers Lands and Liberties Abbati de Bruera in which the Abbot rased out this word Fittetrida and instead of it writ est leigh and upon shewing it obtained a confirmation of it from King Ed. 3. And an allowance of it in Banco R. And for this Offence the Abbot was called before the King and Council in the Star-Chamber where the Abbot being Convict it was part of the Sentence That the Charter confirmation and allowance of it should be brought in to be cancelled where note 1. The Antiquity of the Star-Chamber being then a Court. 2. That the rasure was not any Counterfeit of the Great Seal for if the Offence had been High Treason it should not have been determined before the King and Council 3. That Spiritual Persons were then punishable before Temporal Judges 4. That if there be a rasure of a Deed between Subject and Subject in a place material all the Deed becomes naught so if a Patentee rase his Heirs Patents in a place material Thence concluded That if the rasing of a word in the Kings Patent be not Treason then the rasing of two or three or all the words of the Patent and writing a new Grant is not Treason By the Statute of the 25 Ed. 3. it is provided That because many other Cases of like Treason might happen in time to come which men cannot think or declare at present That if another Case suffered Treason and not specified in the Act shall come before any of the Justices they shall stay without going to Judgment of Treason untill the Case be shewen before the King in Parliament 1. That though a Case happen like to the Cases of Treason mentioned in the said Act yet that the Judges ought not to judge it Treason but it ought to be declared in Parliament 2. That when a particular Case was adjudged High Treason as the Case of murdring an Embassador of a King Et Legatos violare contra jus Gentium est Afterwards George Leake upon Examination before the chief Justice of England made a clear Confession of of all the manner and circumstances of the Fact as aforesaid whereupon Two Questions were moved 1. Whether this Offence
were High Treason or no And in this the Justices were divided my self and divers others holding That this Act was not Treason but the chief Justice and divers others were against us 2. If it be High Treason then whether he may be indicted generally for the Counterfeiting of the Great Seal or else the special Fact must be expressed By reason of diversity of Opinions Râ—spectuatur vid. Fleta lib. 1. cap. 22. Item crimen falsi dicitur cum quis illicitus cui non fuerit ad haec data authoritas de sigillo Regis rapto vel invento et brevia Carteria vide le Attainder de Elizabeth Barton Edw. Bocking by Parliament c. 25. H. 8. c. 12. Hill 24 Eliz. In the Exchequer A Merchant brought eighty weigh of Bay-Salt by Sea to a Haven in England and out of the Ship sold 20 weighs and discharged them to another Ship wherein they were transported being never actually put on shore and for the residue viz. 60 weigh he agreed for the Custome and put them upon Land and now the dâ—nbt was 1 Eliz. cap. 12. for the words of the Statute concerning Exportation sent from the Wharfe Key or other place on the Land and concerning Importation taken up discharge and lay on Land If in this Case the said 20 weighs which alwayes were waterborn and never touched the Land ought to pay Custome as well inwards as outwards And it was Resolved That in both the Cases Custome ought to be paid and forasmuch as no Custome was paid It was Resolved That the Goods were forfeited Note No Act of Parliament can bind the King from any Prerogative which is sole and inseperable to his person but that he may dispence with it by a non obstante as his Soveraign Power of Commandines his Subjects to serve him for the publick Weal See 23 H. 6. cap. 8. 2 H. 7. 66. 13 R. 2. Parl. 2. cap. 1. See also 4 H. 4. cap. 31. Coke l. 2. fol. 69. But in things which are not incident solely and inseparably to the person of the King but belongs to every Subject and may be severed there an Act of Parliament may absolutely bind the King As if an Act of Parliament do disable any Subjects of the King to take any Land of his Grant or any of his Subjects as Bishops as it is done by the Statute 1 Jac. cap. 3. to Grant to the King this is good for to grant or take Lands or Tenements is common to every Subject Hill 4. Jac. Regis Care of High Commissioners If they have Power to Imprison Mich. 4 Jac. post prand There was moved a Question amongst the Judges and Sergeants at Sergeants Inn If the High Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes may by force of their Commission imprison any man or not First Resolved by all That before the Statute of the first of Eliz. the King might have granted a Commission to hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes yet the Commissioners ought to proceed according to the Ecclesiastical Law allowed within the Realm Vide Caudrye's Case 5 Report Then all the Question rests upon the Act 1 Eliz. which hath three Branches 1. Such Commissioners have power to exercise Jurisdiction Spiritual and Ecclesiastical 2. By force of Letters-Patents they have power to visit reform c. all Heresies c. which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power c. can or lawfully may be Reformed c. So that these Branches limit the Jurisdiction 3. That after such Commission delivered to them shall have power by vertue of this Act and the said Letters-Patents to exercise c. all the Premisses c. according to the Tenor c. This Branch gives them Power to execute their Commission But it was Objected That this Branch gave no power to the Queen to alter the Proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Law or to prescribe what manner of proceedings or punishment concerning the Lands Goods or Bodies of the Subject And this appears by the Title of the Act Restoring the intent being to make Restitution not any Innovation Vide a notable Case adjudged in this Point Hill 42. El. â—o 389. as to Imprisonment Smith's Case for at the last Consultation was granted And at last by the better Opinion as to things committed to them by Commission they may put Fine and Imprisonment By the 3 H. 7. cap. 14. 't is Ordained where Women as well Maids as Widows and Wives having substance c. for the lucre of such substance be taken by Misdoers contrary to their Wills and after marryed c. or defiled That what person henceforth so taketh c. against her will c. such taking c. to be Felony And the Misdâ—ers c. to be reputed as Felons Upon this great question was moved 4 5 Phil. Mar. in the Star-Chamber If the Eloym ent against her without Mariage or Carnal Copulation be Felony or no And the Opinion of Brook and some other of the Justices was that It was Felony But Sanders Lord Chief Justice was against it and afterwards as Peryam chief Baron did Report It was Resolved by all the Justices That such Eloynment onely is not Felony by the intent of the Statute without Marriage or Carnal Copulation Note By the express purview of the Act the Accessary both before and after is made Principal Pasch 4 Jac. Regis By the Commandement of the King it was referred to Popham Chief Baron and my self what Right the Queen which now is hath and in what Cases to a Right claim'd by her called Aurum Reginae that is to say Pro centum marcis argenti una marca Auri solvendum per illum qui se sponte obligat And upon consideration had thereof and view of Records and Presidents viz. Librum Rubrum in Scaccario fol. 56. de Auro Reginae where it is said that this is to be taken De iis qui sponte se obligant Regi c. which is the Foundation of this Claim And of a Record in the Tower 52 H. 3. And a Record in the Exchequer 4 Ed. 1. And a Record in the Exchequer Hill 12 Ed. 3. And in the Tower in the same year in Rot. Claus And of Acts of Parliament 15 Ed. 3. cap. 6. and 31 Ed. 3. cap. 13. and 13 R. 2. in Turri And divers other Presidents and Process out of the Exchequer in the time of R. 2. H. 4. and other Kings till H. 7. It was Resolved that the Queen hath Right to it but with these Limitations 1. It ought to be sponte by the Subject sine coactione And for this all Fines upon Judgments or by Offer or Fine for Alienation or any other Case where the Subject doth it not sponte sine aliqui coactione That the King of Right ought to have it there the Queen shall have nothing 2. It ought to be sponte sine consideration alicujus reventionis seu interesse That the King hath in esse in jure Coronae As upon Sale
caetero 2. Obâ—enta in contrarium consuetudine non obstante And this agrees with the Register and Treaties de Regia prohibitione and the other Authorities And it appears in Linwood cap. jurejurandi fol. 8. 9. That Boniface Archbishop of Canterbury 1272. 57 H. 3. made this Cannon Statuimus quod Laici de subditorum peccatis c. per praelatos judices Ecclesiaslicos inquiratur ad praestandum de veritate dicenda Sa ramentum per excommunicationis sententias si opusfuerit compellantur impedientes vero ne hujusmodi juramentum praestetur per interdict est excommunicatio c. In which Cannon it is to be noted That it extends to Lay-People And note Linwood saith cap. Jurejurandi fol. 6. litera E. Hic dicitur causa editionis hujus c. Praelati c. procedebant ad inquirendum de criminibus c. Laici nota hic suffult potestate dominorum in hujusmodi inquisitionibus noluerint jurare de veritate dicenda 1. Note Why Lay-people refused to be examined for Crimes and Excess 2. The Judges of the Common-Law by their Prohibition did interdict c. as appears by their Register and other Authorities in Ed. 1. time c. 3. That where by the Law they may examine Lay-people upon Oath in causis matrimonialibus testamentariis Here Boniface makes the Canon to extend to Peccata excessus which Canon was utterly against the Law and Custom of England See another at the same time in Linwood Cap. de Benef. fo 231. And this is declared by Act of Parliament made 9 Ed. 2. called Articuli Cleri si Praelati imponant poenam pecuniariam alicui pro peccato c. Regis prohibitio locum habet Trin. 5 Jac. Regis Case concerning Pardons The Law so regards the Weal-publike that though the King shall have the Suit solely in his Name for the redress of it yet by his Pardon he cannot discharge the Offender because it is not onely in prejudice of the King but in damage of the Subjects If a man ought to repair a Bridge and for default of Reparation it fall to decay in this Case the Suit ought to be in the King's Name and he is sole Party to it but for the benefit of his Subjects And if the King pardon it yet the Offence remains but peradventure the Pardon shall discharge the Fine for the time past And with this agrees 37 H. 6. 4. 6 Plow Con. in Nichol's Case 487. A multo fortiori in case of Depopulation for this is not onely an Offenc against the King but against all the Realm for by this the Realm is infeebled and therefore Depopulation and Diminution of Subjects is a greater Nusance than the hindrance of Subjects in their good and easie passage by any Bridge or High-way And for this notwithstanding the King's Pardon he shall be bound to re-edifie the Houses of Husbandry which he depopulated and though for the time before the Pardon perchance he shall not be Fined yet without doubt he shall for the time after For the Offence it self cannot be pardoned as in Case of a Bridge or High-way because it is malum in se But this continues as to the Fine and Imprisonment at all times after the Pardon But the Penalty inslâ—cted by the Statute may be discharged Quia prohibitum Vide 3 Ed. 3. Tit. Ass 443. But when the King chargeth his Subjects for the making of a Bridge or Cawsie or Wall c. there the King may discharge the Pontage Murage c. Note If one be bound to the King in a Recognizance to keep the Peace in this Case the King before the Peace broken cannot pardon and release the Recognizance as 't is agreed 11 H. 4. 43. 37 H. 6. 4. 1 H. 7. 10. because it is made for the Safety of the King's Subjects Note No Licence can be made to do any thing that is Malum in se but Malum prohibitum 11 H. 7. 11. 3 H. 7. 39 H. 6. 39. Trin. 5 Jacobi Regis Case of Commissions Note Commissions in English under the Great Seal were directed to divers Commissioners in the Counties of Bedford â—ucks Huntington Northampton Leicester and Warwick to inquire of divers Articles annexed which were also in English to inquire of depopulation of Houses converting Arable Land into Pasture c. the Commissioners onely to have power to enquire not to hear and determine By colour whereof many Presentments wiere taken in English and returned into the Chancery and after viz. Trin. 5 Jac. It was Resolved by the two Chief Justices Walmesly Fenner Yelverton Williams Snig Althum and Foster that the said Commissions were against Law for three Reasons 1. Because they were in English 2. Because the Offences inquirable were not certain in the Commission but in a Scâ—edule annexed 3. Because that it was onely to enquire which is against Law for so a man may be unjustly accused or defamed and shall have no Remedy nor Traverse to it for it is not within the Statute of the 5 Eliz. At Common-Law Assizes were not taken but before Justices in Eyre who sit virtute brevis every seventh year Vid. Britton fo 1. and Bracton lib. 5. and 11. or in the Common-Pleas And because this was a great trouble it was provided by Magna Charta cap. 30. Quod requisitiones de nova disseizina de mort ' d'an cester non capientur nisi in propriis Comitatibus c. And after by the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 30. it was provided Quod assignentur duo Justiciarii jurati coram quibus et non aliis capiantur assiz ad plus ter per annum By which Act justices of Nisi Prius were constituted of other Pleas as well of one Bench as the other Coram quibus c. And by the same Act Justices of Nisi Prius may give Judgment in Assizes of Darreine presentment and quare Impedit Then came the Statute 21 Ed. 3. de flâ—ibus cap. 4. and provided that inquisitioâ—es et recognitiones capiantnr tempore vacationis generally before aliquo Justiciario de utroque Banco coram quibus c. And after by the Statute of York cap. 3. It is provided That in Plea of Land Nisi Prius shall be taken before one of the Justices c. and Cap. 4. That no other Pleas moved by Attachment or Distress shall be taken before any Justice c. By the 14 Ed. 3 cap. 15. Nisi Prius may be taken in any Plea before two so one be Justice of one Bench or Chief Justice or Serjeant sworn By the Statute de finibus cap. 3. Justiciarii ad assizas capiend assignati deliberant Gaolas in Com. illis c. vide de recitat del Stat. 28 Ed. 1. de appellat which recites the Statute defâ—lonia Felony formerly included Trespass vide Stamf. 57. 3 H. 3. cap. 7. gives power to Justices of Assize to hear and determine Treason concerning false Money 14 H. 6. cap. 1. gives
2. Parl. accord 1 R. 3. against Benevolence Vide Claus 4 Ed. 3. n. 22. bis Case of Libells between Edwards and Wooton In Cam. Stellat The Case was That Doctor Wooton writ to Edmunds an infamous malicious scandalous and obscene Letter with his Name subscribed And this he Sealed and directed to his Loving Friend Mr. Edward Speed this and after the said Doctor dispersed to others a great number of Copies of the said Letter And it was Resolved by the Lord Chancellor Egerton the two chief Justices et per totam curiam That this was a subtle and a dangerous kind of Libell For though the writing of a private Letter without other Publicatior the Party to whom it is directed cannot have an Action Sur le Case but where it is published to others ' to the Plaintiffs Scandal Action lyeth The Doctor thought this could not in any manner have been punish't but 't was Resolved That the infamous Letter which in Law is a Libell shall be punished in the Star-Chamber being an Offence to the King and a motive to breach of the Peace And in the Case at Bar the dispersing of Copies of it aggravates the Offence for which also the Party may have an Action Sur le Case Note By the Civil Law a Person disabling himself to bear Office or making a Libell against himself shall be punished And though the Doctor subscribed his Name to the said Letter yet it importing matter Scandalous is in the Law a Libell The Law of the Lydians is That who slanders another shall be let Blood in the Tongue who hears it and ascents to it in the Ear c. Mich. 5 Jac. Regis Wooton and Edwins Case In Replevin the Defendant avowed and the Plaintiff demurred and the Case was thus William Hawes was seized in Fee of a Messuage and 55 Acres of Land five Acres of Meadow and six Acres of Pasture in Formanton in Com. Hereford and 27. Junii 28 H. 8. by Indenture demised the Tenement aforesaid to N. Traheron for 79 years Reddendo inde annuatim praefat Gulielm Hawes et assign suis 26 s. 8 d. at the Feasts of the Annunciation and St. Michael by equal portions And after the Lessor dyed and the Reversion descended to William his Son under whom the said John Edwin Claimed And the sole Point was If the Rent reserved in this Case shall go to the Heir or be determined by the death of the Lessor If the Lessor had reserved the Rent to him without more this shall determine by the death of the Lessor And the addition of the word Assignes shall not enlarge the reservation for the Assignes cannot have the Rent longer than the Lessor himself should have it Vide 18 Ed. 3. tit Ass 86. 10 Ed. 4. 18. 27 H. 8. 19. per Audlâ—y et vide Hâ—ll 33 Eliz. Rot. 1341. In a Replevin enter Richmond and Butcher Butcher avowed for Rent as Heir to his Father upon a Demise made by his Father of certain Lands for 21 years by these words Reddendo proinde durant termin 21 annos praefat Patri executor et assignat suis 10 l. legalis c. ad festa c. And it was adjudged That by this Reservation the Heir should not have the Rent because the Reservation was to the Father and his Executors c. not to his Heirs Mich. 5 Jac. Regis Case concerning Buggary The Letter of the Statute 25 H. 8. cap. 6. If any Person shall commit the detestable sin of Buggary with Mankind or Beast c. it is Felony which Act being Repealed 1 Mar. is revived and made perpetual 5 Eliz. cap. 17. and he lose his Clergy It appears by antient Authorities of the Law That this was Felony but they vary in the punishment For Britton who writ 5 Ed. 1. cap. 17. saith That Sorcerers Sodomers and Hereticks shall be burned F. N. B. 269. agrees with it But Fleta lib. 1. cap. 35. Christiani Apostati c. debent cumburi this agrees with Britton but Pecorantes et Sodomitae terra vivisâ—ffodiantur But in the Mirror of Justice vouched in Plow Com. in Fogosses Case the Crime is more high for there it is called Crimen laesae majestatis a horrible Sin against the King either Celestial or Terrestial in three manners 1. By Heresy 2. By Buggary 3. By Sodomy Note Sodomy is with mankind and is Felony and to make that Offence Opertet rem penetrate et semen naturae emittere et effundere for the Indictment is Contra ordinationem Creatoris et naturae ordinem rem habuit veneream dictumque puerum carnaliter cognovit and so it was held in the Case of Stafford Paederastes â—mator puerorum Vide Rot. Parl. 50 Ed. 3. 58. So in a Rape there must be penetration and emission of Seed Vide Stamf. fol. 44. which Statute makes the Accessary Guilty of Felony West 1. cap. 34. If a Man ravish a Woman 11 H. 4. 18. If one Ayd another in a Rape or be present he is principle in the Buggary Vide Levit. 18. 22. et cap. 10. 13. 1 Cor. 6. Case of Premunire In Doctor Cosines Book intituled An Answer c. and publisht 1584. And a Pamphlet lately publisht by Doctor Ridley they would obtrude upon the World That in regard by the Act 10 Eliz. cap. 1. all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Power within the Realm is annexed to the Crown and the Law thereof is the Kings Ecclesiastical Law That therefore no Premunire lyes against any Spiritual Judge for any cause whatsoever And the Reasons some of their Profession give to confirm it are 1. That when the Statute of Premunire was made the Pope usurped Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction though de jure it belonged to the King But now since the King as well de facto as de jure is Supream Head of all The cause being changed the Law is changed also 2. â—T conclusion of the Writ of Premunire is in Domini Regis contemptum et prejudicium et dictae Coronae et dignitatum suarum Laesionem et exhaeredationem manifestam et contra forman statuti c. which proves the Jurisdictions united to the Crown and what is united to and derived from the Crown cannot be said contra Coronam et dignitatem Regis 3. The High Commission Court is the Kings Court and therefore though it may be said The Consistory Courts are Curiae Episcoporum yet that Court by force of the High Commission is the Kings and so their Proceedingâ— shall not be lyable to the Premunire 4. This new Court is erected by Act of Parliament c. And because the Sâ—atute of R. 2. speaks de curia Romana seu alibi c. This alibi cannot extend to a Court erected by Act of Parliament 10 Eliz. But to these Objections it was answered and resolved by divers Justices in this Term That without Question theâ— Statutes of 27 Ed. 3. 16 R. 2. c. de Premunire are yet in force And all proceedings before any
one Bellingham 2 Jac. in Westminster-Hall Sedentibus Curiis with his Elbow and Shoulder out of malice justled Anthony Dyer of the Temple that he overthrew him and spurned him with his Feet upon the Legs but smote him not in any other manner And yet it was held That his right hand should be cut off c. upon which Bellingham was indicted in Banke le Roy and after got his Pardon A Case was put to all the Justices of England viz. The Bishopricks of Waterford and Lismore originally two Bishopricks by lawful Authority in the time of H. 3. were united but the Chapters yet remain several After which Union the Bishop aliened Lands of the Sea of Waterford and also of the Sea of Lismore with confirmation of the Chapter of Lismore 1. The Question was Whether such Alienations are not voydable by the Successor being with the Confirmations of both the Deans and Chapters 2. The second Question was Whether the Queen might avoid such alienations by seizure or otherwise The Justices demanded a View of the Union to which it was answered That it was not extant then was it Resolved by the Justices That inasmuch as the Usage hath been after the Union that the several Deans and Chapters have severally made Confirmations ut supra it shall be intended that the Union notwithstanding yet for avoiding Confusion and in respect of the remoteness of the Deans and Chapters that Estates made shall be severally confirmed as before the Union and then such Confirmations shall be good for in such Case Modus conventiovincunt Legem 50 Ed. 3. Title Assize Statham Ri. 2. Title Grant 27 H. 8. Dyer 58. 11 Eliz. Dyer 33 H. 8. 2. It was Resolved That upon a lawful Alienation made with Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter no contraformam collationis lyes upon the Statute of Westm â— See my 7th Reports Trin. 8 Jacobi Regis Convocation Case It was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and divers other Justices at a Committee before the Lords of Parliament concerning the Authority of a Convocation 1. That a Convocation cannot assemble without the assent of the King 2. That after their Assembly they cannot confer to Constitute any Cannons without Licence d l Roy. 3. When upon Conference they conclude any Cannons yet they cannot exâ—cute any of them without Royal assent 4. They cannot execute any after Royal assent but with these Limitations 1. That they be not against the Kings Prorogative 2. Nor against the Common Law 3. Nor against Statute Law 4. Nor against any Custom of the Realm And all this appears by 25 H. 8. cap. 19. 19 Ed. 3. Title Quare non admisit 7. 10 H. 7. 17. Merton cap. 9. 2 H. 6. 13. A Convocation may make Constitutions to bind the Spiritualty because they all in person or by representation are present but not the Temporality 21 Ed. 4. 47. The Convocation is Spiritual and so are all their Constitutions Vide the Records in Turri 18 H. 8. 8 Ed. 1. 25 Ed. 1. 11 Ed. 2. 15 Ed. 2. Prohibitio Regis ne Clerus in Congregatione sua c. attemptet contra jus seu Coronam c. by which it appears they can do nothing against the Law of the Land or the Kings Prerogative Case of Piracy Trin. 8 Jacobi Regis In this Term the King referred the Consideration of Letters Patents of the Lord Admiral of England to the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron whether by the said Letters Patents the Goods which Pirates should take from Others by Robbery and Piracy did pass to the Lord Admiral or no. And upon Consideration thereof it appeared to us That he had Bona et Catalla Piratorum and also Bono et Catalla depraedata Goods robbâ—d from others which did not pass for two Causes 1. If the King Grant Bona et Catalla Felonum the Patentee shall have the Goods and Chattels of the Felon himself but not the Goods and Chattels which the Felon stealeth from others 2. The Goods taken from Others the King cannot Grant for it appears by the Statute 27 Ed. 3. cap. 8. St. 2. That the Merchant c. so robbed shall be received to prove that the Goods and Chattels belong to him by his Cockâ—â— or other lawful Proof c. the said Goods shall be delivered without any Suit at Common Law But it was Resolved That till such proof be made the King may seize the Goods for Goods of which the property is unknown the King may seize And if they are bona peritura the King may sell them and upon proof c. restore the value And the Owner is not limited to any time by the Statute 31 H. 6. cap. 4. 2 R. 2. cap. 2. 13 Ed. 4. 9 10. a good resolution of the Justices and the Register 179. F. N. B. 114. when a Subject of the King spoiled beyond Sea shall have a Writ c. for to take Goods within England c. Case of Simony Trin. 8 Jacob. Regis It was agreed ad mensam by all the Justices and Barons in Fleet-street That if the Patron for any Money present any Parson to a Benefice with Cure c. then every such Presentation c. thereupon are void though the Presence be not party not privy to it for the Statute intends to punish such wicked avarice and gives the Presentation to the Queen And this per verba Statuti penned strongly enough against corrupt Patrons Proclamations Mich. 8 Jacobi Regis On Thursday the 20th of Sept. 8 Regis Jacobi I was sent for to attend the Lord Chancellor the Lord Treasurer Lord Privy-Seal and Chancellor of the Dutchy the Attorney Sollicitor and Recorder being present And two Questions were moved to me by the Lord Treasurer 1. If the King by his Proclamation may prohibite new Buildings in and about London 2. If the King may prohibite the making of Starch of Wheat The Treasurer said These were preferred to the King as Grievances and against the Law and Justice To which the King Answered That he will conferr with his Privy-Council and Judges and then he will do them right To which I answered That these Questions being of great Importance I did desire that I might have Conference with my Brethren the Judges To which the Chancellor said Every President had first a Commencement and that he would advise the Judges to maintain the Kings Prerogative and where there was no President to leave it to the King and all concluded it should be necessary to confirm the Kings Prerogative with our Opinions To which I answered True it is every President hath a Commencement but when Authority and President is wanting there needs great Considerations before any Novelty be established For I said The King cannot change any part of the Common-Law nor create any offence by his Proclamation But I desired to Confer with my Brethren for Deliberandum est diu quod Statuendum est semel To which Mr. Sollicitor said Dâ—vers Sentences were given
of the Perjury by all the Lords in the Star-Chamber and it was Resolved by all That it was by the Common-Law punishable before any Statute Hayes Case in Cur-Wardorum By Inquisition in the County of Middlesex Anno 6 Jac. by vertue of a diem clausit extremum after the death of Humphry Willward it was found that the said Humphry died seized of a Messuage and 26 Acres of Land in Stepney and that John Willward was his Heir being 14 years and 9 days old and that the Land was held of the King in capite by Knights Service John Willward died within age and by Inquisition in Middlesex 8 Jun. Anno Jac. by vertue of a Writ of Deveneront after the said John's death it was found that John dyed seized in Ward to the King and that the said Messuage and Lands at the time of the said John's death were holden of the Dean of Pauls as of his Mannor of Shadwel All the mean Rates incurred in John's life-time are paid to the King 1. The Questions are 1. Whether by John's death and finding of the mean Tenure in the Deveneront the fiâ—st Office granted to Points be determined 2. Whether the Tenure found by the first Office may be traversed And as to these Questions it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and chief Baron That where the said John dyed the Office found by force of the Diem clausit extremum after Humphries death whereby the King was entituled to the Guardianship of John hath taken its effect and is executed and does remain as Evidence for the King after Johns death but yet is not traversable for it is traversable during the time it remains in force onely and the Jurors upon the Deveneront after the death of the said John are at liberty to find the certainty of the Tenure and they are not concluded by the first Inquisition and with this agrees 1 H. 4. 68. And this appears by the diversity between the Writ of Diem clausit extremum and the Deveneront which is but in one Point to wit the Diem clausit extremum is general And the Deveneront is not general but does restrain onely the Lands and Tenements quod deveneront c. And thus it was Resolved nono Jacobi in the Court of Wards in the Case of Dune Lewis Award of Capias Uâ—lagatum by Justices of the Peace In this same Term the Opinion of all the Court of Common-Pleus was That if one be out-lawed before Justices of Assize or Justices of Peace upon an Indictment of Felony that they may award a Capias Utlagatum and so was the Opinion of Pâ—riam Chief Baron and all the Court of Exchequer as to Justices of Peace for they that have power to award process of Outlawry have also power to award a Capias utlagatum See 34 H. 8. c. 14. See Lamb. Justice of Peace fol. 503. contra But see 1 Ed. 6. cap. 1. Justices of Peace in case of Profanation of the Sacrament shall award a Capias Utlagatum throughout all England Hersey's Case Star-Chamber John Hersey Gent exhibited his Bill in the Star-chamber against Anthony Barker Knight Thomas Barker Councellor at Law Robert Wright Doctor of Divinity Ravenscroft Clerk and John Hai is and thereby charged the Defendants with forging the Will of one Margery Pain and the Cause came to Hearing ad requisitionem defendentium and upon hearing the Plaintiffs Councel there appeared no Presumption against any of the Defendants but that the Testament was duly proved in the Ecclesiastical Court and upon an Appeal was also affirmed before Commissioners Delegates and Decreed also in Chancery So that it appeared to the Court that the said Bill was preferred of meer malice to slander the Defendants Now because the Defendants had no Remedy at Law for the said Slander and if it should pass unpunished it may encourage men It was Resolved by the Court That by the course of the Court and according to former Presidents the Court may give Damages to the Defendants and so it was done viz. 200 l. to the Doctor of Divinity 200 Marks to the Knight 40 l. to the Clerk 120 l. to the Woman And it was said that Creare ex ihilo quando bonum est est divinum sed creare aliquid ex nihilo quando est malum est diabolicum et plus Maledicite nocâ—nt quam Benedicite docent Hill 2 Jac. Regis Theodore Tomlinson brought an Action of account for Goods against one Philips in the Common Pleas and thereupon Philips sued Tomlinson in the Admiralty supposing the Goods to have been received in Forraign Parts beyond Sea and Tomlinson being committed for refusing to answer upon his Oath to some Interrogatories brought his Habeas Corpus Upon which it was resolved by the Court of Common plea in thrâ—e Points viz. 1. That the Court of Admiralty hath no Cognizance of things done beyond Sea and this appears plainly by the Statute 13 R. 2. cap. 5. and the 19 H 6. fol. 7. 2. That the Proceedings in the Court of Admiralty are according to the Civil Law and therefore the Court is not of Record and so cannot assess a Fine as the Judges of a Court of Record may 3. It doth appear that the Interrogatories were of such things as were within their Jurisdiction and the Parry ought by Law to answer This Case was intended by my Lord Coke to be inserted into his 7th Report but that the King commanded it should not be Printed but the Judges resolved ut supra Corven's Case Right to Sâ—ats in the Church Corven did Libel against Pym for a Seat in a Church in Dâ—vonshire And Pym by Sergeant Hutton moved for a Prohibition upon this Reason that himself is seized of a House in the said Parish and that he and all whose Estates he hath in the House have had a Seat in an Isle of the Church And it was Resolved by the Court that if a Lord of a Mannor or other Person who hath his House and Land in the Parish time out of mind and had a Seat in an Isle of the same Church so that the Isle is proper to his Family and have maintained it at their Charges that if the Bishop would dispossess him he shall have a Prohibition But for a Seat in the Body of the Church iâ— a Question ariseth it is to be decided by the Ordinary because the Freehold is to the Parson and is common to all the Inhabitants And it is to be presumed that the Ordinary who hath Cure of Soules will take Order in such Cases according to right and conveniency and with this agrees 8 H. 7. 12. And the Chief Justice Dame Wick her Case 9 H. 4. 14. which was The Lady brought a Bill in the Kings-Bench against a Parson Quare Tunicam unam vocatam A Coat Armor and Pennons with her Husband Sir Hugh Wick his Arms and a Sword in a Chappel where he was buried and the Parson claimed them as Oblations And it is there
Benevolent Hearts By this means he collected great Sâ—ms of Money but with some grudge 11 H. 7. ca. 20. An Act was made for levying that Benevolence 20 H. 7. A Commission to levy what was granted 11 H. 7. 15 H 8. A Commission under the Great Seal called A Commission of Anticipation 16 H. 8. For Warre with Fraâ—ce a Benevolence levyed with great Curses against the Councel for it was for a sixth part of the value in Money or Plate against the Subjects good-will 26 H. 8. Another Benevolence levyed by Commission against the Subjects Will But if the Subjects will of their free Will give the King any Moneys this is not prohibited by any Stature This is proved by the 11 H. 7. c. 18. Feb. Anno 40 Eliz. Resolved by all the Justices and Barons That a free Grant to the Queen without coertion is lawful and accordingly they granted the Queen Quod not a hene Quia c. Pasch 12 Jac. Regis The Case of Dungannon in Ireland being a New Corporation was thus The King Constituted the Town of Dungannon to be a Free Borough Et ulterius volumus c. quod Inhabitantâ—s Villae praedictae sint unum corpus corporatum per nomen Praepositio 12 Burgensium Communiâ—atis Dungannon c. Et quod ipsi praedicti Praepositi Burgenses successores sui habeant potestaten eligendi duos Burgenses c. ad Parl. c. And the Doubt was If this Grant of Election of Burgesses of Parliament were good because it was granted but to parcel of the body viz. the Provost and Burgesses and not to the Commonalty And the Chief Baron thought this being but a Nomination it was sufficient to make the Provost and Burgesses onely to have it but this was denyed by all Justices and Barons For the power to Elect Burgesses is an Inheritance which the Provost and Burgesses are not capable of and ought to be vested in the entire Corporation And so it was Resolved by all That such a Grant made by the King should be void for the Inhabitants have not Capacity to take an Inheritance as in 15 Ed. 4. to have Common And Littleton saith in his Chapter of Burgage That the Burroughs which send Burgesses to Parliament were the most antient and chief Cities c. So that it shall be intended that at first they were incorporate Also Plus valet saepenumero vulgaris consuetudo quam regalis concessio But it was Resolved by Hâ—bbard Tanfield Altham Wiâ—th Nicols and Haughton that Quod Volumus was a good word of Grant as Pigot was of Opinion 21. Edw. 4. and this shall be implyed a Grant to all the Corporation that the Provost and Burgesses shall Elect c. And regularly when the Grant is indefinite viz. First Concedimus an incertain thing ulterius volumus quod Praepositus Burgenses Successores sui eligerint This shall be within the first Concedimus to all the Body But the Chief Justice of England and Dodderidge thought the contrary Note All the New Corporations were of the same Form and in none of them is any Clause to Elect New Burgesses so that when the modern Burgesses dye the power to Elect Burgesses is gone Mich. 12 Jacobi Regis A Question was moved to the Chief Baron and Justices of Sergeants Inn in Chancery-Lane That if a Felon be convict either by Verdict or Confession if immediatly by his Conviction his Goods and Chattels be forfoited And it was said That if the Felon after Conviction pray his Clergy he then shall clearly forfeit his Goods and Chattels for Quodam modo this is a Flight because refusing the Common-Law he flyes to Priviledge of Holy Church But it was Resolved by the chief Baron and Justices That immediatly by his Conviction his Goods and Chattels are forfeited and the praying of his Clergy is not any Forfeiture and with this agrees Stamf. sol 192. a. and also 1 R. 3. And of the same Opinion was the Chief Justice and Justices of Sergeants Inne in Fleetstreet Vid. Trin. 41 Eliz. 332. Mich. 12 Jacobi Regis Anne Hungate's Case in Cam. Stell In this Term a great Case was heard and determined in the Star-Chamber between Sir Henry Day who dyed pendent the Bill and Anne his Wife and Nicholas Bedingfield Esque and Elizabeth his Wife Plaintiffs And Anne Hungate Widow Sir Robert Winde Henry Branthwait Esque Thomas Townesend Esq Thomas Blomfield Gent. and George Min Gent Defendants The Case was thus Henry Hoogan Esq being seized of the Mannor of Hamonds and of divers Lands of East-Bradenham c. in Norfolk in Fee by Deed enfeoffed them in the use of the said Anne who took Hungate to Husband and had Issue by him a Son and a Daughter and he dyed Anne obtained the Wardship of the Son and after when the Son was of the Age of 21 years wanting onely 6 Weeks by Dedimus potestatem directed to Sir Robert Winâ—e Henry Branthwayt then Feoâ—ary and Thomas Townesend they took Cognizance of a Fine of the said Son being of the Age aforesaid and sick And the Bill charged them all with Practice in procuâ—ing the said Son to acknowledge the said Fine they knowing him under Age and in Wardship as aforesaid but there was no practice used by any of the Defendants but the Son of his own good-will levyed it And by Indâ—nture the use was limited to his Mother the said Anne and her Heirs with power of Revocation by the Son upon tender of 10 s. And this was in consideration that the Mother had paid the Debts of his Father which were very great and had obtained the Wardship of him and to confirm her Joynture And that his Mother if she pleased might give it to his Brother by Hungate who was but of half-bloud And it appeared the Mother knew the Son to be within Age but the Commissionars were ignorant of it nor did they send for the Church-Book in which his Age did appear being in the same Parish And the Plaintiffs Councel prayed that the Defendants should be punished for their Misdemeanour And that the Women Plaintiffs who were Cosins c. Heirs to the said Son of the entire bloud should be dis-inherited by the said Fine To which it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and chief Baron That there was not any Crime punishable by the Law in this Case for the Judges of the Law and of this Court may punish Offences c. but they cannot create Offences nor do as Hannibal did to make his Way over the Alps when he could find none for Judicandum enim legibus ubi non est lex ibi nec est transgressio And therefore if a Fine levyed by an Infant be not Reversed during his Minority 't is unavoidable in Law because the Infants Age is to be tryed Non testium testimonio non juratorum veredicto sed Judicis inspectione solummodo F. N. B. sol 21. And for this it was Resolved by the said
Justices That forasmuch as no Corruption and Circumvention was proved in any of the Parties of which they may be Indicted at the Suit of the King or punished in this Court that the Fine shall stand And it was not apparent to the Commissioners he was within Age seeing he wanted but six Weeks but if they had known it it had been a Misdemeanour in them And for this in this Court Mich. 24. 25 Elliz. 15. Between William Cavendish and Anne his Wife one of the Co-Heirs of Henry Knightly against Robert Worsley and Katharine another Co-Heir and Trafford and others Defendants The Case was That Robert Worsely and Katharine his Wife being within Age acknowledged a Note of a Fine before Trafford and another of the Defendants by Dedimus Potestatem And by the Decree the Commissioners knew Katharine was within Age and therefore every one of them was Fined but the Fine stands Mich. 38 and 39 Eliz. In this Court one Alexander Gilderbrand seized of Lands in Windham in the County of Norfolk in Fee one Hubbard procured one Roger to take upon him the Name of Alexander Gilderbrand who was then beyond Sea to acknowledge a Fine to the said Hubbard of the said Lands and they were Fined in this Court and the Lands ordered to be re-assured to Alexander on pain of a greater Fine But the Fine was not drawn off the File nor Damages awarded to the party grieved Mich. 12 Jac. Regis Mansfield's Case 23 Eliz. In the Court of Wards the Case was this Henry Bushly seized in Fee of Lands in Northmims in the County of Hartford by his Will in writing demised the said Lands to Henry Bushly his Son in Tail the remainder to William Bushly And because his Son was within Age he demised the Education of him to Thomas Harrison whom he made his Executor Afterward it hapned that Henry the Son became a deformed Cripple and proved an Ideot a Nativitate which Ideot by the practice of Nichols and others was ravished from his Guardian and carryed upon mens shoulders to an unknown place and there kept in secret till he had acknowledged a Fine of his Lands to one Bothome before Justice Southcot 9 Eliz. and by Indenture the use of the Fine was declared to be to the use of the Cognizee and his Heirs which Bothome 12 Eliz. conveyd the said Land to one Henry Mansfield And 22 Eliz. the said Henry Bushly the Son was by Inquisition found an Ideot a Nativitate And upon this 33 Eliz. the Court of Wards took order for possession of the Lands And it was moved That though the Fine binds the Ideot yet the Indentures are not sufficient to direct the Uses But it war Resolved That forasmuch as he was enabled by the Fine as to the Principle he shall not be disabled to limit the Uses which are but as accessory The same is the Law of an Infant and a Feme-Court And the said Mansfield brought an Action of Trespass in the Common-Pleas against one Trott Farmer of the said Lands and the Issue was tryed at the Bar and the Deformed Ideot brought out of the Court of Wards to be shewn to the Judges of the Common-Pleas and to the Jurors And the Judges hearing that Mansfields Title was under the Fine levyed by that Ideot the Lord Dyâ—r and Court caused a Juror by consent to be withdrawn and the Lord Dyer said That the Judge who took the Fine was never worthy to take another yet notwithstanding all the Fine stood good Mich. 12 Jac. Regis Warcombe and Carrel's Case 20 Octob. 6 Eliz. In the Star Chamber the Case was Edward Carrel an Apprentice of the Laws for a great sum of money bought the Wardship of Joan the Daughter and Heir of Warcomb in the County of Hereford and marryed her to Edw. Carâ—el his youngest Son And after Hill 5 Eliz. the said Joan fell sick and being of the Age of 19 years and having no Issue Edward her Husband perswaded her to acknowledge a Fine of her Inheritance by which should be conveyed an Estate to the Husband and Wife in Tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Wife and Cognizance was taken by Ded. Potest directed to Sir Thomas Sanders and one Châ—snel of Grays-Inne before Easter divers Judges being here who might have examined her and on Friday in Easter Week she dyed but the Fine l'argent du Reigne was entred as of the last Term viz. Hâ—llary Term 4 days before the Wives death The Original Writ of Covenant bore Test 15 Jan. ret Crastin Pur. and the Ded. Potest 18 Jan. And James Warcombe Cosin and Heir of Joan complained by Bill against Edw. Carrel for getting the said Fine by indirect Practâ—ces and thereupon the Sentence of the Court was as followeth This day a right honourable Assembly being in this Court the matter depending in the same between James Warcombe Esque Plaintiff and Edw. Carrel of London Gent. Defendanâ— as well concerning the validity of a Fine levyed by the said Edward and Joan his wife which â—oan as the Plaintiff alleâ—dges was under age at the time of the Fâ—â—â— levyed and also for certain undue means committed by the said Edw. Carrel in the suing out and getting the said Fine and upon hearing all that could be alleadged on both parts the said Fine was by the Opinion of the whole Conrt adjudged good and effectual in Law And also no fault judged to be in the said Edward Carrel in suing out the said Fine but that the sâ—me was sued out in duâ— form and order of the Laws of this Realmâ— and this is within the Rule Facta tenent multa quae fieri prohibentur And as Carrel was not punished though he knew his Wife within Age so nor Hungate shall be punished though she knew her Son so and the rather by reason of that antient Verse Iâ—ges Communes sinescit Faemina iles M Clericus â—t Cultor Judix sibi parcet et ultor And by Sentence all were dismissed c. Among the Records in â—he Treasury Inter placita c. de Term. Sanct. Mich. 42 Ed. 3. Rot. 27. â— Cornubiâ— Helena filia Hugonis Alloâ— brought an Appeal of Robbery against I awâ—ence Boskosleak Rich. Câ—horta Jo. Gilmin and Joan his Wife and others and the Defendants plead not guilty and were found not guilty Nec unquamse subtraxerunte Iden praedictus Laurentius omnes alii c. cant inde quieti El praedicta Elena pro falso appello suo committitur c. et super hoc praed Laurentius alii petunt juxta forman Stat. quod Juâ—atores inquirant quae damna c. Et super hoc quaesitum est à praefatis Juratoribus c. Quidicunt quod praed Laurentius sustinuit ad valentiam 10 l. c. et sic singulatim de caeteris c. dicunt etiam quod Helena praed non est sufficient c. et quod Johannes Riddel sen Jo. Riddel jun. c. abettaverunt praed
found by Office as appears by the Books 11 H. 4. 52. Ass 31. 30. Ass 28. 46 Ed. 3. bre 618. 9 H. 7. 24. c. 1 As to the first it was Resolved That the Wife should be endowed and that the Fine with Proclamations was not a Bar to her and yet it was Resolved That the Act 4 H. 7. c. 24. shall barre a Woman of her Dower by such a Fine if the Woman bring not her Writ of Dower within five years after the Husbands death as was adjudged Hill 4 H. 8. Rot. 344. in the Common-Pleas and 5 Eliz Dyer 224. For by the Act the Title of Feâ—e-Covert iâ— saved by taking Action in 5 years after she is uncovert c. But it was Râ—solved That the Wife was not to be aâ—dâ—d by that saving for in respect of her Husbands Attainder she had not any Right of Dower at his death nor could sue for the same after his death But it was Resolved That the Wife was to be aided by another former saving in the same Act viz. And saving to all other persons viz. who were not Parties to the Fine such Action Right c. as shall first grow or come c. to them after the Fine ingrossed and Proclamations made by force of any Gift in Tail or other Cause or Matter before the Fine levyed so that they take their Action and pursue their Title within 5 years after such Right come to them c. And in this Case the Action and Right of Dower accrewed to the Wife after the Reversal of the Attainder by reason of a Title of Record before the Fine by reason of the Seizin in Fee had and Marriage made before the Fine levyed according to the meaning of the said Act. And as to the Point of Relation it was Resolved That sometimes by construction of Law a thing shall relate ab initio to some intent and to some not for relatio est fictio Juris to do a thing which was and had essence to be adnulled ab initio betwixt the same Parties to advance a Right but not to advance a Wrong which the Law hates or to defeat Collateral Acts which are lawful and chiefly if they concern Strangers for true it is as hath been said that as to the mean profits the same shall have relation by construction of Law till the time of the first Judgment given and that is to favour Justice and advance his Right that hath Wrong by the Erroneous Judgment But if a Stranger hath done a Trespass upon the Land in the mean time he who recovereth after the Reversal shall have an Action of Trespass against the Trespassors and if the Defendant pleads there is to such Record the Plaintiff shall shew the Special Matter and maintain his Action And for the better apprehending the Law on this Point it is to know That when any man recovers any Possession or Seizin of Land in any Action by Erroneous Judgment and afterwards the Judgment is reversed as is said before and thereupon the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall have a Writ of Restitution and that Writ reciâ—es the first recovery and the Reversal of it in the Writ of Errour is That the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall be restored to his Possession and Seizin Una cum exitibus thereof from the time of the Judgment c. Tibi praecipimus quod cadem A. ad plenariam seizinam tenementor praed c. restitui facias per Sacramentum proborum c. diligâ—nter inquiras ad quantum exitus proficua tenementor illor c. a tempore falsi Judicii c. usque ad Oct. Sanct. Mich. anno c. quo die Judicium illu c. revocat fuit c. et quâ—liter hoc praecept c. in Octâ—b c. By which it appears that the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall have Restitution against him who recovereth of all the mean Profits without any regard by them taken for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Erâ—our cannot have Remedy against a Stranger and therefore the words of the said Writ command the Sheriff to inquire of the Issues and Profits generally c. And therefore the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour after the Reversal shall have any Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean and therewith agreeth Brian Chief Justice 4 H 7. 12. a. See Butler and Baker's Case in the third Part of my Reports good matter concerning Relations So as it was Resolved in the Case at Bar though to some intent the Reversal hath relation yet to bar the Wife of her Dower by fiction of Law by the Fâ—ne with Proclamations and five years past after the Husbands death when in truth she had not cause of Action nor any Title so long as the Attainder stood in force should be to do a Wrong by a fiction in Law and to bar the Wife who was a meer stranger and could have no Relief till the Attainder was reversed As to the other Objection That the Demandant on the Petition ought to have an Office found for hâ—r It was Resolved That it needed not in this Case because the Title of Dower stood with the Queens Title and affirmed it Also in this Case the Queen was not intitled by any Office that the Wife should be driven to traverse it for then she ought to have had an Office But in case of Dower though that Office had been found for the Queen which doth not disaffirm the Title of Dower in such Case the Wife shall have her Petition without Office See Sâ—dlers Case in the Fourth Part of my Reports And the Case put on the other side was utterly denied by the Court for it was Resolved That if a man seized of Lands in Fâ—e take a Wife of eight years of Age and alien his Lands and after the Wife attains to the Age of nine years and afterwards the Husband dyeth that she shall be endowed because the Title of Dower being not consummate till the death of the Husband and there being Marriage Seizin in Fee age of 9 years and the Husbands death for that cause she shall be endowed it being sufficient that the Marriage Seizin and Age happen during the Coverture So if a man seized of Lands in Fee take a Wife and after she elopes from her Husband now she is barrable of her Dower if during the elopement the Husband alien and after the Wife is reconciled she is Dowable So if a man hath Issue by his Wife and the Issue dyeth and afterwards Land discends to the Wife or she purchase Lands in Fee and dyes without other Issue the Husband for the Issue which he had before the Discent or Purchase shall be Tenant by the Courtesie But if a man taketh an Alien to Wife and afterwards he aliens his Lands and after that she is made a Denizen she shall not be endowed for she was not by her Birth capable of Dower but by her Denization it began But
charged and therewith agrees 10 Ed. 3. 28. b. and the Star 22 H. 8. cap. 5. was but an affirmance of the Common-Law in that Point He that hath Toll of Men or Cattel passing over a Bridge ought to repair the same when no other is bound by Law to do it for he hath Toll to that purpose Et quisentit commodam sentire debet onus and with this agrees 14 Ed. 3. Bar. 276. Also a man may be bound to repair a Bridge ratione tenurae of certain Land but a particular person cannot be bound by Prescription for if he have not profit by the same his Ancestors Act shall not bind him But an Abbot or Corporation may be charged by Prescription and may bind their Successors Vide 21 E. 4. 28. 27 Ed. 3. 8. 22 Ass 8. 5 H. 7. 3. Yeaâ— they shall be compelled if time out of mind they have repaired it though of Alms and therewith agrees 10 E. 3. 28. So of a High-way all the Country ought to repair it but some may be bound particularly as in the Case of Bridges As he who hath Land adjoyning ought to scour and cleanse the Ditches next to the way to his Land and therewith agrees the Book 8 H. 7. 5. So of a common River all who have Passage by it ought to scour and cleanse it for it is as a common Street as it is said 17 Assi and 37 Ass 10. Pasch 7 Jacobi Regis Sir William Reades and Booth's Case In the great Case of Forgery in the Star-Chamber between Sir William Read Plaintiff and Roger Booth and Cuthbert Booth and others Defendants the Case was thus Roger Booth 38 Eliz. was Convict in that Court of publishing a Writing under Seal forged in Sir Thomas Greshams Name of a Rent charge of 100 l. out of all his Lands c. to one Markham for 99 years dated 21 year of Queen Elizabeth's Reign knowing it to be forged And afterwards the said Sir William Read exhibited the said Bill against the said Boothes and others for forging another Writing under Seal dated the 20th of Elizabeth in the said Sir Thomas Gresham's Name purporting a Deed of Feoffment of all his Lands except certain to Sir Rowland Heyward and Edward Hoogen and their Heirs in effect to the use of Markham the younger and his Heirs and for publishing the same knowing it to be forged was the Bill exhibited And upon hearing this Cause this Term these Doubts were moved upon the Star 1 Eliz. 1. If one who is Convict of publication of a Deed of eoffment or Rent-charge knowing the same to be forged again at another day forge another Deed of Feoffment or Rent-charge if he be within the Case of Felony within the Aâ—t which Doubt ariseth upon these words est-soons committed again any of the said Offences 2. The second Doubt was If a man commit two Forgeries one in 37 Eliz. the other in 38 Eliz. and he is first convicted of the last if he may now be impeached for the first 3. When Roger Booth was Convict in 38 Eliz. and after is charged with a new Forgery in 37 Eliz. If the Witnesses moving in truth that it was forged after the 〈◊〉 Conviction if the Star-Chamber hath Jurisdiction of 〈◊〉 4. When Cuthbert Booth who was never Convict of Forgery before if in truth the Forgery was done and so proved in 38 Eliz. If he might be convicted upon this Bill because the Forgery is alleadged before it was done 1 2. To the first and second Doubts It was resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron That if one be Convict of Forgery or publishing any Writing concerning Free-hold c. within the first Branch or concerning Interest or Term of Years c. in the second Branch and be convicted if afterwards he offend either against the first Branch or second that the same is Felony As if he forge a Writing concerning an Interest for Years within the second Branch and be convicted and after he forgeth a Charter of Feoffment within the first Branch et e converso that is Felony by express words of the Act. But if one forge a Writing in 37 Eliz and after he forge another in 38 Eliz. yet it is not Felony though he forge many Writings one after another for the Forgery c. which is Felony by the Act ought to be after Conviction or Condemnation of a former Writing 3. As to the third Doubt It was Resolved That the Allegation of the time by the Plaintiff in the Bill shall not alter the Offence but shall give to the Court Jurisdiction But if it appear that the Forgery or Publication was after the Sentence then the Court shall surcease 4. As to the last Point It was Resolved That the time of the Forgery is not material if it be committed before the exhibiting the Bill But if the date of such Writing supposed to be Forged had been mistaken there the Defendant could not be condemned of a Deed of another Date Pasch 7 Jac. Regis The Case of Sewers The Case was There was a Cawsey or Milstank of Stone in the River of Dee and in the City of Chester which Cawsey before the Reign of King Edward the first was Erected for the necessary maintenance of certain Mills at the end of the said Cawsey And now a certain Decree was made by certain Commissioners of Sewers for a Breach to be made by ten Poles in length in the said Cawsey and if by any Decree of the Commissioners by force of any Statute any breach may be made in that Cawsey was the Question And it was referred by Letters of the Lords of the Privy-Councel to the Chief Justices and Chief Baron who upon hearing of Councel Learned at divers dayes and good Consideration had of all Statutes of Sewers and Conferences among themselves It was Resolved as followeth 1. That the Stat. of Magna Chart. cap. 23. Quod omnâ—s Kidelli deponantur c. extended onely to Kidels viz. Open Wears for taking Fish But the first Stat. that extended to pulling down or abating any Mills Mill-Stanks or Cawseyes was 25 Ed. 3. cap. 4. which appointed onely such to be pulled down as were Erected in the Reign of King Edward the first or after But by 1 H. 4. cap. 12. upon complaint in Parliament of great damages by inhansing Mills Mill-stanks c. made before Edward the first 's Reign that Act appoints them to be surveyed and such as were found to be much inhansed to be corrected None of which Acts extend to the Case in question for that Cawsey was erected before Edw. 1. and never inhanced since the Erection And the 12 H. 4. c. 7. confirms all the said Acts. And by the 23 H. 8. c. 5. none of the said Statutes are repealed as to the Case in question for thereby the Form and Effect of the Commission of Sewers is appointed and power given to the Commissioners to survey Walls c. Fences Cawseys
capiantur in Patria A Prohibition lyes to the Justices of Nisi Prius So upon Articuli super chartas cap. 7. to the Constable af Dover Regist 185. So upon the same Stat. cap. 3. to the Steward and Marshal of the Houshold 185. and yet no Prohibition is given by express words in any of these Statutes So upon the Statutes 13 R. 2. c. 3. 15 R. 2. c. 2. 2 H. 4. c. 11. a Prohibition lyes to the Admiralty Court So upon West 2. c. 43. against Hospitals and Templers Regist 39. a. So upon the Stat. de Prohibitione regia a Prohibition lyes So upon the Stat. 2. H. 5. c. 3. and upon that Stat. 4 E. 4. 37. the Case was Peirce Peckham took Letters of Administration of the Goods of Rose Brown of the Bishop of London afterwards T. T. sued to Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury to have Administration committed to him because Rose Brown had Goods in his Diocess and they were granted to him Afterward T. T. Libelled in the Court of the Arches against Peirce Peckham to repeal his Administration and Peirce Peckham according to the Stat. prayed a Copy to the Libel and could not have it and thereupon he sued a Prohibition and upon that an Attachment And there Catesby Sergeant moved that a Prohibition did not lye for two Causes 1. The Statute says that the Libel shall be deliver'd but not that the Plea shall surcease 2. The Statute is not intended of Matter meerly Spiritual And there Danby Chief Justice If you will not deliver the Lâ—bel according to the Statute you do wrong which wrong is a Temporal matter and punishable at the Common-Law and therefore the party shall have a special Prohibition And always after the said Act in every Term throughout the Reigns of Ed. 6. Q. Mary and Q. Eliz. to this day Prohibitions have been granted in Modo Decimando and Judgments given upon many of them without any contradiction and accordingly all the Judges Resolved 7 Ed. 6. Dyer 79. Et contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege et minime mutanda sunt quae certam habuerunt interpretationem 1. As to the first Objectio That the Plea of Modus Decimandi is but accessary to the Right of Tythes It was Resolved That the same was of no force for three Causes 1. In this Case admitting there is a Modus Decimaâ—di then by the Custom and by the Act 2. E. 6. and the other Acts the Tythes in Kind are extinct and discharged for one and the same Land cannot be subject to two manner of Tythes but the Modus Decimandi is all the Tythe with which the Land is chargeable and it shall be intended that the Modus Decimandi began at first by reall Composition So as in this Case there is neither Principal nor Accessary but an Identity of the same things 2. The Stat. 2 Ed. 6. being a Prohibition in it self and that in the Negative If the Ecclesiastical Judge doth against it a Prohibition lyes as appeareth clearly before 3. Though the Rule be general yet it appears by the Register it self that a Modus Decimandi is out of it for there is a Prohibition in causa modi Decimandi when Lands are given in satisfaction of the Tythes 2. As to the second Objection It was Answered and Resolved That that was from or out of the Question for status Quaestionis non est deliberativussed judicialis for convenient or inconvenient is not the Question but what the Law is 3. As to the third Objection it was answered and resolved First That satisfactio pecuniaria of it self is Temporal But because the Parson hath not remedy pro modo Decimandi at Common by force of the Acts cited before he might sue pro modo Decimandi in the Ecclesiastical Court But that proves not That if he sue for Tythes in Kind which are utterly extinct c. that upon the Plea de modo Decimandi that a Prohibition should not lye for the contrary appears without all question by what hath been said before See also 12 H. 7. 24. b. 39 Ed. 3. 22 E. 4. Consultation As to the Objection That Averment is taken of the Refusal of the Plea of Modus Decimandi It was answered and Resolved That the same is of no force for divers Causes 1. It is onely to inforce the Contempt 2. If the Spiritual Court ought to have the Tryal de modo Decimandi then the refusing to accept such a Plea should give cause of Appeal not of Prohibition 3. From the beginning of the Law no Issue was ever taken upon the Refusal of the Plea in causa modi Decimandi nor any Consultation granted to them because they did not refuse but allow the Plea 4. The Refusal is no part of the matter issuable or material in the Plea and therefore the Modus Decimandi is proved by two Witnesses according to the Stat. 2 E. 6. cap. 13. and not the Refusal which proves the Modus Decimandi is onely the Matter of Suggestion not the Refusal 5. All the said five Matters of discharge of Tythes mentioned in the said Act of 2 Ed. 6. ought to be proved by two Witnesses and so have been always since the making of the said Act. And therefore it clearly intended that Prohibitions should be granted in such Cases 6. Though they would allow bona fide de modo Decimandi without Refusal yet if the Parson sue there for Tythes in Kind when the Modus is proved the same being expresly forbidden by that Act 2 Ed. 6. 13. a Prohibition lyes though the Modus be Spiritual as appears by the Book 4 E. 4. 37. Afterwards the third day of the Debate of this Case before the King Dr. Bennet and Dr. Martin had reserved divers Consultations granted in causa modi Decimandi thinking they might work upon the King's Opinion and thereupon they said That Consultations were the Judgments of Courts had upon Deliberations whereas Prohibitions were onely granted upon Surmises And they shewed 4 Presidents 1. One where three joyntly sued a Prohibition in the Case of modo Decimandi and the Consultation saith Pro co quod suggestio materiaque in eodem content a minus sufficiens in lege existit c. 2. Another in causa modi Decimandi to be paid to the Parson or Vicar 3. Where the Parson sued for Tythes in Kind and the Defendant alleadged modus Decimandi to be paid to the Vicar 4. Where the Parson Libelled for Tythe-Wooll and the Defendant alleadged a Custom to reap Corn and make it into Sheaves and set forth the Tenth Sheave at his Charges and so of Hay to sever it from the Nine Cocks at his Charge in full satisfaction of the Tythes of the Corn Hay and Wooll To which I answer'd and humbly defir'd the King to observe these were reserved for the last and center-point of their Proof And herein these things may be observed 1. That the Kings Courts do them Justice when with
their Consciences and Oaths they can 2. That all the said Cases are clear in the Judgment of those who are Learned in the Laws that Consultation ought by the Law to be granted 1. For as to the first President the Case upon their own shewing is Three Persons joyned in one Prohibition for three several parcels of Land each having a several sort of Tything and their Interests being several they could not joyn and therefore a Consultation was granted 2. To the second the manner of Tything was alleadged to be paid to the Parson or Vicar which is uncertain 3. To the third The Modus never came in Debate but whether the Tythes did belong to the Parson or Vicar which being between two Spiritual Persons the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Jurisdiction and therewith agrees 38 E. 3. 6. 4. To the last The same was upon the matter of a Custom of a Modus Decimandi for Wooll for to pay the Tythe of Corn or Hay in Kind in satisfaction of Corn Hay and Wooll cannot be a satisfaction for the Wooll for the other two were due of common right The Bishop of London answer'd That the words of the Consultation were Quod suggestio praedicta mattriaque in eadem cohtenta minus sufficiens in lege existit c. So as materia cannot be referâ—ed to Form and therefore it ought to extend to the Moâ—us Decimandi To which I answer'd That when the Matter is insufficiently or uncertainly alleadged the Matter it self faileth and though the Matter be in truth sufficient yet if it were insufficiently alleadged the Plea wanteth matter Then the Lord Treasurer saâ—d he wondered they would produce things that made more against them then any thing had been said And when the King relyed upon the Prohibition in the Register when Land is given in discharge of Tythes the Lord Chancellor said That was not like this Case For there by the Gift of the Land the Tythes were discharged but in the Case de modo Decimandi an Annual Sum is paid yet the Land remains charged and is to be discharged by Plea de modo Decimâ—ndi All which I utterly denied For the Land was as absolutely discharged of the Tythes in casu de modo Decimandi as where Lands are given All which the King heard with patience and the Chancellor answer'd no more After the King with all his Councel had for 3 dayes together heard the Allegations on both sides he said He would maintain the Laws of England and that his Judges should have as great respect from all his Subjects as their Predecessors And for the Matter he said for any thing had been said on the Clergies part he was not satisfied and advised Us the Judges to confer among our selves and that nothing be encroached in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdâ—ction and they to keep within their Jurisdiction And this was the end of these three dayes Consultation Note Dr. Bennet in his Discourse inveighed much against the Opinion 8 E. 4. 14. and in my Reports in Wrights Case That the Ecclesiastical Judge would not allow a Modus Decimandi and said that was the Mistery of Iniquiâ—y and they would allow it The King asked for what cause it was so said in the said Books To which I answer'd That it appears in Linwood who was Dean of the Arches and a Profound Canonist who wrote in Henry the Sixth's time in his Title De decimis cap Quoniam propter c. fol. 139. b. Quod decimae soluantur absque ulla diminutione And in the Gloss it is said Quod consuetudo de non Decimando aut de non bene decimando non valet And that being written by so great a Canonist was the cause of the said Saying in 8 E. 4. that they would not allow the said Plea de modo decimandi And it seemed to the King that that Book was a good cause for them in Edward the Fourth's time to say as they had said But I said I did not rely thereon but on the Grounds aforesaid Lastly The King said that the High Commission ought not to meddle with any thing but that which is enormous and which the Law cannot punish as Heresie Schism Incest and the like great Offences And the King thought that two High-Commissions for either Province one should be sufficient for all England and no more Mich. 39 40 Eliz. In the Kings-Bench Bedel and Sherman's Case Mich. 39 40 Eliz. Which is entred Mich. 40 Elizâ— in the Common-Pleas Rot. 699. Cantabr the Case was this Robert Bedel Gent. and Sarah his Wife Farmers of the Rectory of Litlington in the County of Cambridge brought an Action of Debt against John Sherman in custodia mariscalli c. and demanded 550 l. and declared that the Master and Fellows of Clare-Hall in Cambridge were ieized of the said Rectory in Fee in right of the said Colledge and the 10 Jun. 29 Eliz. by Indenture dâ—nised to Christopher Phesâ—nt the said Rectory for 21 years rendring 17 l. 15 s. 5 d. and reserving Rent-corn according to the Statute c. which Rent was the antient Rent who entred and was possessed and assigned all his Interest to one Matthew Bats who made his last Wâ—ll and made Sarah his Wife Executrix and dyed Sarah proved the Will and entred and was thereof possessed as Executrix and took to Husband the said Robert Beâ—el by force whereof hey in right of the said Sarah entred and were possessed and the Defendant was thâ—n Tenant and seized for his life of 300 Acres of Arable Lands in Litlington aforesaid which ought to pay Tythes to the Rector of Litlington and in 38 Eliz. the Defendant Sâ—minavit grano 200 Acres paâ—c â— c. the Tythes whereof amounted to 150 l. And the Defendant did not set forth the same from the Nine Parts but carryed them away contrary to the Statute 2 E 6 c. The Defendant pleaded Nihil debet And the Jury â—ound that the Defendant did owe 55 l. and to thâ— rest they found Nihil debet And in Arrest of Judgment divers Matters were moved 1. That Grano Seminata is too general and it ought to be expressed with what kind of Grain the same was sowed 2. It was moved If the Parson ought to have the treble value the Forfeiture being â—xoresly limited to none by the Act. or that the same beâ—ong to the Queen 3. If the same belong to the Parson if he ought to sue for it in the Ecclesiastical Court or in the King 's Temporal Court 4. If the Husband and Wife should joyn in the Action or the Husband alone and upon solemn Argument at the Barre and Bench Judgment was affirmed Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards John Bayley's Case It was found by Writ of Dien clausit extremum that the said John Bayley was seized of a Messuage and of and in the 4th part of one Acre of Land late parcel of the Demesne Lands of the Mâ—nnor of Newton in the
County of Hereford in his Denâ—esne as of Free and found the other Points of the Writ and it was holden by the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron 1. That Mâ—ssâ—agium vel Tenementum is uncertain for Tenementum is nomen collectivum and may contain Land or any thing that is holden 2. It was holden That it was void for the whole because no Town is mentioned in the Office where the Mâ—ssuage or Tenement c. lyeth and it was holden that no melius inquirendum shall issue forth because the whole Office is incertain and void Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards The Attorney of the Court of Wards moved the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron in this Case A man seized of Lands in Fee-simple covenants for the advancement of his Son and his Name Blood and Posterity that he will stand seized of them to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his eldest Son and to such Woman as he shall marry and the Heir-males of the body of the Son and afterwards the Father dyeth and after the Son takes a Wife and dyeth if the Wife shall take an Estate for Life And it was Resolved by the said two Chief Justices and Chief Baron That the Wife should take well enough being within the consideration which was for the advancement of his Posterity and without a Wife the Son cannot have Posterity Secondly It was Resolved that the Estate of the Son shall support the use to the Defendant and when the Contingent happeneth the Estate of the Son shall be changed according to the Limitation viz. to the Son and the Woman and the Heirs of the Body of the Son And so it was Resolved in the Kings-Bench by Popham Chief Justice and the whole Court in Sheffields Case in Q. Elizabeths time Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards Spary's Case John Spary seized in Fee in the Right of his Wife of Lands holden by Knight-service had Issue by her and 22 Dec. 9 Eliz. alienated to Edward Lord Stafford The Wife dyed the Issue of full age the Alienee holds the Lands And 10 years after the Fathers death and 12 years after the Mothers Office is found 7 Jac. finding all the special Matter after the Mothers death The Question was Whether the mean Profits are to be answer'd to the King And it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron that the King should have the mean Profits because the Alienee was in by Title and untill Entry the Heir has no Remedy for the mean Profits but that the King might seize and make Livery because the Entry of the Heir is lawful by the Stat. 32 H. 8. Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards It was found by force of a Mandamus at Kendal in Westmerland 21 Dec. 6 Jac. that George Earl of Cumberland long before his death was seized in Tail to him and to the Heirs-male of his body of the Castles and Mannors of Browham Applâ—by c. the remainder to Sir Ingram Clifford with divers Remainders in Tail the remainder to the right Heirs of Henry Earl of Cumberland Father of the said George and that the said George Earl so seized by Fine and Recovery conveyed them to the use of himself and Margaret his Wife for their Lives for the Joynture of Margaret and after to the Heir-males of the body of George Earl of Cumberland and for want of such Issue to the use of Francis now Earl of Cumberland and the Heir-males of his body and for want of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the said George And after by another Indenture conveyed the Fee-simple to Francis Earl By force of which and of the Statute of Uses they were seized accordingly and afterwards the 30 of Octob. 3 Jac. George Earl of Cumberland dies without Heirs male of his body c. And found further that Margaret Countess of Cumberland that now is was alive and took the profits of the Premisses from the death of the said George Earl till the taking the Inquisition and further found the other Points of the Writ 1. And first it was objected Here was no dying seized found by Office and therefore the Office shall be insufficient But to that it was Resolved That by this Office the King was not intitled by the Common-Law for then a dying seized was necessary But this Office is to be maintained upon the Stat. 32 and 34 H. 8. by force of which no dying seized is necessary and so it was Resolved in Vincents Case Anno 23 Eliz. 2. The second Objection was It doth not appear that the Wives Estate continued in her till the Earles death for the Husband and Wife had aliened the same to another and then no primer seizin shall be as is agreed in Binghams Case And to that it was Resolved That the Office was sufficient prima facie for the King because it is a thing collateral and no point of the Writ And if such Alienation be the same shall come in of the other part of the Alienee by a Monstrans de droit And the Case at Bar is a stronger Case because it is found the Councess took the Profits from the death of George the Earl till the finding the Office Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards Wills Case Henry Wills seized of the 4th Part of the Mannor of Wryland in the County of Dâ—von holden of Q. Eliz. iâ— Socage Tenure in capite of the said 4â—h part enfeoffed Zathary Irish and others and their Heirs to the use of the said Henry for his Life and after his Decâ—ase to Thomas Wills his second Son in Tail and after to the use of Richard Wills his youngest Son in Tail and after the said Henry so seized as aforesaid dyed All this Matter is found by Office And the Question was If the King ought to have primer seizin in this Case that Livery and Ouster le mayne should be sued by the Statutes of the 32 and 34 H. 8. And it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron that not if in this Case by the Common-Law no Livery or Ouster le main shall be sued and that was agreed by them all by the experience and couâ—se of the course See 21 Eliz. Dyer 362. and 4 Eliz. Dyer 213. And two Presidents were shâ—wed which were Decreed in the same Court by the Advice of the Justices Assistants to the Court. One in Trin. 16 Eliz. Thomas Stavely enfeoffed William Strelley and Thomas Law of the Mannor of Ryndly in Nottingh â—shire on condition that they re-enfeoffe the Feoffor and his Wife for their Lives the remainder to Thomas Stavely Sâ—n and Heir apparent of the Feoffer in Fee Which Mannor was holden of Q. Elizabeth in Socage Tenure in capite And it was Resolved That no Livery or Ouster le maine shall be sued in such Case because of the saving of the Stat. 32 H. 8.
The words whereof are Saving c. to the King c. all his Right c. of primer seizin and relief c. for Tenure in Socage or of the nature of Tenure in Socage in chief as heretofore hath bin used But there was no Custom before the Act for the King to have primer seizin c. Another President was in Pasch 37 Eliz. in the Book of Orders fol. 444. where the Case was That William Allet was seized of certain Lands in Pitsey called Lundsey holden of the Queen in Socage Tenure in chief and by Deed covenanted to stand seized to the use of his wife for life and afterwards to the use of Richard his younger Son in Fee and dyed and all was found by Office and it was Resolved ut supra But the Doubt oâ— the Case at Bar was because Henry the Feoffor had a Reversion in Fee which descended to the said William his eldest Son Trin. 7 Jacobi Regis The Case of the Admiralty A Bâ—ll was preferred in the Star-Chamber against Sir Richard Hawkins Vice-Admiral of the County of Devon and was charged that one William Hull and others were notorious Pyrates upon the High Seas and shewed in certain what Pyracy they had committed That the said Sir Richard Hawkins knowing the same did receive them and abet comfort them and for Bribes suffered them to be discharged And what Offence that was the Court referred to the consideration of the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron who heard Councel of both sides divers days at Sergeants Inne And it was Resolved by them 1. That the Admirals by the Common-Law ought not to meddle with any thing done within the Realm but onely with things done upon the Sea and that appeareth fully by the 13 R. 2. cap. 5. and therewith agrees 2 H. 4. c. 11. and 15 H. 2. c. 3. So also 2 H. 5. c. 6. 5 Eliz. c. 5. and this agrees with Stamf. fol. 51. 8 Ed. 2. Coron 399. See Plo. Com. 37 b. 2 R. 3. 12. 30 H. 6. 6. by Prisoit 2. It was Resolved That the Statutes are to be intended of a Power to hold Plea not of a Power to award Execution for notwithstanding the said Statutes the Judge of the Admiralty may do Execution within the Body of the County And therefore 19 H. 6. 7. the Case was W. T. at Southwark affirmed a Plaint of Trespass in the Admiralty against J. B. of a Trespass done upon the High-Sea Whereupon J. B. was cited to appear at the common day next ensuing at which day the said J. B. made default And according to the usage of the Court the said J. B. was amerced to 20 Marks Whereupon Command was made to P. as Minister of the said Court to take the Goods of the said J. B. to make agreement with the aforesaid W. T. by force of which he for the said 20 Marks took 5 Cowes and 100 Sheep in Execution for the said Money in the County of Ieicester And there it is holden by Newton and the whole Court That the Statutes restrain the power of the Court of Admiralty to hold Plea of a thing done within the body of the County but they do not restrain the Execution of the same Court to be served upon the Lands In which Case these Points were Resolved 1. Though the Court of Admiralty is not a Court of Record see Brooks Error 77. acc yet by Custom of the Court they may amerce the Defendant for his default by their discretion 2. That they may make Execution for the same of the Goods of the Defendant in corpore Comitatus and if he have not Goods may arrest his Body But the great question between them was If a man commit Pyracy upon the Sea and one knowing thereof receive and comfort the Defendant in the Body of the County if the Admiral and other the Commissioners by the Act 28 H. 8. cap. 16. may proceed by Indictment and Conviction against the Receiver and Abetter the Offence of the Accessary having his beginning within the Body of the County And it was Resolved by them That such a Receiver and an Abetter by the Common-Law could not be indicted and convicted because the Common-Law cannot take Cognizance of the Original Offence being done out of the Jurisdiction of the Common-Law and where it cannot punish the Principal it cannot punish the Accessary And therefore Coke Chief Justice reported to them a Case which was in Suffolk 28 Eliz. where Butler and others upon the Sea next to the Town of Iaystoff robbed divers of the Queens Subjects of their Goods which they brought into Norfolk and there were apprehended and brought before Me then a Justice of Peace in the same County and upon Examination they confessed a cruel and barbarous Pyracy and that the Goods then in their Custody were part of the Goods which they had so robbed And I was of Opinion that in that Case it could not be Felony punishable by the Common-Law because the Original Act was not offence whereof the Common-Law taketh knowledge and then the bringing them into the County could not make the same Felony punishable by our Law Yet I committed them to the Gaol untill the coming of the Justices of the Assizes And at the next Assizes the Opinion of Wray Chief Justice and Perian Justices of Assize was agreeing with Me ut supra and thereupon they were committed to Sir Robert Southwel then Vice-Admiral for those Countieâ— and this in effect agrees with Lacies Case which see in my Reports cited in Bingham's Case 2 Rep. 93. and in Constables Case C. 5. Rep. 107. See Pyracy was Fâ—lony 40 Ass 25. by Schard where a Captain of a Ship with some English-men robb'd the Kings Subjects upon the High Seas and the saith 't was Felony in the Norman Captain and Treason in the English-men which is to be understood of Petit-Treason and therefore in that Case the Pyrates being taken the Norman Captain was hang'd and the English drawn c. hang'd as appears by the same Book See Stamford 10. Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas Pettus and Godsalve's Case In a Fine levyed Trinity Term Anno quinto of this King between John Pettus Esq Plaintiff and Richard Godsalve and others Deforceants of the Mannor of Castre c. in Norfolk where in the â—hird Proclamation upon the Foot of the Fine the said Proclamation is said to be made in the sixth year of the King that now is which ought to have been Anno quinto And the fourth Proclamation is altogether left out because upon view of the Proclamations upon Dorsis upon Record not Finis ejusdem Termini per Justiciarios remaining with the Chirographer c. it appeareth the said Proclamations were duly made therefore it was adjudged that the Errours aforesaid should be amended and made to agree as well with the Prâ—clamation upon Record of the Fine and Entry of the Book as with the other Proclamations in Dorsis c. And
shall be extinct for Fealâ—y is by necessity of Law incident to the Reversion but the Rent shall be divided pro rata portionis and so it was adjudged And it was also adjudged That though Collins come to the Reversion by several Conveyances and at severall times yet he might bâ—ing an Action of Debt for the whole Rent Hill 43 Eliz. Rot. 243. West and Lassels Case So Hill 42 Eliz. Rot. 108. in the Common Pleas Ewer and Moylâ—s Case Note It was adjudged 19 Eliz. in the Kings-Bench that where one obtained a Prohibition upon Prescription de modo Decimandi by payment of a sum of money at a certain day upon which Issue was takeâ— and the Jury found the modus Decimandi by payment of the said sum but at another day the Case being well debated at last it was Resolved That no Consultation should be granted for though the day of payment may bâ— mistaken yet a Consultation shall not be granted where the Soitâ—tual Court hath not Jurisdiction of the Cause Taafi ld Chief Baron hath the Report of this Cause Mich. 7 Jac. Regis In an Ejectione Firmae he Writ and Declaration were of two parts of certain Lands in Hetherset and Windham in the County of Norfolk and saith not in two parts in three parts to be divided and yet it was good as well in the Declaration as the Writ for without question the Writ is good de duabus partibus generally and so is the Register See the 4 E. 3. 162. 2 E. 3. 31. 2 Ass 1. 10 Ass 12. 10 E. 3. 511. 11 Ass 21. 11 E. 3. Bre. 478. 9 H. 6. 36. 17 E. 4. 46. 19 E. 3. Bre. 244. And upon all the said Books it appears that by the Intendment and Construction of the Law when any parts are demanded without shewing in how many parts the whole is divided that there remains but one part undivided But when any Demand is of other parts in other form there he ought to shew the same specially And according to this difference it was resolved in Jordan's Case in the Kings-Bench and accordingly Judgment was given this Term in the Caseat Bar. Mich. 7 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas Muttoa's Case An Action upon the Case was brought against Mutton for calling the Plaintiff Sorce and Inchanter who pleaded Not Guilty and it was found against to the Damage of six pence And it was holden by the whole Court in the Common-Pleas that no Action lyes for the laid words for Sortilegus est qui per sortes futura praenunciat Inchantry is vordis aut rebus adjunctis aliquid praeter naturam moliri See 45 Ed. 3. 17. One was taken in Southwark with the Head and Visage of a dead man and with a Book of Sorcery in his Mayl and he was brought into the Kings-Bench before Knevet Justice but no Indictment was framed against him for which the Clerks made him swear never after to commit Sorcery and he was sent to Prison and the Head and Book were burn'd at Tuthil at the Prisoners charges The antient Law was as by Britton appears that who were attainted of Sorcery were burned but the Law at this day is they shall onely be fined and imprisoned So if one call another Witch an Action will not lye But if one say She is a Witch and hath bewitched such a one to death an Action upon the Case lyes if in truth the party be dead Conjuration in the Stat. 5 Eliz. cap. 16. is taken for Invocation of any evil and wicked Spirits and the same by that Act is made Felony But Witchcraft Inchantment Charms or Sorcery is not Felony if not by them any person be killed or dyeth The first Statute made against Conjuration Witchcraft c. was the Act 33 H. 8. c. 8. and by it they were Felony in certain Cases special but that was repealed by the 1 Ed. 6. c. 12. Mich. 7 Jae Regis In the Court of Wards Sir Allen Percy 's Case Sir John Fitz and Bridget his Wife being Tenants for life of a Tenement called Ramshams the remainder to Sir John Fitz in Tail the remainder to Bridget in Tail the reversion to Sir John and his Heirs Sir John and Bridget his Wife by Indenture demised the said Tenement to William Sprey for divers years yet to come except all Trees of Timber Oakes and Ashes and liberty to carry them away rendring Rent And afterwards Sir John dyed having Issue Mary his Daughter now Wife of Sir Allen Percy Knight and afterwards the said William Sprey demised the same Tenement to Sir Allen for 7 years The Question was Whether Sir Allen having the immediate Inheritance in right of his Wife expectant upon the Estate for the life of Bridget and also having the Possession of the said Demise might cut down the Timber Trees Oakes and Ashes And it was objected he might well do it for it was Resolved in Sanders Case in the 5th Part of my Reports That if Lessee for years or life assigns over his term or Estate to another excepting the Mines or the Trees c. that the Exception is void But it was answered and Resolved by the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron that in the Case at Bar the Exception was good without question because he who hath the Inheritance joyns in the Lease with the Lessee for life And it was further Resolved That if Tenant for life Leaseth for years excepting the Timber Trees the same is lawfully and wisely done for otherwise if the Lessee or Assignee cut down the Trees the Tenant for Life should be punished in Wast and should not have any remedy against the Lessee for years But when Tenant for life upon his Lease excepteth the Trees if they be cut down by the Lessor the Lessee or Assignee shall have an Action of Trespass Quare vi armis and shall recover Damages according to his loss And this Case is not like the Case of Sanders for there the Lessee assigned over his whole Interest and therefore could not except the Mines Trees c. But when Tenant for life leases for years except the Timber Trees the same remaineth yet annexed to his Free-hold and he may command the Lessee to take them for necessary Reparations of his Houses And in the said Case of Sanders a Judgment is cited between Foster and Miles Plaintiffs and Spencer and Bourd Defendants That where Lessee for years assigns over his Term except the Trees that Wast in such Case shall be brought against the Assignee But in this Case without question Wast lyeth against Tenant for life and so there is a difference Mich. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards Hulme's Case The King in Right of his Dutchy of Lancaster Lord Richard Hulms seized of the Mannor of Male in the County of Lancaster holden of the King as of his Dutchy by Knights Service Mesne and Robert Male seized of Lands in Male holden of the Mesne as of his said Mannor by Knights
Service Tenant Richard Hulme dyed after whose death 31 H. 8. it was found that he dyed seized of the said Mesnalty and that the same descended to Edward his Son and Heir within Age and found the Tenure aforesaid c. And during nonagâ— Robert Male dyed seized of the said Tenancy peravail and that the same descended to Richard his Son and Meir as was found by Office 25 H. 2. within age and that the said Tenancy was holden of the King as of his said Dutchy by Knights Service whereas in truth the same was holden of Edward Hulme then in Ward of the King as of his Mesnalty for which the King seized the Ward of the Heir of the Tenant And afterwards Anno quarto Jacobi Rogis nunc after the death of Richard Male the lineal Heir of Robert Male by another Office it was found that Richard dyed seized of the Tenancy and held the same of the King as of his Dutchy c. his Heir within age Whereupon Richard Hulme Cozen and Heir of the said Richard Hulme preferred a Bill to be admitted to traverse the Office found 4 Jac. Regis And the Question was Whether the Office found 35 H. 8. be any Estoppel to the said Hulme or if that the said Hulme should be first driven to Traverse that And it was objected That he ought first to traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. as in the Case 26 E. 65. And that the first Office shall stand as long as the same remaines in force To which it was Answered and Resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron and Court of Wards That the finding of an Office is not any Estoppel for that is but an Inquest of Office and the party grieved shall have a Traverse to it But when an Office is found falsly that Land is holden of the King by Knights Service in capite or of the King himself in Socage if the Heir fueâ—h a general Livery it is holden 46 Ed. 3. 12. by Mowbray and Persey that he shall not after adde that the Land is not holden of the King But that is not any Estoppel to the Heir himself and shall not conclude his Heir for so saith Mowbray himself expresly 44 Ass pl. 35. See 1 H. 4. 6. b. So 33 H. 6. 7. And there is no Book that saith that the Estoppel shall endure longer than his life but that is to be intended of a general Livery but a special Livery shall not conclude one And if a Jury find falsly in a Tenure of the King the Lord of whom the Land is holden may traverse that Office Or if Land be holden of the King in Socage c. the Heir may traverse the last Office for by that he is grieved and he shall not be driven to traverse the first Office And when the Father sues Livery and dyes the Conclusion is executed and past as is aforesaid And note there is a special Livery but that proceeds of the King's Grace and is not the Suit of the Heir and the King may grant it either at full age before aetate probanda or to the Heir within age as appears 21 E. 3. 40. And then is general and shall not comprehend any Tenure as the several Livery doth and therefore it is not any Estoppel without question See the 33 H. 8. cap. 22. 23 Eliz. Dyer 177. It was also Resolved in this Case that the Office of 35 H. 8. was not traversable for his own Traverse shall prove that the King had cause to have Wardship by reason of Ward And when the King comes to the Possession by a false Office or otherwise if it appears the King have any other Right to have the Land there none shall traverse the Office or Title of the King because the Judgment in the Traverse is Ideo consideratum est quod manus Domini Râ—gis amoveantur c. See 4 H. 4. fol. 33. in the Earl of Kents Case c. Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis Note The Priviledge Order or Custom of Parliament either of the Upper-House or House of Commons belongs to the Determination of the Court of Parliament and this appeareth by two notable Presidents 1. The one at the Parliament holden in the 27 H. 6. There was a Controversie moved in the Upper-House between the Earles of Aâ—undel and Devonshire for their Seats Places and Pre-eminences of the same to be had in the King's Presence as well in Parliament as in Councels and elsewhere The King by the Advice of Lords Spiritual and Temporal committed the same to certain Lords of Parliament who not having leisure to examine the same by the said Lords Advice referred it to the Judges of the Land to hear see and examine the Title c. and to report what they conceive herein The Judges reported as followeth That this matter viz. of Honour and Pre-eminency between the two Earles Lords of Parliament was a matter of Parliament and belonged to the King and his Lords in Parliament to be decided Yet being so commanded they shewed what they found upon Examination and their Opinions thereon Another Parliament 31 H. 6. 6th of March begun and after some continuance was prorogued to the 14 of February and afterwards in Michaelmas Term the same 31 H. 6. Thomas Thorpe Speaker of the Commons House was condemned in the Exchequer in 1000 l. Damages at the Duke of Buckingham's Suit for a Trespass done to him The 14th of Feb. the Commons mâ—ved in the Upper-House that their Speaker might be set at liberty to exercise his Place c. The Lords refer it to the Judges and Fortâ—scue and Prisoit the two Chief Justices in the Name of all the Judges answer'd That they ought not to consider this Question c. but it belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Justices But as to their Proceedings in the Lower-Courts in such Cases they deliver'd their Opinions See 12 E. 4. 2. Hill 7 Jac. Regis In Cam. Stâ—ll Heyward and Sir John Whitbrook's Case In the Case between Hyward and Sir John Whitbrook in the Star-Chamber the Defendant was convicted of divers Misdemeanours and Fine and Imprisonment imposed on him and Damages to the Plaintiff And it was moved that a special Process might be made out of that Court to levy the said Damages upon the Lands and Goods of the said Defendant And it was referred to the two Chief Justices whether any such Process might be made who this Term moved the Case to the Chief Baron and the rest of the Judges and Barons and it was unanimously by them all Resolved That no such Process could or ought to be made neither for the Damages nor for the Costs given to the Plaintiff the Court having no such power but onely to keep the Defendant in Prison till he pay them For for a Fine due to the King they can make no Process to levy it but they estreat it into the Exchequer which hath power by Law to write forth Process