14. 4ly He prescribes that the lands are not pleadable elsewhere which is not true for in some cases they are pleadable here in this Court Nat. Brev. 19 D. and so prayed judgement for the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice demanded why is there not a special demurrer here Special Demurrer After imparlance one may plead that the lands are antient demesne for a plea of lands in antient Demesne to the jurisdiction of the Court differs from other pleas pleaded to the jurisdiction of the Court It is true that parcel of a Manor of antient demesne is pleadalbe at the Common Law but lands held of the Manor are pleadable in the Court of the Lord. Adjourned to be heard Tuesday following Afterwards it was moved again and Roll chief Iustice said that after imparlance this plea is not good because by it he hath admitted the jurisdiction of the Court And therefore lâ—â— him shew cause why he should not plead in chief Pascall against Sparing Hill 1649. Banc. sup Pasch 1649. rot 75. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action in Bristow upon a Concessit solvere by the Defendant Error to reverse a judgement in Debt for Concessit solvere Declaration Roll chief Iustice said that an Action of Debt did well lie upon a Concessit solvere by the custom of Bristow and so is it in London 28 H. 6. 1 E. 4. f. 6. Another Error assigned was that it is said that the party recovered the damages per juratores Compert whereas it ought to be Assess for this is the proper word but this exception was also over-ruled Latch took another exception that there wants the words pro misis et custagiis in the assessing the damages and so it doth not appear for what the damages are assessed And for this the Iudgement was reversed except better matter shewn Damages Iennings against Lee. Hill 1649. Banc. sup GEnnings brought an Action of Trespaâ—s of an assault and battery against Lee and his wife Whether an issue well joyned for an assault and battery made by the wife the Feme pleads a special plea of justification that it was in defence of her Husband The Plaintif replies de injuria sua propria upon this there was an issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintif it was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the issue was nor well joyned because the replication was not good and so the verdict not good and so there can be no Iudgement Serjeant Parker prays judgement for the Plaintif for he held the replication was good and so a good Issue joyned and if there be not yet it is helped by the Verdict Issue or else by the Statute of Ieofails or if not yet it is at least good in part And the issue here doth imply a negative although there be not a direct negative but an affirmative in the words of it And 6 E. 4 16 b. in a Replevin and 9 H. 5. f. 1. b. there are good issues joyned in the affirmative because they imply a negative Trin. 18 Jac. Banc. reg Aldridge and Walthalls case and here wants only a Traverse which is but only matter of form and not material 2ly The Verdict hath made the issue good although it be not well joyned 5 H. 7. f. 15. 3ly If the Verdict helps it not yet the Statute of Ieofails helps it 5 Rep. Nichols case 19 Eliz. Dallisons Reports 8 9 Eliz. Bendloes Reports and 14 Car. Banc. Reg. 4ly If the Statute help not yet it is well enough because it is good in part and for part it is well found and damages shall be intented to be given for that which is well found Damages 9 H. 7. f. 4. 16 H. 7. f. 1â— 10 Rep. James and Osburns case 3 Iac. Banc. Reg. Bigrane and Selling Mich. 1649. Desmond Osborn this case the Court denied Roll chief Iustice said Issue if there be 2 issues and one issue is not well joyned and damages be given entire this is not good but will make all naught 40 Ed. 3. f. 40. 18 Iac. Aldridges case 16 Iac. Iones and Gates adjudged and he said that the material thing is not here put in issue and so the issue is immaterial and there is a Ieofail and the damages being given entire there can be no judgement given Jeâ—â—ail Ierman Iustice did differ in opinion and said if the Defendant plead an immaterial thing and the Plaintif joyn issue and it be found for him he shall have judgement otherwise where the plea is partly material partly immaterial for there the issue ought to be upon the material thing otherwise there can be no judgement It was adjourned till Thursday following The Case was this An Action of Assault and Battery and wounding was brought the Defendant pleads non cul to the wounding and justifies the Assault and Battery in defence of her Husband in keeping possession of certain lands The Plaintif replied de injuria sua propria and doth not traverse absque tali causa The Iury find entire damages for all whereas there is not a perfect issue joyned as to the Assault and Battery for want of the Traverse Postea Hodges against Iane. Hill 1649. Banc. sup IN an Arrest of Iudgement in this case the question was Whether debt lie against an Executor sur concessit solve of the Testator Wager of Law Debt Executor Whether an Action do lie against an Executor upon a Concessit solvere of the Testator upon a special custom Roll chief Iustice held that it doth not for this would be to charge an Executor in an Action of Debt where he may by the Law wage his Law and an Action of Debt lies not against an Executor upon a simple contract made by the Testator And he said that the reason for Ley gager is because it is intended that as well as the contract to pay money may be in private so may also the payment be made in private Adjourned Giaves against Drake Hill 1649. Banc. sup IN an Action of Trover and Conversion for divers parcels of Houshold stuff an Exception was taken to the Declaration Arrest of Iudgement in a Trover and Conversion because the Plaintif amongst other things had declared pro sex parcellis plumbi cinerii Anglice Pewter Porringers whereas the word parcellis is uncertain for a parcel doth consist of many things in number and so sex parcelli cannot be properly applyed to six Porringers but if it had béen sex peciis it had been better though that be also incertain Hales held it was all one as if it had béen pro sex peciis plumbi Cinerii Roll chief Iustice enclined it was well enough because though the words are not so proper yet the description is good enough Declaration Words Ierman Iustice was of the same opinion But Nicholas Iustice held that the Latin is not good for if there be proper words for a thing they ought to
heir and an authority cannot divest them out of him this is not like to the surrendring of Copyhold lands into the hands of the Lord for such a surrender cannot be revoked but this authority may be revoked But which is more the Verdict here doth not find that the two Attorneys are customary Tenants of the Manor but only by way of recital which is not good for they ought to have been found to directly nor doth it appear that they were customary Tenants at the time of the admittance of the party neither is there any possession or title found in the Defendant and so the Plaintif having primer possession the Defendant is culpable neither is it found that the Customary Tenant who gave this authority had an estate in fee-simple in the lands and if he had but an estate for life he could not make such a Letter of Attorney neither is the authority given warranted by the Custom and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintif Wilmot for the Defendant As to the authority he said that it was good and did well enough survive the party that gave it because it is supported with a special direction from the party that gave it 1 H. 7.8 and this is the reason that an Executor may sell lands of the Testator after his death viz. because his authority is so supported 21 E. 4. f. 8. 31 E. 1. Fitz. Grants 45. And here in our case the heir hath neglected his advantage and therefore shall not now be admitted to take it But besides the authority here given is more than a bare authority for it is backed with the circumstances of time persons and of a Custom which is not of a slight esteem in Law and by such a Custom which is very reasonable for it is but to enable the party to dispose of his own lands and far more unreasonable Customs than this are allowed in our Law as that in Kent for an Infant of 15 years of age to have power to sell his lands neither is this Custom contrary to any positive rule of Law for it is here to create the authority to begin after the parties death that created it and so it is not to determine with his death for till then it begins not and the Custom here is but to alien lands which is no strange thing and this Custom extends but within the Manor which is but to a small compass of ground and so the publique is not much concerned in it and the case of 17 Car. in this Court Bambridge and Whaddons case differs from our Case for that was not supported with a custome as this is And it doth appear by the Record that Dalby the Attorney is a customary Tenant and the admission is also found by the Verdict to be secundum consuetudinem Manerii and so that is well enough and then one cannot gain a Copyhold estate by disseisin and so no primer seisin shall be intended as was urged on the other side and it is also found that the Copyholder was seised Roll chief Iustice It will be a hard matter to maintain the Custom Custom if it be not found that the Copy-holder was seised in fee of the Copyhold lands 2ly It is not here found that the land is demisable according to the will of the Lord and so it may be free land and then the custom doth not extend unto it nor is it found that the parties to whom the Letters of Attorney were made were Copyhold Tenants Disseisin And the primer possession will make a disseisin here by the Defendant if the custom be not-well found and so judgement must be for the Plaintif Devise And I cannot see how the Custom can be good it being against the rules of Law Surrender A man cannot devise Copyhold lands and this case is worse but he may surrender to the use of his last Will. If you will not consent to a new tryal we will advise for it is a hard case and my Brothers have not been attended with Books Mich. following Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi It was moved again and the Court would advise Postea Batchelour against Parsons Trin. 1651 Banc. sup Mich. 1652. rot 381. BAtchelour brings a writ of Error to reverse a Iudgement given against him for Parsons in an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas and the Error assigned was Error to reverse a judgement in debt that there are two Declarations in the Record one in the Emparlance Roll the other in the Plea Roll and the Original certified upon the writ of Error doth not warrant the first Declaration for it was filed after it Hales answered that the Record is good enough if the Original dowarrant the last Declaration for this is the common course used in the Common Pleas as the Clarks there do inform me there are many Cases like this in the Common Pleas. Wild of Councel on the other side answered that this is a strange course for they ought first to file the Original because it is the beginning and ground-work of the sute and it not being so done here the Iudgement is given without an Original this is a judgement by default and the imparlance is part of the sute Roll chief Iustice Imparlance Intendment Certiorari The Imparlance Roll is the principal part of the sute and to consound things by intendment that the imparlance may be touching another sute is not good and it matters not what the Custom is in the Common Pleas if it be against Law and both Rolls ought to be certified here Ierman Iustice ad idem Roll chief Iustice All the Record in the Common Pleas which is in the custody of the chief Iustice there ought to be certified by him upon the Retorn of the Writ of Error and here the Imparlance Roll is in his custody and therefore he ought to certifie it and if there be two writs of Error Error and one is good and the other naught we will take the best to affirm the judgement The Original ought not to be fitted to the Declaration but the Declaration to the Original because the Original is the foundation of the sute and therefore the course used in the Common Pleas is a preposterous course Original viz. to declare against the Defendant and after to file an original against him to warrant the Declaration It is here certifyed to be one Record and how can we take the emparlance Roll to be part of the Record it being not certyfied with it and if there be variance between the emparlance Roll and the plea Roll Variance it is Error We will advise but we must not suffer new wayes yet we are loth notwithstanding to reverse Iudgements given in the Common pleas Therefore shew cause next term why the Iudgement should not be reversed Kirman against Iohnson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup IN an ejectione firmae brought by Kirman against Iohnson a special verdict was found
secrets of his Clyents cause Not to disclose a Clyents cause and thereupon he was forborn to be examined Pilkinton and Bagshaw Pasch 1655. Banc. sup VPon a tryal to be had at the Bar between Pilkington and Bagshaw Tryal at the Bar. the Plaintif would not put in his writ that the tryal might goe on Whereupon Roll chief Iustice bid the Cryer to call the Attorney of the Plaintif to appear and to bring in the writ upon pain of 20 l. and said Pain of 20 l. Attorney put out of the Roll. Non-sute upon the Record that if he brought it not in he should be put out of the Roll. Serjeant Maynard moved that if he brought not in the writ that the Plaintif might be called non-sute upon the Record which Roll chief Iustice answered might well be because the parties have day in Court by the Record or Roll afterwards the Sollicitor who had the writ brought it in yet Roll chief Iustice said There shall notwithstanding the writ be brought in be 20 l. fine set upon him for his trifling with the Court. The Protector and Sumner Pasch 165â— Banc. sup SErjeant Bernard moved that Sumner that appeared in Court upon his habeas corpus directed to the Kéeper of Northampton Gaol might be bailed To bail a prisoner denied for that having killed two men upon the Highway the Iury had found it Man-slaughter se defendendo Roll chief Iustice answered The Iuries conclusion is contrary to their premises Therefore let the prisoner be sent to Northampton Gaol whence he came yet that may not be for the fact was done in Peterborough Tryal Writ ad reâ—piendum and therefore he cannot be tryed at Northampton therefore let him be sent to Peterborough Gaol with a writ ad recipiendum to the Gaoler there to take charge of him Pilkington versus Bagshaw Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IN a Tryal at the Bar in a Trespass and Ejectment betwixt Pilkington and Bagshaw Trespass and Ejectment the question being whether Copyhold lands may be entailed by the custom of the Manor It was said that if Tenant in tail and the issue in tail of Copyhold lands in tail joyn in a surrender in a Court Baron of the Copyhold lands Estopel Copyhold lands in tail Customary entail Fine State enjoyed Seisure of Cepyhold lands that this is not an estopel for it ought to be by fine or deed indented And Roll chief Iustice said that Copyhold lands in tail are not within the Statute of Westm 2. but it is a Customary entail like in its nature to another entail and such an estate must be docked by fine or by some other customary way It was also said by him that if Copies of Court Rolls be shewed to prove a Customary estate the enjoynment of such estates must also be proved otherwise the proof is not good It was also said upon the evidence That a seisure by the Lord made of Copyhold entailed lands within the Manor of Wakefield in Yorkshire is in the nature of a recovery to deck the entail and that the manner of doing it is either for the Copyholder to let his Copyhold for more years than he ought or to refuse to do his service and then the Lord seifes the lands for a forfeiture and grants it to another by the consent of the Copyholder that made the forfeiture It was then also said by Roll chief Iustice Custom that a Custom cannot be urged for a thing that had its beginning since Rich. the 1. if a Record can be shewed to the contrary Common recovery Recompense in value Custom Copyhold destroyed It was also said by him that a common recovery suproseth a recompence in value to all persons who lost the estate by the recovery He said also that he conceived that there could be no such Custom to cut off entails of Copyhold lands by the forfeiture and seisure of the Lord for his seisure upon the forfeiture destroys the Copy-hold estate by the Common Law for it is in the Lords election after the seisure whether he will grant the estate again or no and you do not prove that the Custom binds him to it Nota. Harris and Pasch 1655. Banc. sup THe Court was moved in the Case of one Harris To amend an old judgement Denied that the entry of a judgement twelve years past might be amended upon the Roll. But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be after so long time past Pasch 1655. Banc. sup VPon a writ of Error brought to reverse a fine levied by an Infant being a Feme Covert Day to inspect an Infant The Court was moved for a day to bring in the party that levied the fine to be inspected by the Court which was granted and at the day she was brought into the Court and viewed and two witnesses deposed that she was within age at the time of the fine levied Entry upon the Roll. which was entred upon the Roll upon which the Issue was tryed Pasch 1655 Banc. sup IT was said by Roll chief Iustice Election That if there be two Kinsmen in equal degree of kindred to the Intestate it is in the election of the Ordinary to which of them he will grant Letters of Administration Pasch 1655. Banc. sup AN Outlawry was reversed Outlawry reversed because the place where the County Court was held is not shewed in the secundo exactus Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IT was moved that there was a judgement given in the Common Pleas To affirm a judgement a writ of Error depending and thereupon the Defendant brought his writ of Error to reverse the judgement in this Court and since pending the writ of Error the partses were agréed and therefore they desired the judgement might be affirmed because that otherwise satisfaction of the judgement cannot be acknowledged upon the Roll because the Court of Common Pleas were forclosed to do any thing further upon the judgement given there by reason of the writ of Error But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be Denied for you shew no cause why we should affirm the judgement and therefore we will make no rule in it but enter satisfaction upon the Roll if you will at your own peril Pasch 1655. Banc. sup IT was said by Roll chief Iustice that an Action upon the case will lie against one that brings vexatious actions against another Action upon the Case for vexation or for entring of Actions of a great value to force his adversary to put in great bail where he hath but small cause of Action Nota. Trevanian and Penhollow Trin. 1655. TRevanian brought an Action upon the case against Penhollow for speaking of these words of him Plea to an Action on the Case Thou hast taken a false Oath at the Assizes and art false forsworn The Defendant pleads that the Plaintif had agréed to accept of 3 Iuggs of Beer from him in satisfaction The Plaintif
Hales on the other side Argued that the King shall have the trust and laid these two grounds 1. That there may be a trust raised upon the surrender of a Copyhold and 2ly that the surrender settles the trust in the Alien and cited 11 H. 4.26 and he said these things were considerable 1. Whether the King shall have any thing and what he shall have 2. Whether he shall have a use for an Alien at the Common law or a trust 3. Whether he shall have a trust raised out of a use And for the first he said that the trust was not a thing meerly in Action but an hereditament and partly in possession and cited Cooks Institutes 469. and said the reason why an Alien may not purchase lands is because that this Kingdom might not be impoverished thereby by transporting the revenues of the land into a forein Country and putting a part of it under the subjection of a forein Prince and the same reason comes to the case in question and therefore is not to be suffered and every Alien that purchaseth is said to purchase to the use of the King and so shall it be in this case and although a thing meerly in Action is not transferable to a Common person yet is it transferrable to the King but this case is stronger for the King for here is not a thing meerly in Action but mixed with an interest and it is no reason but that the law which was made to meet with the subtility of such Alien purchasors should take place here and it cannot be said that that law was made to give remedy to the King for that he had before and a Feoffment now made in trust for an Alien is all one with a use at the Common law and he cited 19. Jac. that trusts made to St. Iohn Daccombe of Annuityes for the Lord Summersett attainted of Treason were adjudged to be forfeited and he held Daccombe that there is no difference between a trust raised out of a Copyhold and other lands and if he hath an interest here in the profits the seisure is good though he have no interest in the land for the land may be seised by the profits 5 H. 5. fol. 9. Title But Rolle Iustice demanded of Hales how the King shall be intitled to the profits of the land where he is not intitled to the land it self and said that the Chancery cannot compell one to Execute a trust for an Alien Chancery and that a trust was invented only to avoid the Statute of uses and said that a trust is not a thing in Action Trust but may be an inheritance or a Chatell as the case falls out Adjourned postea White and Pynder Pasc 23 Car. Banc. reg Mich. 22 Car. rot 440. IN an Action of Trover and Conversion Demurrer upon an evidence there was a demurrer joyned upon the evidence and thereupon the Court directed the Iury to find damages for the Plaintiff if upon the argument of the demurrer the law should be adjudged for him and then the parties desired the Iury might be discharged and referred the matter to the Iudges to determine the law upon the evidence In this case Rolle Iustice took this difference to wit between pleading of a Record Record and giving a Record in evidence to a Iury. Plea If it be pleaded it must be sub pede sigilli or else the Iudges cannot judge of it But if it be given in evidence though it be not sub pede sigilli the Iury may find it Evidence if they have other good matter of inducement to prove it And the partyes in this case were advised by the Court for their own expedition to let there to be issued a venire facias de novo and to waive the demurrer upon the evidence because it was not good nor could bring the matter in question before them that they might determine it for one party saith there is a writ and the other saith there is not a writ which is bare matter of fact and not for us to determine but for a Iury and the demurrer ought to have been whether the writ be good or whether it be bad and should have admitted that there was a writ tyel quel and then had the whole matter come legally before us to wit whether the evidence given to the Iury be sufficient for them to find a verdict for the Plaintiff upon the issue joyned or not But the Court will advise Hamond and Kingsmill Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. HAmond brings an Action upon the case against Kingsmill for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Action of the Case for words spoken of him in relation as he is a Iustice of peace to wit Mr. Hamond did put in of his own head these words in an examination taken by him viz. I. S. did steal twenty sheep of such a mans and for speaking these other words of him Hamond was a debauched man and is not fit to be a Iustice of peace and hath a verdict against the defendant who moves in Arrest of Iudgement that neither the former nor the latter words were actionable for for the former words that he did of his own head put in words into the examination are words uncertain and dubious what is meant by them whether that he added any thing of his own invention to the examination which was not confessed by the examinant or that he only put the substance of the matter confessed into words of his own endicting and if he did no more that was justifiable and so it shall be taken here rather than in a worse and strained construction to ground an Action upon and for the second words to say that he was a debauched man and not worthy to be a Iustice of peace they cannot be scandalous for they are spoken of him in relation to what he was in time past before he was a Iustice of peace and not as he was at the time of the speaking and it is no scandall to say a man hath been debauched for it may be he is now otherwayes But for the first words it was answered by the Councel on the other side that they were actionable for they must be taken according to Common construction viz. that he had added not only words of his own invention to the examination but the matter it self expressed in those words which was not confessed by the examinant And as to the latter words it was answered they were also Actionable and a Case was cited where Iudgement was given against the Defendant for saying of one that he was a corrupt Iudge Rolle Iustice was of opinion Case that the first words were Actionable but not the second for words saith he ought to be taken according to usuall and Common construction though they are not to be strained for otherwise a man may be abused by subtility and shall have no remedy and Iudgement may be given
the land and the King shall have it And to that which is said that the King cannot be a Copyholder it is not so clear for I conceive the contrary for a surrender of a Copyhold to him is good and of a use too and he cited these books 9 H 6. fol. 25.20 B. 3. f. 3.11 rep 91. Rolle Iustice said that a Trustee or cestuy que trust cannot take the profits of the land Cestuy que trust Equity Outlawry Law Equity but hath only his remedy in equity for the Estate in the land is only in the party trusted and the King shall not have the profits of the land upon an Out-lawry against the cestuy que use or cestuy que trust And Law and Equity ought not to be confounded therefore if the King hath equity for a thing he ought not to sue for it at the Common law so is it in this case at the bar Adjourned Chapel and Drew 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Hill 11 Car. rot 921. IN this case the party being attainted of felony Exception to a pardon for Felony Pardon pleaded his Charter of Pardon and Claims thereby to be restored to his Goods and Chattels forfeited to the King by the felony and the Question was whether as the Pardon was penned he should be restored or no the words of the Pardon upon which the Question grew were these pardonavit remisit relaxavit and it was held that he was not by these words to be restored to his Goods and Chattels for the words do not amount to a Surrender in case of a ommon person much less in case of the King and there ought to have been the word restituit Roll Iustice said this Pardon was drawn by Noy Attorny General and was too short Felony Tryal and it was said by him that if one be committed to the Gaol for one felony the Iustices may enquire and try the party for another felony for which he was not committed Tylers Case Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. AN action of Debt was brought against Tyler upon an Obligation to stand to an Award Demurrer to a Replication and the Plaintiff declares of an Arbitrement made the 28th day of May in such a year ready to be delivered up the nine and twentyeth day of May in the same year The Defendant pleads nullum Arbitrium The Plaintiff replies that the Award was made by the Vmpire the 28th of May ready to be delivered up upon the same 28th day of May and to this replication the Defendant demurs and shews for cause that the Plaintiff had set forth double matter one in his Declaration and the other in his Replication for the Award set forth in the Declaration and that set forth in the Replication cannot be intended to be one and the same But Roll Iustice answered that the Issue to be tryed is not to be taken upon the day of the Award made and therefore it requires no answer Demmurres and so cannot be double and one ought not to demur for the doubleness of the matter upon a thing upon which no Issue can be taken and â—â—led better matter should be shewn or else Iudgement should be given for the Plaintiff Estwick and the City of London Trin. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Case of Estwick and the City of London was again argued by Serjeant Glynn for the City Argument in the Case of the VVrit of Restitution to a Common-Councel-mans place Restitution Custome in his Argument he insisted upon three particulars why Estwick could not be restored to his place of a common-Councel-man 1. That a common-Councel-man may be removed or suspended from his place at pleasure by the custome of the City 2ly That he cannot be restored by Law 3ly No restitution can be in this case as it now stands First the custom to remove a common-Councel-man is good for it first began by agreement and such a custome is good at the common law much more here and it is not an unreasonable custome although it may seem so prima facie like as it is in the case of a Lord that feiseth the Lands of his Villein and in the case of a Copyholder that for feiteth his Estate by the felling of Timber A second reason is it agrees well with the nature and condition of the office of a common-Councel-man to be subject to this Custome Tryal and we know that many things shall be tryed by Custome contrary to the course of the common law 3ly We see that the order of the Parliament is a rule to try matters concerning their Members and so it is here in the Citie to try their Members 4ly If it should not be so it would prove destructive to the City by waiting till such an offender might be removed by a course in Law which is far more tedious than this customary way To the second point he said that by Law there can be no restitution to this office and this is proved by the very nature of the Writ of Restitution which is to restore the party to a freehold or some other matter of profit neither of which can be in our case and a writ of Restitution is to restore one to a possession where one may not be restored by an ordinary way neither doth the Statute of Magna charta extend to our case for a common-Councel-mans place is merely grounded upon the custome of the City and not upon the Common law and he said there are three grounds for a Writ of Restitution 1. A contempt to the King 2ly A hurt to the Common-wealth 3ly Particular dammage to the party but none of these is in our cause and therefore there is no cause for a Writ of Restitution The case of Sir Iames Baggs having a Writ of Restitution was because he was deprived of his Trade and Freedom Constable Church warwarden free-hold and our case differs from the case of a Constable or a Church warden or any case that can be cited for a Church warden is an officer in relation to the Common wealth for the execution of Iustice wherof the Common law takes notice and likewise a Constable is a known Officer to minister Iustice in relation to the publique Recorder so is it of a Recorder of a Corporation and so they all differ from our case For authority to this point in 17. Iac. but moved first 16 Iac. Warren a common-Councel-man of Coventry was denyed upon the retorn of his Writ to be restored and our case and retorn is more strong against the Plaintiff and Burman a Gentleman of one of the Inne of Court being expelled could not be restored by a Writ of Restitution and lately a common-Councel-man was removed for not taking the Protestation For the third point whether upon the Writ it self as this case is there can be any restitution made I conceive not because it is directed to the Maior and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London and so
between what the Law directs and what the devise directs all the difference is in the manner how his Son Iohn shall come to the Estate 3 4 Phil. Mar. Dyer 134. 37 Eliz. A man seised in fee had issue two Daughters and devised the Lands to them and to their Heirs and it was questioned whether they were Ioynt tenants and I conceive they are and where one omits a thing in a conveyance which the Law supplies this shall not hurt and he cited Iennings and Pollards Case 6 Car. Hales on the other side argued that the Son takes by purchase and not by descent for the devise is not to the Son in present but after the death of the Testators wife and if he had the Lands by descent he should have them presently VVaiver It is true the Son might have waived the taking by purchase and might have taken by descent but here prima facie he shall be intended to be in by purchase and not descent for here doth not appear to be any actual waiver of the purchase and the Son doth here as I conceive take by way of remainder and not by way of reversion And as to the verdict I conceive it is not good for it doth not shew how the lands are held whether in Chivalry or Socage and so it appears not whether the Testator had power to devise all of them or not for if they be held in Chivalry he can devise but two parts of them as the Statute directs 2ly It appears not that the Testator had but one Son by his first wife 3ly It is not shewed that the Lands are parcel of the Mannor 4ly It doth not appear in whose possession the Lands are Roll chief Iustice said Lands that are given by Will shall be intended to be socage tenure Intention if the contrary do not appear And he held that the devise is void and that it is not in the power of Iohn the Son to make the election to take by descent or by purchase at his pleasure but he must of necessity take the Land as the Law directs which is by descent Maxim and it is against a maxim in Law to give a thing to such a person to whom the Law gives it if it had not been so given 3 4 Phil. Ma. Dyer 134. and therefore the Plaintif ought to have Iudgement And as to the verdict he hath primer possession Verdict and therefore if the other make no title the verdict is for him and good enough Bacon Iustice to the same intent viz. that the Heir doth here take by descent and not by purchase for this the Law says and he cannot alter it and cited Foscues Case 4 Car. and a Case in 7 Iac. And so judgement was given for the Plaintif Franck against Burt and others Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintif brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his House For costs for the Desendant upon non-sute of the Plaintif and carrying away his Goods at the Tryal the Plaintif was non-sute The Plaintif moved that there was error in the Declaration and therefore there could have béen no Iudgement and prays that he may be spared costs Roll chief Iustice answered that heretofore it hath been made a question whether the Plaintif being non-sute should pay costs Cests but since the Statute of 4 Iac. it is clear he ought to pay costs for the vexation of the Defendant and so it hath béen ruled here and you are out of Court now by being non-sute and therefore you must pay costs And therefore except better matter be shewed let them be paid Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for a Prohibition to the great Sessions of Carnarvan in Wales to stop a sute in an English Bill of Equity exhibited there For a prohibition to the great Sessions at Carnarvan in Wales whereas by the Bill it appears there is no matter of Equity in the Case but only matter tryable at the Law The Court answered if they proceed there against Equity we cannot hinder them There was wont to be an Agent here from the Commissioners there for us to confer with in such cases as these but it seems there is not any here now Therefore give notice Prohibition and let them shew cause the next Term why a Prohibition should not be granted Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon reading of a retorn made by the Sherifs of the City of Norwitch upon a Habeas corpus directed unto them for one Chambers It was said by the Court How a Habeas corpus to an inferiour Court should be retorned Retorn that it hath been ruled That upon a Habeas Corpus to an inferiour Court to remove Corpus cum causa they ought to retorn all the causes that are depending there concerning the party that hath the Habeas Corpus if any of the causes depending be for above five pound of which they ought not to hold Plea and therefore because all the causes were not retorned here upon the retorn of this Habeas Corpus The Court held the retorn was not good and ordered that it should be amended upon pain of ten pounds by Monday next Raph against Davye Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. RAph brought an Action of the Case against Davy for speaking these words of her to the Plaintifs mother Arrest of judgement in an action for words viz. Your Daughter innuendo the Plaintif is a brazen faced Whore and deserves to be hanged and for speaking these other words to the Plaintif herself viz. you Huswife are a Thief and have stollen my Purse The Plaintif had a verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement Averment that the Plaintif doth not aver that her Mother had not any other Daughter besides herself and so it is uncertain whether the words were spoken of her or no. But the Court held it was well enough without such averment because the Declaration is that the Defendant habens colloquium of the Plaintif did speak the words and that makes it certain enough And therefore bid the Plaintif take her Iudgement Jennings against Lee. Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. IEnnings brought an Action of Assault and Battery against Lee. The Defendant pleads a special plea Arrest of Iudgement in an action of assault and battery and justifies The Plaintif replies de injuria sua propria and upon this an Issue is joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement that the replication was not good because it answers not the special matter pleaded nor takes any traverse by an absque tali causa as it ought to do and so there is no issue joyned and consequently there can be no Iudgement Roll chief Iustice said that the replying de injuria sua propria Traverse Issue Ieofails and not traversing absque tali causa is not good for there is not an affirmative and a negative and so
alias Heriots with the appurtenances whereof the said Close called Pipers Down was parcell which tenement and Close were parcell of the said manour and was then and had been time out of mind demised and demiseable in Fee by Copy of Court roll of the said manour did build a new messuage upon the said Tenement and did afterwards by his Letters patents under the great seal grant the office of Keeper and keeping of the said messuage to Iohn Gate for term of his life with all the Lands Tenements c. thereto belonging or adjacent and did also by the same Letters patents give and grant unto the said Iohn Gate amongst other things the Lands belonging to the said new built messuage whereof the said Close called Pipers down was part for Term of his life for the exercising of the said office with an averment in the plea that before that time there was no such office of the keeping of the said house and that the King did not know nor was at the time of the grant enformed that the said Tenement and Lands whereof the said Close was parcell were Copyhold of the said manour After the grant made to Iohn Gate as aforesaid H. the 8. dyed seised of the said manour of the reversion of the said Messuage and Close after the death of Iohn Gate and thereby Ed. the 6. became sofâ—ed of them in like manner and from Ed. the 6. they came to Quéen Mary Then Iohn Gate dyes and after his death Quéen Mary enters upon the said manour and Messuage whereof the said Close was a parcell and afterwards by her Letters Patents under her broad Seal doth grant the Manour and Messuage and Premises unto Susan Tong and her heirs for ever From Susan Tong by mean conveyance the said Manour Messuage and Premises came to Humphry White and his heirs and afterterwards Humphrey White being seized thereof in Fée did by his indenture of lease demise the said Manour Messuage and Premises to Leigh for 60. years to begin from Mich. before the making of the indenture afterward Humphrey White grants away the reversion of the said Manour Messuage Premises to Sir John Branch afterwards Sir Iohn Branch grants this reversion to Vdall Vdall grants it to Bathurst and Bathurst grants it to Thomas Boothby the Ancestor of Thomas Boothby whose Baily doth here make the avowry Afterwards Robert Leigh who had the lease of the said Manour and Premises as aforesaid for 60 years deviseth the residue of this lease then unexpired by his last Will and Testament unto Robert Leigh his Son and dyes Robert Lee the son being possessed of the residue or remainder of this Term for 60. years by virtue of the said Will did at his court held for the said Manour of Chingford grant the said Messuage with the appurtenances and Lands thereunto belonging whereof the said Close was parcell unto Edmund Lee his brother to hold of the same Manour in Fée at the will of the Lord by Copy of Court Roll of that Manour Edmund Lee was thereupon admitted accordingly Afterwards the said lease for 60. years made by Humphrey White unto Robert Leigh the Father expires Afterwards Thomas Boothby who had the reversion of the said Manour and Premises as abovesaid entred as in his reversion upon the said Manour and Premises and dyed seised thereof leaving issue Thomas Boothby his Son Thomas Boothby the Son enters into the said Manour and Premises and claims the said Messuage with the apurtenances with the lands thereunto belonging whereof the Close called Pipers down was parcell and was granted by Robert Leigh unto Edmund Leigh by Copy of Court Roll as aforesaid as parcell of the demaines of the said Manour of Chingford and doth deny it to be Copyhold and to the intent to try the title thereof did by the Avowant his Bailiff distrein the Cattel in the said Close as damage feasant in his soil and Freehold This Case was argued first by Arthur Harris of Lincolnes Inn who argued for the Plaintiff viz. he that brought the replevin and in his argument he made the generall question in the Case to be whether the close called Pipers Down in which the distress was taken were at the time of the distress taken demiseable by Copy of Court Roll or whether the Custom was not destroyed and he held it was demiseable and that the custom was not destroyed and hereupon he made four questions 1. Whether the grant of the new house to Sr. Iohn Gate per nomen officii of keeper thereof were a good grant 2ly Whether the King not being enformed at the time of the grant that the house was Copyhold tenure he was not deceived in his grant 3ly Whether by this grant the Custom was not destroyed 4ly Whether the Kings Patentee hath not the same privilege to grant this house c. again by Copy of Court Roll after the death of Sr. Iohn Gate And as to the 1. of these 4. questions he cited 8 E. 4. by Chock and 21 E. 4.79 and Mich 5 Car. Banc. Reg. Monsons case and Pasc 14 Car. Banc. Reg. Messand and Butterfields Case and 5 E. 4. f. 8. and Dyer 269. Savages Case To the 2d question he held that the King was not here enformed of his right and consequently he was deceived and therefore ought not to be prejudiced by his grant which he should be if he had not liberty to demise this house again by Copy of Court Roll after the death of Sr. Iohn Gate and he said that there are two rights in the King 1. At the Common Law and 2ly a customary right and of this Customary right or his jus concedendi he was not enformed and he cited these books 3 H. 7.10 rep 49.8 H. 625 Br. Ayd 45 4. H. 6.1 2 R. 3. Hunsons Case and he said that the book of 5 H. 7. f. 1. which is objected is not to purpose for the protestation is not well taken 19 H. 6. a protestation is to supply a matter which is not so here 41 E. 3. Fitzh protest 9.22 H. 6.37 Br. protestation 6. Plowd Coment Gresbrooks and Foxes Case and 20 Eliz. Burrell and Holcrofts Case 2ly The King is not enformed here in his grant in matter in Law as he ought to be and therefore his grant shall not turn to his prejudice 1 rep 52.18 H. 8. Lovels Case Pasc 2 Eliz. Sr. Thomas Mores Case 1. rep â—3 16 Jac. Needlers case and whereas it is said that the words ex certa scientia in the patent do declare that the King was enformed I answer that those words do intend no more but that the King was enformed of matters of fact and not of matters in Law and the Kings grant shall only be taken secundum intentionem and whereas it may be objected that by the granting of the Estate for life unto Sr. Iohn Gate the custom is destroyed I answer that this being in the Case of the King it is an extraordinary Case and not
but if it be interrupted but in part it is not so as it is in the case cited where the King hath Gavelkind lands Com. Plowd 114. and so prays judgement for the Plaintif Adjourned Latch at another day argued for the Avowant and said that the Plaintif in his rejoynder hath made no title unto Susan Tong from whom he claims It is objected that by the grant of the Manor of Chingford Comitis per nomen duorum illorum maneriorum c. that Tong cannot be intituled It is answered that the other side hath confessed that Tong hath a title for they derive from her also and the contrary doth not appear to the Court and it being agreed the Court will not make a doubt of it He made 3 Questions 1. Whether the Manor of Chingford Comitis passeth per nomen duorum illorum maneriorum de c. 2ly Whether if the grant be ill it be aided by Statute 3ly Whether it be helped by the Averment For the 1. he held that here is a good grant without any averment or aid of the Statute for if the King grants two Manors one shall pass and e converso it shall not be so in the Case of the King but it is good in the case of a Common person with an Averment The grant of the Manor of Saperton cum Rippen is an ill grant for the incertainty of it but here is no such incertainty here is no non nosmer of the thing for the word nomina requires not a proper name but it is all one as if it had been expressed by words comprehending it and the word Manors doth comprehend it If the King grant his two Acres of Land lying in a Common field although but one Acre is to be found yet the grant is good and it is not like to the grant of a Manor with the Advowson where the King hath but a moyety of the Advowson or a moyety of the Manor for the Moyety is not actual in the whole but one is actually in two and so it is well named here 2ly Whether it be good without an averment that the land was in the Lord Darcy and he held it was If the words were general in the grant all of them ought to be true otherwise nothing will passe by the grant as Dodingtons case is but here is a proper name to express it and therefore the grant is not destroyed although the latter description do not agree to it 10. Rep. Harpers Case 2 H. 4. f. 2. If the King grant all the lands in the Patent annexed bearing date 10 of Iune though the Patent bear date the 10 of Iuly yet is the grant good for veritas nominis tollit errorem demonstrationis and if the grant should not be good at the Common Law yet it is ayded by the Statute of 3. 4 Phil. Mar. and here is a full and a strong averment in the pleading for it is Manerium praedictum and not Manerium generally and here is not only a possibility but also a facility for it to pass and it may be called Manor or Manors and in a feofment a thing may pass per nomen because that the livery passeth it where one pleads per nomen he is to make the Plea agree with the Record or specialty otherwise per nomen shall not be pleaded and Newtons opinion against this is but a single opinion 33 H. 8. Br. Averment 42. The word praedict makes an averment in the name of the Feoffor â—4 H. 4.30.22 H. 6.40 Barton and Escott here is also a full averment of the thing granted this is in grants 7 E. 4.24.33 H. 6. f. 22 26 Ass 2.24 Ass 6. so in Letters Patents Dyer 86. the Serjeants case and if this be authority it is in the very point Dyer 207. praedict per nomina is a good averment Pasch 7. Iac. Rot. 430. B. reg Stonehouse and Reeds case where there was not so much as a per nomina but only decimas praedict and yet adjudged to be a good intitling by the word praedict because it was held a good averment although it was not led on by a per nomina and there admitted to be clear if it had been with a per nomina as the Case here is so Tong is well intitled 2ly The Plaintifs title is well avoided and we have well destroyed his Copy without doubt if a Common person had granted the Copyhold for life the Copy-hold had been thereby extinguished and our case is not a prerogative case for the King is bound by the Custom of the Manor and the Custom is here destroyed and the prerogative cannot create the Custom anew and it is against the Kings Prerogative to have things drawn out of the King without matter of Record and it is prejudice to the King to have the Custom revived for the lands are now made free and shall never return again to the Vassalage The Kings Prerogative exalts him above a Common person but this custom makes him equal to a common person 2ly The Custom here cannot be supported but here is an absolute extinguishment of the Copyhold so that it cannot be regranted The law will confirm things necessary to the grant of the King in some cases where it is prejudicial to the King 16 H. 7. f. 8. Nicholas case Plowd 489. The king seised of a donative makes it presentative if he do but once present unto it so if he turn an Annuity into a rent charge by taking a distress And the nature of this Custom here ought not to be examined with other Customs for it is more strict than in other cases for if it be once destroyed it is always destroyed and cannot be suspended and it is not for the Kings dis-advantage to have the Copyhold destroyed but it is for his advantage and conveniency and so he prays judgement for the Avowant Roll chief Iustice All will come and rest upon the last point for all the other things are admitted The grant is good by the per nomen and it is only nominal and doth not imply that there are two Manors and it may stand well enough with reason that it may be known per nomen But the last point is considerable he enclined to Latch Nicholas Iustice to the same effect and that the praedict is a good averment The last point is considerable but prima facie here the custom is not destroyed Ask Iustice to the same effect and that it appears that the King intended to grant but one Manor Roll We will take time till the next term to speak to the last point which is only doubtfull and to deliver our opinions Ierman Iustice the pleading of the party per nomen helps not the Patent if it be not good in it self The next Term Roll chief Iustice for himself and the rest of the Iudges who he said concurr'd in opinion with him delivered the opinion of the Court to this effect 1. That they were agreed that
Crisp and Prats case doth somewhat resemble this Bankrupt The Law intends a Bankrupt which is so by fraud as well as a Bankrupt who becomes so by accident and for this cause is he called an Offender in the Statute and here the year of our Lord 1637 is the 13 year of the late King the recovery suffered by the Bankrupt was then and within half a year after the recovery he became a Bankrupt so that me thinks there plainly appears to be fraud in the Conveyance Fraud but the fraud is not expressed in the pleading as it might have been The Statute of 1 Iac. is somewhat doubtfull as I conceive and I do not sée any provision made in it against the wife if fraud do not appear for here is no valuable consideration mentioned Nicholas justice said it is doubtfull yet he conceived it within the Statute of 1 Iac. which ought to receive a large construction because it was made for the good of the Commonwealth Ierman and Ask agreed with Roll in omnibus Roll Here the matter in dispute is not in a special Verdict but comes in question upon point of pleading Pleading which shall be taken most strong against him that pleads it and he hath not expressed any valuable consideration as he might have done by saying in consideration of a portion or in recompence of mariage or in performance of Articles made upon mariage or that the wife had joyned in selling some part of the land The Court would advise but enclined judgement ought to be for the Avowant Afterwards judgement was given accordingly for the Court held the wife was within the Statute of 1 Iac. and the providing for wife and children to be providing for himself Chapman against Brook Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 200. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintif declared upon a Custom of commoning in such a place The Defendant demurred to the Declaration Demurrer to a Declaration in an Action on the Case and for cause shews that the Custom was not well laid for the Plaintif declares of a Custom of commoning pro averiis viz. pro equis bobus equabus et pullis and the word pullis is of an uncertain signification for it may signifie a Calf a Lamb or any other young Beast or Foul and 23 Car. Segar and Dyers Case was cited The Court held the exception good and said that it is incertain what is meant by the word pullus and said that if the prescripsion had been pro omnibus averiis it had been good Prescription and the viz. should have been void but here it is only pro averiis Therefore nil capiat per billam Newton against Godard Trin. 1651. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in an Action of Debt at Ipswitch Error to reverse a judgement in debt The Case was this There issued out a Capias against the Principal and a judgement was given against him and after a scire facias issued out against the Bail and a judgement thereupon was given against the Bail Then the Plaintif takes out an Execution viz. a fieri facias against the Principal and Bail upon both the judgements to levy the debt recovered upon the goods and chattels of the Principal and Bail or either of them It was alleged that the execution thus taken out was not good for there ought to have been several executions upon the several judgements Execution and not one execution and to this the Court agreed and ordered the Defendant in the writ of Error to shew cause why the judgement should not be reversed In this Case Roll chief Iustice took an exception to the scire facias Abreviation because it was scire fac with a dash which might be as well scire faciatis as scire facias Spittlehouse against Farmery Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 43. AN Action of accompt was brought against a Feme Covert an Administratrix and her Husband in the Common Pleas Error to reverse a judgment â— ven in an Action of Accompt and judgement given against the Defendants quod computent The Feme dies and the Husband brings a writ of Error in this Court to reverse this Iudgement Roll chief Iustice held that the writ of Error did not lie because the Record cannot be removed by it for that would disturb the proceedings in the Common Pleas and the party would have no fruit of his sute if the Record should be removed nor any remedy to recover the arrears due unto him Original Scire facias Yet the Original is determined by the Iudgement given quod computent and a scire facias lies by the Executor as the case here is Ierman Iustice to the same effect and cited 1 H. 7. f. 2. Nicholas Iustice to the same intent and said he did not much regard the Book of 21 Ed. 3. because there are other Books against it Ask Iustice ad idem Roll chief Iustice put these cases A judgement was given in Dower for the Demandant and another judgement that she shall recover her damages and this second judgement for the damages was reversed by a writ of Error because she did not aver that her Husband died seised in which case she is to have no damages Iudgement yet the first judgement for the Dower stood unreversed and Hill 43 Eliz. C. B. in one Williams and Whites case in an â—â—ction of Accompt 2 judgements were given and the second wâ—s reversed and the first stood unreversed In the principle case the rule was judicium nisi VVallis against Bucknal Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 600. VPon a special Verdict the case fell out to be this Sâ—ecâ—al verdict upon a Custom of a Manor One selfe d of Copy-hold lands of inhâ—ritance made a Letter of Attorney unto two joyntly and severally to surrender the lands after his death to certain uses according to the Custom of the Manor The question was whether this was a good Custom or no. Ellis of Councel with the Plaintif argued that it was not a good Custom because a Custom ought to be reasonable but this Custom is unreasonable because it is not only against a particular Law but it is against the general rule of Law to pass estates of inheritance in such a Manor and although particular Customs may be against publique interest pro boâ—o publico yet this is nothing to our case for this is not for the publique good and therefore it is not good 2ly An authority ought to be countermandable and to determine by the death of the party that gives the authority but here it is not so but it is to continue after his death Next no man can give authority to another to do a thing which he himself could not do but here it is otherwise and therefore it is not good Also by the death of the Copyholder the Law settles the lands in the
Court Twisden on the other side confessed the Books were so but here the Battery is not apparent and the wound is internal and not to be viewed by the Court. Roll chief Iustice said 3 things are considerable 1. whether the Court can increase the damages 2ly Whether the wound be apparent and 3ly Whether the damages given be too small The Court upon view of the party and examination of Chirurgions and Witnesses on both sides upon Oath did conclude that they might increase the damages and that the wound was apparent and that the damages were too small and therefore they increased them to 400 l. and said they would not encrease them more because they could not inquire into all the circumstances of the fact as the jury might but they thought fitting to encrease them in some proportion because the offence was great and such outragious Acts are not to be slightly punished VVallis against Bucknal Hill 1651. Banc. sup VPon a special verdict found in an Ejectione firmae the case sell out to be this Special Verdict in an Ejectione firmse A Copyholder of inheritance made a Letter of Attorney to two joyntly and severally to surrender his Copyhold lands in Fee to certain uses after his death according to the Custom of the Manor The question made by Ellis of Councel with the Plaintif was whether the Custom was good or not he argued that it was not a good Custom In Sir Iohn Davis Reports it is said a Custom must be reasonable and a Custom may be reasonable when it is but against a particular Law and not a general Law but the Custom here thus to convey land is against a general Law Particular Customs may be against publique interest pro bono public but if they be not as in our case they are not they are not good Pro bono publico Next an authority given ought to be Countermandable and to determine at the death of the party but this is not so and therefore it is no good authority 19 E. 3. f. 5. 2ly None can give an authority to another to do a thing which he could not do himself but here it is otherwise and therefore it is not a good authority 3ly By the death of the Copyholder the lands are setled in the heir and this authority given shall not devest them and this is not like the surrendring of lands into the hands of the Lord for a surrender cannot be revoked but this authority is revokable Next the Verdict doth not find that the 2 Attorneys are Customary tenants but only by way of recital which is not good nor doth it appear they were customary tenants at the time of the admittance and here is not found any possession or title in the Defendant and so the Plaintif having primer possession the Defendant is guilty neither is it found that the customary Tenant had see-simple in the land And if he had but an estate for life he could not make such a letter of Attorney Also the authority given is not warranted by the Custom set forth Wilmot of Councel with the Defendant said That this authority here is supported with a special direction which may survive the party that gives it 1 H. 7.8 And an authority may survive the party that gives it else how can an Executor sell lands by the authority given unto him 21 E. 4. f. 8. 31. E. 1. Fitzherb 45. and as for the heir he hath neglected his advantage it he had any and cannot now take it But besides the authority here given is more than a bare authority for it is backed with circumstances of time and person and here is also a Custom to support it and this Custom is a reasonable Custom for it is but to enable a man to dispose of his own lands and there are far more unreasonable Customs than this allowed in our law as the Custom of Kent for one of the age of 15 years to be enabled to sell his lands and this Custom is not against any positive rule of Law for the custom is to create the authority to begin after his death and so it is not to determine by his death for till then it begins not and the Custom here is but to alien lands which is no strange thing and it is extended but within a small compass of land and so cannot be very prejudicial to the publique And Bambridge and Whaddons case 17 Car. in this Court cited on the other side doth differ from this case for tâ—ere was no Custom to support it And it doth appear here by the Record that Dalby the Attorney is a customary Tenant and the admission here is found to be secundum consuetudinem Manerii And one cannot gain a Copyhold estate by disseisin and so here can be no primer seisin intended and it is found the Copyholder is seised Roll chief Iustice said It will be hard to maintain the Custom Custom if it be not found that the party was seiâ—â—d in see of the Copyhold lands But 2ly it is not here found that the land is demisable according to the will of the Lord and so it may be free land then the custom doth not reach it Neither is it found that the 2 Attorneys were Copyhold Tenants and the primer possession here will make a disseisin by the Defendant if the Custom be not well found and then it is for the Plaintif and I cannot see how the Custom can be good it being against the rules of Law for a man cannot devise a Copyhold and here the case is worse Devise but he may surrender to the use of his last Will and Testament At another day Wilmot to the Exception taken That it is not found that the two Attorneys were Tenants of the Manor said there is so much found as shall make them be presumed to be Tenants of the Manor for it is found that the party is admitted secundum consuetudinem Manerii which cannot be a good admittance if they were not Tenants Roll chief Iustice answered to be admitted secundum consuetudinem goes â—o the Admittance not to the Letter of Attorney But we will advise At another day Twisden prayed judgement for the Plaintif and insisted upon the Exception that the two Attorneys were not found customary Tenants for one of them is not mentioned at all and the other is found so only by way of recital and so they have not entitled themselves to the Custom and then the Defendant hath no title The Court ruled to shew cause Saturday following why the Plaintif should not have judgement Antea Custodes against Tawny and Norwood Hill 1651. Banc. sup TAwny and Norwood were jointly endicted for blasphemous words severally spoken by them Endictment for speaking blasphemous words upon the late Statute made against blasphemy and were convicted the parties being removed hither by Habeas Corpus It was urged that the Endictment was not good because it was joynt whereas the words being
remedy for the damage he suffred in the losse of his Credit and the damage in his Trade for in the former Action he recovered no damages for that for the Iury never took that into their consideration for they had no power to take any damages into their consideration which happened after the Trespass done for which the Action was brought but only for the breaking open of the Shop and the taking away of his Goods and although he might at the first have brought his Action upon the case as he hath now done yet he was not commpellable thereto but had his Election to bring either an Action upon his case or an Action of Trespass as should most make for his advantage Election of Actions for this Election of Action belongs to every subject as his birth right and he is not to be hindred from it Adjournatur Remington and Kingerby Mich. 18 Car. rot 72. REmington grants a rent out of certain Lands to Fawne with a clause of distress Error upon a Judgement in an Annuity in the Common pleaâ— and a nomine poenae in the deed for the non payment thereof according to the time lymited the rent is behind after the time lymited by the nomine poenae Fawne brings a writ of Annuity in the Common Pleas for the Arrerages of the Annuity and for the moneys due upon the nomine poenae and hath Iudgement Remington brings his writ of Error in this Court to reverse this Iudgement and Assignes for Error that the writ of Annuity did not lie for the nomine poenae though it did for the rent for though it was in the Power and Election of Fawne to charge either the land out of which the rent was to issue with the rent behind by distress and so to make it a rent charge or else to bring his writ of Annuity for it against Remington and so to charge his person yet he had no such Power for the nomine poenae because it was in the nature of a rent and was necessarily to issue out of the Land Nomiâ—e yoe 1 ae and not to be charged upon the Person and it was further alleged that a nomine poenae was an uncertain thing and comes not within the Statute of 21 H. 8. touching Avowries as a rent charge doth which is certain Another exception was that it appears notin the Record that Fawne did make a good demand of this nomine poenae upon the Land out of which the rent was issuing as he ought to have done before he could bring an Action for it for though there do appear to be a demand yet if it appear not to be a legal demand it is Null and the party shall take no benefit by it Adjourned Nuls and Cheney 21 Car. B. R. AN Action of the case was brought for these words Arrest of Iudgement in in Action upon the case I do accuse you to be a Witch and require you to be searched and a verdict was given for the Plaintiff the Defendant moves in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable because it is not averred that the party accused had done any hurt to Cattell or otherwise or hath had any Communication wit the Devill And so the Court held because the words spoken did not bring the Party of whom they were spoken within the Statute of 10 Jac concerning Witch-Craft Wingfield and Sherwood VVIngfield brings an Action of Covenant against Sherwood his Lessee for yeers Error upon a Iudgement in an Action of Covenant and declares that he had Covenanted by indenture that hee would not cut down more tymber growing upon the lands demised than sufficient for needful and necessary reparations of the houses and buildings let unto him and for breach Assigns that he had cut down tymber to the value of ten pounds and had converted them to his proper use and upon this hath a Verdict and a Iudgement against him Sherwood brings a writ of Error in this Court to reverse this Iudgment and Assigns for Error that there was variance between the Covenant expressed in the lease and the Covenant set forth in the declaration whereupon the breach was assigned and so the Iudgement was not given upon a breach of the Covenant expressed in the lease viz. That he should not cut down more tymber than was necessary for reparations for by this breach the Plaintiff supposeth that the Defendant had Covenanted not to cut down tymber to employ to his own use which is not the Covenant expressed in the lease but another And though the Defendant had cut down tymber and converted it to his own use Covenant this was not a breach of the Covenant expressed in the Indenture except it be averred that he cut down more than was necessary for reparations and converted it to his own use and for this Error the Iudgement was reversed Whitwell and Short Trin. 21. Carl. rot 227. WHitwell brought an Action of Trespass for assaulting beating Arrest of Iudgement in an Action of Trespasse and wounding him against fowr several persons three of them plead not guilty and are found guilty and the fourth pleads not guilty to part and iustifies for the rest viz. The wounding and is found guilty as to the wounding only yet the verdict was fond generally for the Plaintiff and intire damages assessed and Iudgement given and a writ of Error was brought and the Error assigned was that the damages ought not to be entire against all because that the fourth person was only found guilty of part of the trespass to wit the wounding and therefore as to him the damages ought to have been severed in relation only to the wounding and not as it is for so damages should be given twice for the same thing Several damages First against the three and then against the fourth which the Court granted and reversed the Iudgement VVard and Coggin Pasc 22 Car. rot 257. VVArd brings an Action of debt in the Common pleas against Coggin Error upon an action of Debt and declares that the Defendant in consideration that he the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant had sold certain wares to I. S. did assume and promise to him the Plantiff that he would pay such a sum of money for them and for non payment accordingly he brings his Action and hath a Verdict and Iudgement The Defendant brings his writ of Error in this Court to reverse this Iudgement and Assigns for Error That an Action of debt lyes not in this case because the debt which the Defendant promised to pay and for which the Action is brought was raised and became a duty before the promise made for the payment of it and so an Action of debt cannot be grounded for it on the promise And the words in the declaration do sound meerly upon a promise upon which a good consideration for an Action of the case may be grounded Case but not to bring an
find it if they see cause to the contrary and that in the case at the barr the Action might be as well grounded upon the scandal which grew to the party who was Endicted as upon the trouble which might have befallen him by reason of the preferring the bill against him Hellena Pasc 23 Car. B. r. AN Action upon the Case was brought for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case Hellena is a great Witch and a Verdict found for the Plaintiff It was moved to stay Iudgement because the words were not Actionable for they did not shew that the Plaintiff had bewitched any thing or done any thing that brought her within the compass of the Statute 1. Jac. against Witch-Craft Iudgement was hereupon stayed VVilliamson against Henley Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 21 Car. rot 362. AN Action of Debt was brought upon an obligation Arrest of Iudgement in Debt upon an obligation the condition was that if the Defendant did sell the tithes in Ransom more that he should pay the Plaintiff such a sum of money but if he sold them not that then he should deliver an obligation to the Plaintiff for the payment of a certain sum of money therein expressed at a certain day therein limited and for non performance of the condition is the Acion brought The Plaintiff obtains a Verdict the Defendant moves in Arrest of Iudgement Time that he ought to have convenient time for doing of the things expressed in the condition and that it appears not by the Record that he had convenient time and so there is no breach of the condition But the Court held that the time between the date of the obligation and the bringing of the Action was a conveninent time and that there being a second thing to be performed in case the former were not done that therefore that former thing ought to be done in some reasonable time elce the party would be too much prejudiced by staying to have the second thing performed and therefore ruled that Iudgement should be entred without better matter should be shewed Savages Case Pasc 23 Car. B. R. SAvage was Endicted for forging and publishing of Letters of credence to gather money Error upon a Judgement upon an Endictment and was convicted and Iudgement given against him upon his own confession and 100 l. fine set upon him et quod capiatur Exceptions were taken to this Iudgement 1. That it did not appear wher he received any money by virtue of these counterfeit Letters nor at what time But the Court answered that the substance of the offence for which he was Endicted was Endictment the forging and publishing of the Letters and not the collecting of the money for though he had not collected a penny yet the Endictment was good A second exception was that the Endictment did not say quod Counterfecit falso But the Court held that the word Counterfecit necessarily implyed in it the word falso and so not material whether falso were expressed or omitted 3ly It was objected that the party was committed before he was convicted But to this the Court answered Conviction that he was committed upon his own confession which is a conviction in Law and the Iudgement held good and affirmed Needler and Guest Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Entred Trin 1649. rot NEedler brings an Action of Covenant against Guest Artest of Iudgement in a breach of Covenant upon Articles amongst which one was to allow such a sum of money to an under Clerk in the six Clerks Office by the sheet for every quire of paper he should writein copying and engrossing of bills answers c. as was expressed in the said Articles and upon this Needler obtains a verdict against Guest In Arrest of Iudgement divers exceptions were taken and over-ruled but one was insisted upon which was this that there was more found in the breach of the Covenant assigned then was contained in the Covenant it self for it was found that he had not payed for 72 sheets which was 5 quire and a half and so damages were given for more than ought to be Breach for the Covenant was to pay so much the quire and mentions not any half Damages and for this the Iudgement was stayed for the Court said that the Law would not supply a casus omissus to bring it within the Covenant to ground a breach thereupon Supply what ever the intent of the partyes was that were parties to the Articles VVhitley and Fawsett Pasc 23 Car. Banc. reg VVHitley brings an Action of Trover Action of Proven for distraining selling his Cattel and Conversion against Fawsett for taking his Cattel by way of distress and selling them by virtue of a warrant of Commissioners of Sewers for not paying of a tax set by them towards the reparation of Sea walls the Defendant pleads all the speciall matter by way of justification the Plaintiff demurrs to this Plea and upon the demurrer takes these exceptions to it 1. To the setting forth of the Commission in that he shews not that three of the Commissioners were of the quorum The 2d exception was that in his Plea he had not sâ—t forth the Authority of the Commissioners To that the Court answered it was not necessary 3ly That the Plea was but argumentative which makes it naught 4ly It appears that there are 800. Acres of Land which are in the hands of the King Tax which are not taxed as by law they ought and so the tax is unjust because by the not taxing of them a greater burden was laid upon the rest of the Land than of right ought to be and this the Court held a good exception and said that the Kings Lands are taxable by the Statute 5ly The Statute is not pleaded as it ought to be 6ly It doth not expresse that Whitley in whose occupation the Lands are that are taxed is the Assignee to Lynsee the owner of the Lands but he may be a meer stranger and so not taxable nor his beasts to be sold 7ly It is not set forth that he shewed his warrant before he distrained as he ought to do Distresse In this case the Court first said that one may distrain and sell the Cattel of the owner of the Land taxed or his Assignee for non payment thereof Sale but doubted whether a strangers Cattel might be distrained and sold Roll Iustice took these Exceptions to the Plea 1. Plea That the Plea did not set forth the limits of the Commission as it ought to do and was therefore ill 2ly He said the Plea ought to have shewed that three of the Commissioners were of the quorum 3ly That it did not appear by the Plea that the Lands taxed where the distresse was made are within the Level to be taxed by the Commissioners 4ly The Tax is of the Land of such an one and his Assignes and this is
E. s Brook Covenant 4. was cited Next the Plea doth not say that the Armed men with Prince Rupert were Aliens or Enemies of the King Allen. Enemy but only that Prince Rupert was so But to this exception Roll Iustice answered that they shall be so intended if they be his Army with which he invaded the Land Plea Another exception was taken that the Plea gives no answer at all for one Quarters rent demanded which incurred after the time that he was kept out by Prince Rupert The Councel for the Defendant in defence of the Plea urged that it was not necessary to aver that the Army with Prince Rupert were Aliens and cited 3 H. 6. 61. and the Councel took a difference between an Enemy and a Rebel Rebel and though in the case of a Rebellion this might not be a good Plea yet in case of an Invasion he conceived it was Remedy because he could have no remedy against the party and resembled this case to cases of like nature cited out of 9 E. 3. 7. 40 E. 3 6. 33 H. 6. 1. VVaste and said that where waste is done in the Lands let for years by one again whom the Lessee can have no remedy over there the Lessée for years is not chargeable for the waste except he be bound by a particular Covenant to keep the Lands let without waste Also by the Law of Reason it seems the Defendant in our case ought not to be charged with the rent because he could not enjoy that that was let to him and it was no fault of his own that he could not Civil law Canon Moral Innundation and the Civil-law and Canon-law and Moral Authors do confirm this and Dyer 56. 11. Ass 13. were cited and it was said there is no difference between an innundation and this invasion and had the Lands been surrounded by water the Lessee should not have been chargeable for the rent during that time neither as I conceive shall he be here Next consider the nature of the reservation 10. Rep. 1 28. Rent Payment A rent is not to be paid untill it may be intended that the Lessee might have received the profit of the thing for which the rent is to be paid 27 E. 3.81 8 H. 4.6 Fitzh Execution 146.9 E. 3.16 neither by the Martial law is the Defendant chargeable Martial Law Law of Nature Covenant and that Law is the Law of Nature as well as of Nations But Roll Iustice answered that the Plea was not good for he hath not pleaded that the Army were Aliens and unknown as he ought to have done and the pleading that it was hostilis exercitus makes not the Plea more certain than before and if the Tenant for years covenant to pay rent though the Lands let him be surrounded with water yet he is chargeable with the rent much more here Therefore let the Plaintiff take his Iudgement Fremling and Clutherbook Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. FRemling and his Wise Arest of Judgment in Trover and Conversion Executrix of A. B. bring an Action of Trover and Conversion against Clutherbook for Goods of the Testators found and converted by the Defendant and obtained a verdict against him The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and took these Exceptions 1. That the Declaration was of a joynt possession of Goods of the Husband and Wife and dammages are given to the Husband and Wife whereas the Goods properly belong to the Wife only as an Executrix and not to the Husband and Wife Possession 2ly It doth not set forth how the Feme came to the possession of the Goods But to this Roll Iustice answered that the possession of the Wife Dammages as Executrix was also the possession of her Husband and that the dammages recovered shall be to the estate of the Testatour and so may concern them both And for the second exception this being a possessary Action only it is not necessary to shew how the possession of the Goods was gained Stayed till the other should move Parmiter and Cressy Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. PArmiter brings an Action upon the case upon an Assumpsit and declares Arest of Iudgment in an Indebitatus Astumpsit that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff had sold and delivered unto him such a number of pieces of Stuffs the Defenant did assume and promise to the Plaintiff to deliver unto him the value of the Stuffs in such Pipes of Wine lying in Bradgates Cellar in London as the Plaintiff should make choise of and for not performing the same brings this Action The Plaintiff obtains a verdict The Defendant moves in arrest of Iudgement and shews these causes 1. That the Plaintiff doth not aver in his Declaration that he made any election of the Pipes of Wine Averment and before such election the Defendant was not bound to deliver them nay it was impossible for him to perform the agreement before the election 2ly Election The Plaintiff doth not set forth that he made his election where the Wine was which he ought to have done because of the insupportableness of the commodity to be brought to him to make his choice The Court held that here ought to be a special request made to deliver the Wines Request special because it is upon a Contract and an Action of Debt lies not for them and thereupon arrested the Iudgement till the Plaintiff should move The same Term Iudgement was given against the Plaintiff Quod nil capiat per billam Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintiff brings an Action of the Case against the Defendant Arest of Iudgment in an action upon the Case forwords Words Tryal False Doctria for speaking these words against him being a Minister He is an Adulterer Whoremaster Drunkard a common Swearer and a Preacher of false Doctrine The Plaintiff hath a Verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement that the words were not actionable because the matter expressed by them is merely Ecclesiastical and not tryable at the Common law and it was said that a man may preach false Doctrine and not be punished for it if he be not a beneficed man and it doth not appear here Heresie that the Plaintiff had any living and besides it is not said he was a Preacher of heretical Doctrine but of false Doctrine which words are more ambiguous The judgement was stayed till the Plaintiff should move Mack and Cubitt Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 23 Car. rot Q. MAck brought an Action upon the case against Cubitt for speaking these words of him Arest of Iudgment in an action upon the Case for words You are a branded Rogue and have held up your hand at the Bar VVords and deserve to be hanged and shall be hanged The Plaintiff hath a Verdict The Defendant moves in arrest of Iudgement that the words were not actionable for they are all but words
Verdict he doubted whether it could be helped now in this Court though it might have been helped in the inferior Court where the Action was brought by examination of it and therefore ruled to shew cause why Iudgement shall not be reversed on Friday next It was this Term reversed at the Defendants motion for his own expedition Brooke and Brook Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 Car. rot 580. BRooke brings an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Brook the condition was Demurrer to a plea in debt upon an Obligation that the Obligor should make an Estate of inheritance to the Obligee in such lands at such a day and place and for not doing it he brings his Action The Defendant pleads that he was ready at the day and place to make the Plainiff an estate of inheritance in the lands The Plaintiff demurs to the plea Notice and for cause shews that the Defendant doth not shew that he gave notice to the Plaintiff of his being there To this Roll Iustice said it is not necessary to give notice of the day or place A second exception was that he had not shewed that he gave the Plaintiff notice what estate of inheritance he would make him To this Roll Iustice said he ought to have shewn Time Place that he gave notice what estate he would make him and therefore let the Defendant shew cause why the Plaintiff should not have Iudgement Kale and Iocelyne Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. 23 Car. rot 1282. KAle brings an Action of Debt against Iocelyne an Executor Demurrer to a plea by an Executor in Debt for reâ— brought against him Plea Executor VVaiver Covenant and declares for rent grown due since the death of the Testator by virtue of a lease for years made of certain lands by the Plaintiff unto the Testator which yet continues and declares that the Executor debet detinet c. The Defendant pleads fully administred the Plaintiff demurs upon the plea For pleading in the debet and the detinet Bacon Iustice said it was good and so had been adjudged To which Roll Iustice answered it had been adjudged pro con to be good and to be bad and he said that an Executor cannot waive a Term let to the Testator for he is bound by Covenant to hold it and said that the Declaration was good in the debet and detinet prima facie for it shall be intended that the land let to the Testator is worth as much by the year as the rent that is paid for it till the contrary be shewn and then it is reason that the Executor be charged Bacon Iustice said that the Executor may waive the possession if he find that the rent is more than the land is worth otherwise it may be mischievous to him Roll. Iustice said that the Declaration must be in the detinet and debet otherwise it will be mischievous to the Plaintiff and said that a specialty shall be satisfied before a rent reserved upon a lease by deed Allets which Bacon denied and it was said that a lease for years shall be assets in the hands of an Executor although the rent reserved be the full value of the Lands let by the lease The Defendant was ordered to shew cause why Iudgement should not be given against him Baker against Edmonds Mich. 23 Car. B. Reg. Hill 22 Car. rot 222. BAker brings an Action upon the Case against Edmonds Special verdict in an Action upon the Case whether a verdict maintains the issue joyned and declares that whereas I. S. was indebted unto the Plaintiff in a certain sum of mony and afterwards being so indebted became a Banckrupt and that a Comission upon the Statute of Bankrupt was taken out by him and other creditors against him and that it was found that the Defendant was indebted to the Banckrupt the Commissioners of the said Commission did assign over the Debt of the Defendant mentioned in a certain schedule amounting to such a sum unto the Plaintiff in part of satisfaction of the Debt owing unto him by the Banckrupt by virtue whereof he demands the said Debt of the Defendant who did assume promise to pay the same and for not performing his promise he brings his Action the Defendant pleads non Assumpsit and thereupon an issue was joyned and a speciall verdict was found to the effect as the Plaintiff had declared but they further find that the Debts mentioned in the schedule and assigned over to the Plaintiff amounted to such a sum whereas they find that the Defendant did not owe unto the Banckrupt so much as that Debt assigned is but a lesse sum And upon this verdict the question was Verdict Issue Assignment whether the verdict did maintain the issue which was non Assumpsit if it did then they find for the Defendant if not then for the Plaintiff In the breaking of the Case it was moved whether the Assignment were good or no in regard that the Commissioners had mistaken the Debt for the Debt assigned by them was greater than the Debt found by the Iury and so might be another Debt But to this Roll Iustice said that the assignment was not judicially before them in question for if it were it would be judged an ill assignment but here it comes not in issue but only whether the Defendant did assume and promise or no and the speciall verdict concludes not upon the assignment but whether the speciall matter found do maintain the issue or no therfore he was of opinion that the Plaintiff ought to have his Iudgment Bacon Iustice differed in opinion said that it is dangerous for Commissioners of Bankrupt to assign Debts particularly Commissioners The rule then was to argue it the next Term At which time Ward of Councel for the Defendant argued that the verdict was for the Defendant for this reason viz. Because the Debt laid in the Declaration and the Debt found by the verdict are not the same and so the Defendant did not assume and promise that which is laid in the Declaration for there is no such Debt found and if he should be charged with that he might be doubly charged Averment for he may be again charged for the debt found by the verdict and circumstances of quantity time and place are averred in a Declaration to make things certain and if they fall the Declaration is not good 18 E. 3. fol. 25. 1. rep 74. Palmers Case 2ly The Declaration is insufficient for it expresseth not what the sum is but saith a sum mentioned in a schedule of Debts which is incertain Roll Iustice interrupted Ward and said all that you have argued is out of dores but the last matter touching the Declaration and to that Hales of Councell with the Plaintiff said the Declaration is good and certain enough for there appears no other sum in the schedule than is mentioned in the Declaration Bacon Iustice The
Iudgement of Law it is presumed that the Covenant shall not be broken and that it shall not be respected in regard of the incertainty whether it shall be broken or no but the Law takes notice of the Will and it is of temporal conusans 2 Rich. 3. 11 H. 7. f. 12. and it takes notice of a legacie to try the right of it and to discharge it and the Executor here is compellable to pay the legacies and cannot refuse it neither by the Common law nor by the Spiritual law Covenant but it is objected that it is inconvenient that one shall avoid his own Covenant by his own devise To this I answer he might have done it in his life by giving away all his goods and 2ly There shall not be intended to be fraud in the Will and there are more inconveniences of our part in not paying the Legacies than on their part by paying them for by this means men shall have no power to dispose of their own Goods by Will by reason of Covenants in Leases and Déeds made by them and the Spiritual Court cannot compell a Legatée to put in security for his Legacy Security as is surmised Adjourned to the next Term to give Iudgement Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to deliver their opinion in a Case formerly moved VVhether an Attornment good or not wherein the Question was whether an Attornment made by a Lessée for years the same day that the rent was due to be paid upon his Lease to him that had purchased the reversion of the Land let unto him and for which the Purchaser had brought his Action Attornment be a good Attornment Roll Iustice said that it is a good Attornment by the averment made and by the finding of the Iury and that Iudgement ought to be for the Plaintiff Bacon Iustice agrees and said the Attornment shall be intended to be before Sun set and not afterwards Therefore let the Plaintiff take his Iudgement Parmiter against Cressey Mich. 23 Car. Banc Reg. THe Defendants Councel upon a former rule of Court to shew cause Cause why Iudgement should not be given in an Action upon an Assumpsit Averment Notice Request offered for cause why the Plaintiff should not have Iudgement 1. Because the Plaintiff had not averred that he did make any election of the Wines that the Defendant was to deliver unto him 2ly He doth not aver that he gave the Defendant any notice of his election and there being a Condition precedent to be performed on the Plaintiffs part implyed the Defendant cannot perform the Bargain without notice of that performance 2ly Here is no good request expressed either in substance or circumstance for for the circumstance there is but two daies to do it in which it cannot be well intended it could be done 2ly It is said he did not deliver vinum praedictum which is an incertain implication of a Request for the word deliberare is not a proper term to express the Request and the verdict doth not help it Bacon Iustice There ought to be an election by the Plaintiff but the Defedant ought first to shew the Wines and it was of his part to have appointed the time when he would shew them Roll Iustice The Promise and Request was at Norwitch and it was sufficient for the Plaintiff to make the Request there but the Defendant ought to shew the Plaintiff the Wines Election without which the Plaintiff can make no election and the substance of the Declaration is to this intent Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. BY the rule of the Court VVâ—â— a Prohibition should not be granted this day cause was offered to be shewn why a Prohibition should not be granted to the Ecclesiastical Court for granting Letters of Administration to a Sister of the half-blood when there was a Brother of the whole-blood who sued for them and was denyed The cause shewed was that it is in the power of the Ordinary to grant Administration either to the Brother of the whole-blood or to the Sister of the half-blood at his election because they are in equal degrée of kin to the Intestate And to this the Court agreed But Bacon Justice said that in the Case at the Bur Letters of Administration are granted to the Husband and his Wife and so to one viz. the Husband who is no kin at all to the Intestate but a Stranger and if he survive his Wife he shall have all the Goods and all the kindred will be defrauded which is not reasonable and therefore the Administration is not good And for this reason a Prohibition was granted Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. IT was moved in arrest of Iudgement Arrest of Iudgement in Trover and Conversion that the Plaintiff had declared of the Trover Conversson of a cetrain number expressed in the Declaration of pieces panni lanii Anglice of red yellow and black Coath which is incertain and cannot be used as it is here to expresse Cloaths of divers colours for panni lanii signifies only wollen Cloaths But Bacon Iustice said all is but wollen Cloath though they be of divers colours and therefore it is good enough Hodsden the Secondary said sometimes the colours are used to be expressed and sometimes not Bacon It is better to express the Colours than not yet it is good enough without the expressing of them Therefore let the Plaintiff take his Iudgement Willison and Crow Mich. 23 Car. Banc. Reg. VVillison brought an Action upon the Case against Crow Arrest of Iudgment in an action for words for speaking these words of him You are a bankrupt Skrub and hath a verdict it was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable because they are Adjective words and so are not positive enough to ground an Action But the Court held they were actionable for the word Banckrupt in it self was not an Adjective and the joyning of it with Skrub made it not so but it should be understood as much as to say You are a Skrub and also a Banckrupt And judgement was given accordingly The King against Holland Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court delivered their opinions in the Case betwéen the King and Holland formerly argued And first Bacon Iustice said Iudgement given in the Case between the King and Holland that there can be no Iudgement for there is a mis-tryal in it for first there is no Venire facias and secondly there is a discontinuance because the Venire should be to retorn duodecem probos legales homines quorum quilibet habet 40 s. lands by the year at the least it is every of whom having 4 l. lands by the year which is contrary to the direction of the Statute To this Roll answered that he held the Venire to be good and so the tryal good for if the Iury hath every of them 4 l. a year in
Lands he hath 40 s. a year in Lands at least and more and therefore it is a better Iury and more sufficient and by this the verdict shall not be vitiated though the Venire be not quorum quilibet habet 40 s. per annum ad minus as the Statute directs and he cited 21 Iac. Philpot and Fielders Case to be so adjudged and he said that Lands in the hands of a Trustee may be extended for the Kings debt Extent but that he did not conceive how the King can have Copyhold-lands that are in trust for an Alien Seisuie Bacon Iustice The Commissioners that found this inquisition for the King had no power by their Commission to seize the Lands into the Kings hands but only to enquire what Lands the Alien had The Court ordered that cause should be shewn Tuesday following why the party shall not be restored to his Lands which were seised into the Kings hands by vertue of the Inquisition Postea Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action upon the Case Error upon a Iudgement in an Action up-the Case Incertainty Tryal upon an Assumpsit brought by two at Maydston in Kent and the Error assigned was that the Plaintifs in their Declaration do say unde dixerunt quod deteriorati sunt c. whereas it should be unde deteriorati sunt and not dixerunt c. for that is positive and the other not for they may say they are damnified and be not and there can be no tryal upon such uncertain words Roll Iustice said the words are not well laid yet if there were other words sufficient to expresse the dammage the Plaintiff had received it would be good enough but these words here govern the whole sentence Therefore let the Defendant in the Writ of Error consider how he can make the Declaration good The King against Savage Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. ONe Savage was arraigned in this Court upon an Endictment of Felony For quashing an Endictment for Felony for killing of a Woman within the Verge The truth of the Case was he beat and wounded the Woman at Lesne Abby in Kent which is within the Verge but the Woman dyed at Sevenock in Kent which is out of the Verge The Prisoner prayed the Court he might have Walker of the Inner-Temple assigned him for Councel for matter in Law which the Court granted Walker for the Prisoner prays the Endictment may be read which was done accordingly Whereupon he took these exceptions to it 1. That the Endictment doth not shew upon what part of the body particularly the Woman was wounded but it saith only generally that it was upon the hinder parts of her Body 2ly It sayes the Woman dyed de diversis plagis but it doth not shew of what length and breadth the wounds were as it ought to do nor doth it say of which of the wounds she dyed and so it is uncertain Incertainty and cannot be known whether the Wounds were mortal or no. 3ly By the Statute de Articulis super Chartas in this Case where the party was wounded within the Verge and dyed without the Verge the Coroner of the Verge and of the County ought to joyn in taking the Iuquisition super visum Corporis Inquisition which is not here done but the Inquisition is taken by the Coroner of the Verge only Bacon Iustice said the party is said to be slain where he dies not where he was wounded The Court ordered the Prisoner to appear a wéek after and in the mean time to give notice to the Kings Councel of the Exceptions taken to the Endictment and know whether they will maintain the Endictment Bail the same Term the Endictment was adjudged not good and the party was bayled Thyn against Thyn Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Hill 22 Car. rot 1638. DAme Katherine Thyn brings a Writ of Dower in the Common-pleas against Sir Iames Thyn and hath a Verdict and a Iudgement Error in a Writ of Error Retorn the Defendant brings a Writ of Error to reverse this Iudgement in this Court and assigns for Error 1. In the Retorn made by the Sheriff for he doth not say that the Proclamation was made at the Church of the Town where the Summons was made Summons and a Summons upon any one part of the Land as hath béen objected on the other side is not good neither by the words nor the intent of the Statute for then the words in the Statute should be surplusage and idle that particularly directs how it should be And as to the Objection Fiction of Law Statute That a Summons upon one part of the Land is good in fiction of Law for the rest of the Land I answer That this is not so where the Statute directs the Summons and the words secundum formam Statuti cannot help where the Statute is not shewed to be pursued and so saith Dyer That substantial words ought to be mentioned Hill 24 Iac. Hâ—b Pl 179. Allen and Walkers Case 2ly Demand There is Error in the Demand of the Dower for the certainty of the Tithes demanded ought to appear and it doth not so here 11 Rep. Harpers Case f. 25. And for that which is said in answer unto this That a Demand of Dower is different from other Demands I agrée it to be true 8. H. 6. 3. Yet the things demanded in Dower must be certainly demanded 11 H. 7. f. 25. as it is in an Assise for an Assise de uno tenemento is not good for the incertainty Assise 4 E. 2. Fitzh Assise 45 1. Estovers demanded ought to be shewed particularly so is it of a Corrody 11 E. 3. Fitzh Dower 85. Dyer f. 84. 7 E. 6. Pasc 5 Iac. the Countess of Oxfords Case and whereas there hath this difference been taken betwéen a Demand of Tithes in gross and of Tithes appendant and that Tithes in gross must be particularly demanded but it is not necessary to demand Tithes appendat particularly I answer This is not so for their appendancy doth not make them not to be demanded particularly no more than if they were in gross 18 E. 2. Asise 377. A Corrody must be particularly demanded and all the Presidents prove it and it was so held Pasc 8 Car. rot 271. in Bruer and Drakes case in a writ of Error in this Court upon a judgement given in Dower in the Common-pleas A 2d exception to the Demand of the Dower is this the Writ of Dower is de manerio de Imber and the Demand is of Dower in parochia de Imber and so it is larger than the Writ Parish for a Parish may comprehend many Vills Stat. 1 H. 5. C. 5. 22 E. 4. C. 2. Mich. 34 Eliz. rot 1537. Brad and Bishops Case in the Exchequer Pasc 38 Eliz. Bedel and Scarborows Case in an Ejectione firmae in this Court It is true that generally a
Executors in such cases 14 H. 4. fol. 29. Fitzh Tit. responder 7 E. 6. Dyer 81.10 rep 128. And said the verdict hath found it in the debet and detinet which shall be intended to be true 9 Ed. 4.41.17 Jac. Paul and Mordyes Case in the Common pleas and 7 Iac. Smith and Nicholas Case and prayes Iudgement for the Plaintiff Hales for the Defendant argued that the Declaration is not good 1. He said the Action is good in the detinet because the profits of the land let which are over and above the rent to be paid for it reserved upon the lease shall be only assets in the Executors hands Difference Contract 2. It cannot be good both wayes and the Term is in him as Executor not the rent and there is a difference between contracts Executory and contracts Executed but it may he said the rent to be paid may be more than the profits of the land is worth â— answer this shall not be presumed in law if it be not so shewed 43 Ass pl. 23.16 H 7. fol. â— The Action is brought for all the rent incurred therefore it shall not be presumed that the land is not worth the rent that is paid for it Verdict and as for the verdict it shall help nothing for a verdict shall not supply a necessary part of a Declaration omitted and if he owes then he detains and I conceive Hargraves Case to be good Law though denyed by the Councell on the other side and here the privity of the contract is not determined and so prayes Iudgement for the Defendant Roll Iustice It is for the advantage of the Executor to bring the Action in the detinet for then he sh ll be charged only for the goods of the Testator and not for his proper goods and it may be the land is lesse worth than the rent and that the partyes have consented the Action should be brought in this maner Bacon Iustice cited Pawls Case Mich. 17 Iac. But entred Pasc rot 346. That the Action may be brought in the debet and detinet and if the Plaintiff will bring his Action here in the detinet it is not for your disadvantage and he may at his election bring it either way Roll Iustice Here the verdict answers the point of the issue and therefore is good The Court ruled the Plaintif to take his Iudgement except better cause shewn to the contrary William against Tyrer Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. Pasc 23 Car. rot 224. VVIlliam brought an Action of Trover and Conversion against Tyrer for certain goods of the Plaintiff the Plaintiff hath a verdict Arrest of Iudgement in Covenant The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and took these exceptions to the Declaration 1. The Plaintiff declares pro tribus duodenis fili Anglice dosens of thread Declaration which is incertain for it may be three dosen pound of thread or skenes of thread or ounces of thread To this it was answered that it cannot be otherwise expressed and the words dosens of thread is used amongst Merchants and well known unto them what is meant by them 2ly He declares for so many pounds Muscat in stead of Nucum Muscat ram Anglice Nutmegs But this exception was mistaken for the record was otherwise and besides it was with an Anglice which makes it certain The Court ruled Iudgement to be entred except cause shewed for the Plaintif Rawson against Bargue Hill 23 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Case between Rawson and Bargue being an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes â— Arguments whether a free Chapel or no and the Iudges opinions wherein upon a speciall verdict the question was whether the Church were a free Chapel given to the King within the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. was again argued by Latch for the Plaintiff and by Brown for the Defendant Latches argument was to this effect 1. He said that the Law sayes it is presentative although it be not and 2ly It is sufficiently found to be a parochial Church yet it is not material whether it be found so or no. Next the words of the Statute do not extend to give donatives to the King 3ly It is not given to the Crown and although the Declatation and verdict be that it is a free Chapell yet it is not comprehended as a Chapel presentative Lit. 94. The word free makes a distinction of things and the party ought not to confound things Free Chapel and a free Chapel is alwayes interpreted for a Church donative and not presentative The right investiture of Churches was challenged from the foundation of them untill within this 400 years it was altered by the Common law Seldens History of Tithes fol. 392. and upon that alteration the name of a free Chapel came Reg. 41. It is said to be free from ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Fitz. tit Brief 6.0.3 Ed. 3. Fitz. Tit. Ayde du roy 33.14 H. 4.11.22 H. 6.25.22 H. 6.27 by Danbye 26 H. 6. Fitz. grants 12. Nat. brev 33 E. 34. f. 27 E. 3.84 Cowels interpretor Tit. free Chapel And in all Statutes the word free Chapel is meant of donatives Stat. 26 H. 8. cap. 3. Stat. 37 H. 8. cap. 4. Stat. 1 Ed. 6. cap. 14. Regist 307. But it is objected that free Chapels extend to presentatives Presentation Donative because they are with cure Lit. Com. 344. a donative may be parochial 7 E. 3. f. 4. To this I answer Churches had cure of souls when they were donatives To the 2d point by the meaning of the Statute it appears Tenure Frank-almoigne that only donatives were intended as the preamble of it doth declare And all Chapels are held in Frank almoigne as well as donatives and so all may be given to the King by the same reason Another objection is that the word Capella is superstitious and therefore being of a superstitious foundation it is given to the King and Cowels Interpretor is urged to prove the word to be so derived To this I answer that Sir Henry Spelman as learned an Author as Cowell in his glossary rejects Cowells derivation of the word Capella and saith that Capella is used promiscuously for any upper covering And though the name were superstitious yet that makes not the Chapel to be so for so the Church of St. Andrew or St. Dunstan should be superstitious and given to the King by the Statute There is a double preamble of the Statute 1. A recitall of another Statute Preamble and the taking away of other superstitious uses Preamble of the Statute 37 H. 8.22 Ed 4. cap. 7.8 rep 137. beasts of the Forest are not Cattel 3. rep The marques of Winchesters Case Com. 204. That some generals may be taken in a restrained sence 9 H. 6.36 Interpretation Words of a Statute ought not to be interpreted to destroy naturall Iustice The stile also of the Act doth not shew that donatives are only intended
and damages are assessed and said It is true that the judgement is right entred but there is no Verdict to warrant the Iudgement and therefore it cannot be good and therefore let it be reversed if cause be not shewn to the contrary But we will not pronounce it now except the party desire it for his own expedition Ayre against Pyncomb Mich. 1649. Banc. sup AYre brought an Action upon the Case against Pymcomb for surcharging of a Common and for treading the Grass Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case for surcharging a Common Assize Trespass upon the case The Plaintif had a Verdict The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement That an Action of the Case doth not lie in this case but an Assize 2ly That an Action of Trespass doth not lie for a Commoner for treading of the Grass 3ly The Trespass is alleged to be done in quibusdam peciis pasturae and the quantity of them is not shewed To the first Exception Roll chief Iustice answered That the Plaintif may have an Assize or an Action upon the Case at his election although here be a disturbance of the Plaintifs freehold although that the antient books say the contrary And thereupon the Court gave Iudgement for the Plaintif except cause shewn to the contrary Brook against Hogg Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 660. A Iudgement given in an Action of Debt upon an account in the Court of Knaresborough was reversed here Iudgement in an accompt reversed for Error in it because the Venire facias was Venire facias c. which in an Inferiour Court is not good Venire but it ought to say Venire facias duodecem probos et legales homines de c. so express all at large in words and not with an c. Note Many Iudgements given in Inferiour Courts have been here reversed upon the same exception But I only mention this for an authority to be cited upon occasion Ibson against Beale Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 625. IBson brought a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgement given against him for Beale in the Court at York in an Action of Debt upon an Obligation Error to reverse a Iudgement in debt and assigned for Errors 1. That the party hath not entituled himself to the Action 2ly The issue is not well joyned for the Plaintif saith ideo ponit se super patriam where he ought to say Issue petit quod inquiratur per patriam 3ly He concludes to his damage of l. 1. i. fifty pounds expressed in numerical Letters viz. l. for fifty and L. for pounds Damage instead of quinquaginti librarum The Iudgement was reversed upon the last Exception Stubs and Manklyn Mich. 1649. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in the Court at Owse-bridge in York Error to reverse a Iudgement in debt in an Action of Debt upon an Obligation and the Common Error only assigned But Roll chief Iustice upon Oyer of the Record took this exception That the Record was ideo praeceptum est Vicecomiti and it is not said in Curia and so it doth not appear to be the Process of the Court And for this Error the Iudgement was reversed Venire Topladye against Stalye Mich. 2649 Banc. sup Mich. 24 Car. rot 596. TOpladye brought an Action of Trespass quare clausum fregit pedibus ambulando c. against Stalye Demtirrer and argument upon a plea in Trespass The Defendant makes a special justification That he did enter into the Plaintifs Close to search for Shéep that were stollen from him To this Plea the Plaintif demurr'd and for cause shews that the justification is not good for it is not said by the Defendant that the Plaintif had stollen the Shéep or that he had any suspition that he had stollen them or that any other had stollen them driven them upon the Plaintifs land and so had no colour to come there to search for them and the Books of 17 E. 4. f. 1. and 27 H. 8.23 6 E. 4.7 21 H. 7. f. 10. 22 H. 6. f. 36. 38 E. 3. f. 10. were cited Iustification Another exception was also taken That the Defendant doth not say that the Gate of the Close where he entred was open and though he may justifie to search for his Shéep in the Close yet he cannot justifie the breaking of his Close to doe it But Roll chief Iustice over-ruled this exception And for the matter in Law whether the Defendant had made a good justification or no. He held that he had not for all that he hath alleged by way of Iustification is but matter of private profit to himself Distress Damage feasant and not for the publique good for he went not thither to find or apprehend the Felon but to look for his Shéep And if Cattel be stollen and put into my ground I may take them damage feasant or bring an Action of Trespass against the owner and the owner cannot take them away without the license of the possessor of the ground Licence for if he might by that means the possessor of the ground would be without remedy for the damage the Cattel had done him And he said That when one hath suspition of another for felony he ought to shew the cause of his suspition Arrest otherwise the party suspected ought not to be arrested upon it and concluded that the Plaintif ought to have Iudgement Ierman Justice held that the Defendant ought to have Iudgement because a private injury as this Trespass is ought to give way to the publique good viz. the discovery of Felony and here is a publique good intended and it ought to take place of the Plaintifs inconsiderable injury And he said that one may be arrested for Felony only upon Common fame if there be a felony committed Otherwise it is if there be no Felony done Ask Justice said the Case was hard on both sides But the Court gave Iudgement for the Plaintif except cause should be shewn to the contrary Mich. 1649. Banc. sup VVIld moved the Court that the retorn of a Habeas Corpus granted for certain rioters called the Diggers that were committed by Iustices of Peace upon finding the Riot upon their view might be filed To quash a Retorn of a Rescous which was granted upon which he moved that the prisoners might be discharged but the Court commanded the retorn to be read upon the reading of it Wild took this exception viz. That the prisoners were committed contrary to the Statute of H. 4. c. 7. for by that Statute the Sherif ought to be present at the finding of the Riot which was not so here Walker held that the Iustices had power by the Statute without the Sherif to enquire of the Riot and to commit the Rioters But Roll chief Iustice said that there is no enquiry made in this
although the thing demanded be entire for he may as well release after the writ brought as before and there was no question but he might have released part before and he may release where there is an ill demand as well as where a demand is good Jerman Iustice held that Iudgement ought not to be given for he said that the reasons of the cases cited are not like to the reason of this case for here the verdict is not given for the same sum which is demanded and it doth appear that here is an unjust demand and it is his own fault and if the Defendant had demurred upon the Declaration it would have been adjudged no good Declaration But Nicholas and Ask Iustices agreed with Roll chief Iustice and so judgement was given for the Plaintif except better matter should be shewn on Saturday next Avery against Kirton Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Mich. 23. Car. rot 239. KIrton brought an Action of trespass against Avery Error upon a judgement in trespass and declared upon an original for imprisoning him till he entred into a bond of 600 l. upon Not guilty pleaded the Plaintif had a verdict and a judgement The Defendant brought a writ of Error and upon the Certiorari to remove the Record the Record was certified and in nullo erratum pleaded but the original in the Record certified was that the Defendant kept the Plaintif in prison til he entred into 2. bonds of 300 l. a piece whereas the right original was till be entred into one bond of 600 l. whereupon the party brought a new writ of Error and by that had the true original certified The Councel for the Defendant in the writ of Error said That original after original may as well be certified before in nullo est erratum pleaded Certificate as afterward but here the parties are at issue and the first original is certified and issue joyned upon that and there cannot be a new original certified and the original here doth not agree with the other parts of the Record and so cannot support it and our original certified stands with the Record and here is no Certiorari to warrant the original here certified and it is a material variance 3 Iac. Banc. Reg. Cummins case 9 H. 6. f. 38. Pasch 1649. Kedgwins case Yard on the other side answered that now the original is certified and is before you in this Court and you ought to judge as it is and not as it ought to be and it is agreeing with the former process And both the originals were before the Declaration and the Court shall take the right original and the other shall be intended for another cause Roll chief Iustice said The Certiorari is general and not inter partes praedict but the certificate is inter partes praedict And the Court may take the right original that is certified and the Iudges are not bound by the plea in nullo est erratum that is pleaded but may grant a new original writ of Error but the party cannot require it for he is concluded by his own plea Original Certiorari and if he discontinue his original he may have a new but not if he plead and the Certiorari is good and well certified and therefore judgement ought to be affirmed Ierman Nicholas and Ask to the same effect and so judgement was affirmed except better matter should be shewed Saturday next Ratcliff and Dudeny Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Entred Hill 23 Car. rot 369. VPon a special verdict A question upon the case falling out upon a special verdict the case was this A lease of a house and lands was made to I S. for 99 years the remainder to I D. for 99 years the remainder to A. B. for 99 years provided that if the lessees doe not inhabit in the house let during the whole term that then the lease shall be void The question here was How long the lessees were bound to inhabit in the house whether for the first 99 years or for that term also during all the years in remainder and which of the lessees were to Inhabit Windham held that the two first lessees only ought to inhabit during the first 99 years and no longer But Roll chief Iustice held that those in the remainder were not bound to inhabit before the remainder falls to them but reddendendo singula singulis they ought to inhabit successively one after another And he took an exception to the verdict That the lease being to begin after the death of one Robert Dudeny it did not find that Robert was dead and so it appears not that the lease is yet begun and so there can be no question stirred as yet Venire and thereupon the case was not argued but a Venire facias de novo was to issue because the special verdict was imperfect Cane against Golding Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THis case Opinion of the Judges upon an arrest of Iudgement in an Action of the case formerly spoken to and argued being an Action of the case for slandering the Plaintifs title was now spoken to by the Iudges And first by Roll chief Iustice who held that the Action did not lye although it be alleged that the words were spoken salso et malitiose for the Plaintif ought to shew a special Cause But that the verdict may supply But the Plaintif ought also to have shewed a special damage which he hath not don and this the verdict cannot supply The Declaration here is too general upon which no good issue can be joyned and he ought to have alleged that there was a communication had before the words spoken touching the sale of the lands whereof the title was slandered and that by speaking of them Case the sale was hindred and he cited 13 Iac Tuer and Bailyes case B. R. 21 Iac. Doctor Edwards and Balls case and 4 Car. Roe and Harwoods case a Iudgement in it in Windsor Court and reversed here and 12 Jac. Sell and Paryes case B. R. Ierman Iustice to the same effect and he said that there ought to be damnum et injuria alleged to maintain the Action for one without the other is not enough and here doth not appear any damage because there appears no communication of selling of the land Nicholas and Ask Iustices of the same opinion So the rule was Nil capiat per billam except better cause shewn Roll Iustice said that there is digitus Dei in the case for there was a strange verdict found Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a Supersedeas for the Earl Rivers For a Supersedeas for a Peer of the Realm denyed Privilege Notice who was Arrested by a bill of Middlesex and is in custody of the Marshall of this Court because he is Peer of the Realm and ought not to be arrested The Court answered You must plead your privilege if it be so for we cannot take notice of it upon a motion
is a new Bank or Wall ordered to be made and not the repairing the old and this is not within the Commission It was answered that the making of the new Bank is but to strengthen the old Bank and so is but a repairing of an old work and not the making of of a new 2ly The Wall is to be made by consent of all the Inhabitants interessed in the benefit which may accrue by the making of it As to the exception that it appeares not that Tyd and Newton are within the Hundred of Witsbitch touching which only this Commission of Sewers was granted It was answered that it shall be so intended and it is also so found To the exception that the new Bank was made in another manner than the old Bank and so it is a new work and it appears not that the parties taxed have any benefit by it It was answered that it doth not appear that the Drayners have done any thing for their own benefit in the making this Bank nor were any cause of making the new Bank To the exception that it is not presented where the Bank is It was answered it is certain enough set forth in the Presentment and Presentments are not required to be so precise as other pleadings are To the exception that Tyd and Newton ought not to make the Bank because other Towns use to do it It was answered that for making it in the new manner the other Vills are not bound to make it alone but those also that receive the benefit by it These exceptions following were also taken to the laying of the Tax 1. That all the Lands within the Vills of Newton and Tyd are not charged but so many Acres in one and so many in another To this it was answered that it doth not appear that there were more Acres than are taxed either in Tyd or Newton 2ly The high grounds and the low grounds are equally taxed which is not indifferent for some acres are of a greater value than others are To this it was answered that for ought that doth appear they are of an equal value 3ly They ought not to sell the distress taken because the Vills did not bring in the number of acres by the Officer appointed by the Commissioners to doe it It was answered that they may sell the goods or allow a Replevin And secondly here appears not to be any distress or impounding of the goods Serjeant Barnard on the other side First he said that all the exceptions are not opened and the first exception is not answered for it appears not by averment that the Vills taxed are within the extent of their Commission as it ought doe 2 H. 7. f. 13. Nor is the second Exception answered and although the Councel might at the finding of the Commission have taken it yet it may be taken now and it is not shewed how the old bank was insufficient nor what the charge would be to repair it Nor is it shewed how Tyd and Newton are in danger by the not repairing and making of the new bank Also the Commissioners have exceeded their authority in exceeding the antient manner of taxing for the maintenance of this bank and the tax ought to be laid according to the quality and quantity of the lands which are to be taxed and here doth not appear how many acres are in the several Vills nor whether the tax doe extend to all and the good land and bad lands are also equally taxed neither ought there to be a new tax imposed upon one Vill to ease another which by the custom ought to repair the bank And they have also made a new Officer here which by the Statute they have not authority and have made an order to punish one for refusing this Office by distress of his goods which ought not to be and they ought not to refuse a replevin of the distress taken as they have here done and the lands only that are lyable to the tax are to be distrained for it and not the goods of another that is not within the extent of the Commission and upon these exceptions he prayed the presentment might be quashed Roll chief Iustice answered we will not make all the law void for some exceptions therefore give notice upon what exceptions you will stand upon Maynard answered upon these 1. That there ought not to be such a tax laid because the lands taxed are not within the extent of the Commission for it appears not that they are within the Hundred of Wisbitch 2ly All the Inhabitants within all the Vills are not taxed which ought to be because they have equal benefit as it appears by the presentment The Court ordered it should be moved again the next term And Roll chief Iustice asked why the drainers should not discharge this charge who have been the cause of it and they receive benefit by their draining and it is not fit they should prejudice others by it Postea Pymm and Morgan alias Bambery and Basely Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THis case was again moved upon a special Verdict in an Ejectione firmae wherein the question was Argument upon a case upon a special verdict in an Ejectione firmae Whether the estate of Mary Morgan that was setled 13 Car. is taken away by the Ordinance of Parliament made 1645. and which looked back to 1641. which was after 13 Caroli It was held by the Councel that argued against the Ordinance that it was not because the Ordinance is made against a dead man 2ly The estate of Morgan was forfeited to the State and they out of it doe make an estate for Pymm with retrospection to the year 1641 and no further and therefore the estate setled before that time is not taken away And if a Statute have a double sence one against Common Iustice and the other with Common Iustice in equal ballance it shall be interpreted in the better sence and that that hath been objected that there is a power of revocation in the settlement is not material for Morgan is now dead and so this personal power is now gone and shall not hurt the settlement A second reason is taken from the scope of the Ordinance which consists of three parts 1. The Parliament injured 2ly Morgan the Offender punished 3ly Pymm rewarded and the Ordinance shall not be stretched to punish Mary who hath a particular interest although there be not an express saving for her in the Ordinance 21 H. 7.4 Plow Comment 487 7 Car. Porter and Bellingham and that this is the meaning of the Ordinance may appear because the remainder is reserved to the Common wealth and in doubtfull Constructions of Statutes and Ordinances that shall be taken Interpretation which makes all parts of the Ordinance or Statute stand together and such is the Construction here in not interrupting the estate of Mary But it is objected that the right of the Daughters is provided for if they claim from another Ancestor and
himself and 2ly for a Contempt to the Court and because he would not find ball and it appears that the warrant for his commitment is not good for he is not committed for matter arising upon the Sea and so they have no Iurisdiction But the Court bid them proceed upon their prohibition Bail for they would not release the prisoner But if you will you may move it again Friday next Gilbert against Marden Mich. 1649. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 942. A Writ of Error was brought to remove a judgement given in the Common pleas in an Action upon the case Vpon opening the record Error upon a judgement in the Common Pleas. Twisden took exception that the record was not removed for the Iudgement in the Common pleas was given Coram Petro Phesant and the writ of Error was to rectifie a record quod coram vobis reside The Court abated the writ of Error for this exception Abatement Smith against Andrews Mich. 1649. Banc. sup ANdrews an Attorney brought an Action upon the case against Smith Arrest of Judgement in an action on the case for speaking of these words against him He meaning the Plaintif stirrs up men to sutes and promiseth that if he recover not for them he will take no fees and yet in a sute which he so undertook for me wherein I was overthrown he took Charges of me Vpon not guilty pleaded there was a verdict and a judgement for the Plaintif The Defendant brought a writ of Error and for cause it was shewed by Maynard that there are entire damages given for divers words spoken at one time whereof some are Actionable and others not which ought not to be and 2ly The words in themselves are not actionable for an Attorney may stir up men to sutes if their sutes be lawful which Roll chief Iustice denyed 17 Car. Gibson and Baxter Maintenance And he said that an Attorney may prosecute his Clyents cause without seed and yet it is not maintenance Trin. 16 Car. Hill and Sands his Case Hales on the other side held that the words are Actionable for the words shall be taken in the worst sense and he also shews how he had stirred up sutes in an unlawful manner viz. by making of bargains with men at Markets Roll chief Iustice said that such words shall be taken mitiori sensu and this is a special maintenance for it is in the case of an Attorney and therefore lawfull but here are other words spoken to shew that he stirred up sutes unlawfully and the stirring up of sutes and making bargains to follow them is in it self unlawfull and great inconveniences doe grow by such manner of practising and all the words ought to be taken together and not dividedly for so you may make any words not actionable Ierman Iustice held the words were actionable because they are a great scandal and trenching to destroy the Plaintifs livelihood practice And said that Attorneys ought not to go to Markets to get practice the words spoken are to shew he is a stirrer up of sutes and to shew that he was a false dealer and the words shall be taken in the Common acception and not mitiori sensu Nicholas as Ierman and that the words taken together are actionable Ask Iustice to the same effect Whereupon Iudgement was affirmed except better matter should be shewn Monday next Johns against Leviston Mich. 1649. Banc. sup â—Ohns brought an Action of debt against Leviston upon an Assumpsit that the Defendant would enter into a judgement unto the Plaintif for so much monies as Sir Iohn Hall did owe unto the Plaintif if the Plaintif would take Common bail of him the Defendant Arrest of Judgement in an action upon an Assumpsit if Hall should dse before such a day and for not performing this promise the Action was brought upon non Assumpsit pleaded there was an issue joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and shewed that it doth not appear that there was any notice given by the Plaintif to the Defendant how much mony was due to the Plaintif from Sir Iohn Hall as there ought to be Roll chief Iustice answered You did undertake to know at the time of the Assumpsit how much mony he did owe and notice is not necessary Notice and if it were he might have gone to Sir Iohn Hall to tell him and so it shall not only be intended to be in the knowledge of the Defendant himself but that he might have also knowledge of it by others Ierman Iustice doubted but Nicholas and Ask Iudges were of Rolls opinion and the Plaintif ordered to take his Iudgement if better matter were not shewen Custodes Libertat c. against the Inhabitants of Outwell Mich. 1649. Banc. sup THis Case was again moved Exceptions uâ—on an order of Commissioners of Sewers and answers to them wherein upon a presentment made to Commissioners of Sewers an order was made by them to reimburse the Dike-réeves for mony expended in repairing a Sea wall by laying a tax upon divers Vills amongst which Owtwell was one divers exceptions had been formerly taken to the presentment and order At this time it was 1. objected that the Commissioners cannot alter the usual custom for making the tax as they have here done and therefore their Order is not good It was answered that there is no custom here presented but if there be yet the tax cannot be laid generally upon the Vill but distributively for every one of the inhabitants have not an equal share of the land nor are all the lands of equal goodness And there is no custom for the Vill of Owtwell to approtion the tax so that they have no authority to doe it Windham on the same side said that there is no prescription or custom here found and so the tax ought to be ruled by the Common Law and other Towns ought thereby to be Contributory which receive benefit by the making of the bank and the Commissioners of Sewers have not here pursued the direction of the Statute of Sewers as they ought to doe And here the presentments upon which this order for the tax was grounded were made by three Iuries of several Hundreds and the breach to be repaired doth not appear to be within any of the Hundreds whence the Iuries come as the Statute doth direct neither is it shewed how the inhabitants are chargeable whether by tenure or custom or how else Holhead on the same side said It is not said how the lands are lyable to the tax 1. It is not shewed in what part of the Poe-Dike the breach hapned Maynard on the other side said that the Commission of enquiry finds by what default the breach happens but they cannot tell how many acres every one holds to charge them several and it may be intended that they hold joyntly and it shall be intended that the lands are lyable to
an Obligation of 2000 l. for the payment of 1000 l. The Defendant appears and imparls and after imparlance pleads in Abatement of the writ that he is Earl of Nova Albion in Ireland and ought to be impleaded by that name and not by the name of Edmund Plowden Knight upon this plea the Plaintif demurred 1. Because it came in after imparlance whereas a plea in abatement of a writ ought to be pleaded before imparlance 2ly Plea The plea is sâ—ivolous for he pleads that he was Earl of Nova Albion before he entred into the bond which he cannot now plead Estoppel for he is estopped to plead so by his own déed which testifies the contrary Roll chief Iustice said it is a dilatory plea for he is but a Knight here though he be an Earl in Ireland and his own Obligation stops him from pleading as he doth And therefore let him shew cause why he shall not plead in chief within a week otherwise let Iudgement be entred Vid. antea VVats and Dix Hill 1649 Banc. sup Entred Trin. 24 Car. rot 1529. AN ejectione firmae was brought for certain lands in Lincolne Shire and upon not guilty pleaded Argument upon a special verdict in an ejectione firmae there was a special verdict found to this effect I. S. being seised of the Lands in question in Fée made a Feoffment there of to A. B and C. D. and to their Heirs till they should maite a Lease of the said Lands for divers years to certain uses to begin at the Feast of Philip and Jacob next comming The Feoffees enter and make a lease for years of the Lands to begin from the Feast of Philip and Iacob next The question was whether the Feoffees have made such a Lease as the deed of Feoffment directs and so the uses are raised thereupon or whether it shall be intended another lease and not warranted by the Feoffment and so no uses raised Latch held that the Lease is not warranted by the deed of Feoffment and that there are no uses raised for the words at the Feast and the words from the Feast make several beginnings of the Lease and so here is another Lease made than the deed intended 2ly It is not in effect and intention the lease of the parties because it is not made according to their directions and so there are no uses raised for the authority is not pursued nor the precedent condition observed and so the lease hath another beginning and another ending and so it must be another Lease Fitzh graunts 63. And here is not the same reversion intended to the party viz. his Son Watson because it is upon another Lease and so a different reversion And although the Iury might have found the intent of the party and so the same Lease yet they have not found it 2. rep Crumwells case 5. rep Earl of Rutlands case and if the Iury find evidence only and not matter of fact the Court can give no Iudgement 9. rep Downhams case the meaning of the party ought to be found Oxfords case 10. rep 11. Iac. Banc. Reg. Isack and Clarkes case 3 Ed. 6. Bendloes Reports As to the second point viz. whether the use shall result to the Feoffor or remain in the Feoffees he held that it doth result to the Feoffor and remains not in the Feoffees For first there was no other thing intended to be in the Feoffees than to make the lease good and that is not here done and Dyer 300. cited is not to this purpose The intention of the parties is not prevalent in directing of uses and Dyer 300. may be applyed to our case to determine the use 4. rep 82. Barbers case Mich. 2 3 Eliz. Bendloes Reports the use reverted Dyer 16 Eliz. Humphrestons case An estate ought to be made in convenient time otherwise the use is to revert out of the Feoffees to the Feoffor according to his first estate 3ly For the question whether a good estate passe to Elizabeth and the others he held that there did a good Estate passe either by bargain and sale or otherwayes But it is good by bargain and sale notwithstanding it be upon consideration past which is no consideration and the other consideration expressed to raise the use hurts not and here is a good consideration Mich. 8 Iac. Gosman and Carington C. B. There was no good consideration but a curtesie 13. and 14 Eliz. Horwoods case there was a good consideration although there be no monies paid but land for land 2ly If it doe not pass by way of bargain and sale yet it shall pass by way of Covenant to stand seised to uses and the consideration expressed is good to raise the uses Bedles case 7 Rep. these considerations cannot be silenced by the considerations of bargain sale nor shall the intent to pass it by way of bargain sale hurt it if he take by way of use yet it makes not the joyn tenancy operate as a tenancy in Common so it is the same lease declared upon and not divers and there is no disseisin by the entry of the Lessee at election for though he be not Lessee by the Lease intended yet he is Lessee by the one Lease or the other for the Lease is made either by the Feoffor or by the Feoffee and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintiff Pannell for the Defendant put the case at large and made these questions 1. Whether here be such a Lease as the first Indenture doth direct 2ly If the use do not arise where the estate is 3ly Whether there be a good bargain and sale 4ly Whether there be a good consideration to make a bargain and sale 5ly If there be not a good bargain and sale whether it shall enure by way of Covenant to stand seised to a use and he said if all these points be not for the Plaintif all is against him and he held that the words at and from are all one as to signifie the intent of the parties The words have here an extraordinary signification according to time and place and at or in a place are all one and the word at may be satisfied with time precedent or subsequent quae incontinenter fiunt inesse dicuntur et instans est indivisibile and he denied Berwicks case in the 5th Report to be law And here is no need of a forced construction for the intent of the party appears by the case 8 rep 91. For the second point if the Lease be not good and no use raised then where the estate of the land is And he held that it is in the Feoffees not withstanding for here the use is limited but not in the cases put on the other side And here was a fee simple determinable but it being become impossible it is a fee absolute Trin. 18 Car. Roll and Bois and Dyer 300. is mistaken in putting of the case on the other side And it cannot result for
displacings of estates because it puts an estate in a stranger who ought not to have it as Bredons Case is where one doth acknowledge another to have the inheritance by the fine this is a forfeiture By the fine here the Conusor acknowledges more to the Conusee than he hath and he might have expressed in the fine the estate that he hath in the Land and no more and so there is an estate in possession here Ierman Iustice said the fine shall not be construed to do wrong but the Case is of consequence therefore he would advise Nicholas held it was no forfeiture Ask was of the opinion of the chief justice Roll chief Iustice said estopels will make forfeitures in many Cases Q. what Iudgement was given Meers against French Hil. 1649 Banc. sup Entred Hil. 24 Car. rot 24. AN ejectione firmae was brought for ejecting the Plaintiff out of a rectory Arrest of Iudgement in an Ejectione firmae and declares of a lease thereof made unto him by Indenture The Plaintiff had a verdict the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the Plaintiff had declared of a lease per Indenturam Declaration and doth not say in curia prolatam The Court answered if an Indenture be pleaded but by way of inducement it is not necessary to say in cruia prolatam otherwise if it be pleaded to entitle the party by it 2ly He declares that the Defendant did eject him out of such a close and doth not say whether it was pasture or arrable land nor how many Acres it was Roll chief Iustice said it is not good if it be of a close of Land if he do not give it a name nor declare of what nature the land is 3ly He declares that the Defendant ejected him de uno Crofto which is incertain But Roll chief Iustice said That a writ of Dower and an Assise will lie de uno Crofto and so will an Ejectione firmae Dower Assise although a Formedon will not lie de uno Crofto And therefore let the Plaintif take his Iudgement except cause be shewed to the contrary Monday next Postea Hill 1649. Banc. sup Entred Trin. 24 Car. C. B rot 1010. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in the Common Pleas in an Action of Trover and Conversion of divers goods Error to reverse a Iudgement in Trovers Conversion for many improper words used in the Declaration to express several of them as 1. Argentum servitium is used to express a silver Salt-cellar which is not good for servitium is Latin for service And in Parker and Martyns case in this Court Instrumentum ferreum anglice a Horse-lock was held not good and 3 Iac. Robotums case Hama anglice a Crow of Iron was adjudged naught 2ly He declares de duobus Castoribus anglice two Hats 3ly De duobus Catents pro patinis anglice Dishes 4ly De duodecem Crinalibus et plagulis anglice Coifs and Crosscloaths Ed. Turner prayed for Iudgement notwithstanding these exceptions Because as to the 1. there is no proper word for a silver Salt-cellar and it is here well enough described by divers words 2ly There is no proper Latin word for Hats called Demy-Castors and therefore it is lawfull to frame words so for the rest being new things not known to the Romans there are no Latin words for them so words may be invented well enough to express them and servitium argenteum is here with an anglice and therefore it is a good description of the thing and de instrumento ligneo Composito anglice a skreen hath been adjudged good because there is not a proper word to express it But the Court doubted of the words used for Coâ—fs and Close-clothes because they are divers things Ierman Iustice said argenteum servitium anglice a silver Salt-cellar cannot be good for servitium is Latine for service But Roll chief Iustice said if servicium signifie nothing then the Iury gave no damages for that and then the rest may be good But yet the Iudgement was ordered to be reversed except cause shewed and was then at the prayer of the Councel pronounced which if it be not prayed the Iudge will not doe it Quod nota Peise against Mablye Hill 1649. Banc. sup Pasch 1649. rot 222. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given at Launceston in an Action of trespass upon the case Error to reverse a judgement in an action upon the case for words for these words These Town weights in Georges possession meaning the Plaintif who was the Common weigher of the Town are false and cosening weights The 1. exception was that here was no Communication had of the Plaintif but the words are only spoken concerning the weights 2ly The judgement is not well entred Case Judgement for it is said to be given ad eandem Curiam whereas it ought to be per eandem Curiam Upon these exception the Iudgement was reversed Colson against Ree Hill 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 561. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in the Court at Newcastle upon Tyne in an Assise of Novel disseisin Error to reverse a Judgement given in an Assise Assise of Nusance The Error assigned was that the Plaintif doth declare that the Defendant did disseise him de uno muro lapideo and that the Defendant had erected a house in the place to his nusance The Court answered The Plaintif ought to have brought an Assise of Nusance for this wrong which because he hath not done let the judgement be reversed Batisford against Yate Hill 1649. Banc. sup Pasc 1649 rot 289. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in an Action of Trover and Conversion for these errors Error to reverse a judgement given in a Trover and Conversion Venire 1. It is said of the Iurors in entring of their verdict Dixerunt pro querente and aly In the awarding of the Venire it is ideo praeceptum fuit with an and so it is not certain whence the Venire issued as it ought to be The rule was the judgement should be reversed if cause were not shewn to the contrary Cooke against More Hill 1649. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 645. COoke brought an Action upon the case against More upon an Assumpsit Demurrer to a plea in an â—ction upon an Assumpsit to pay for certain barrels of béer sold and delivered unto him such a day The Defendant pleads specially that he did not assume as the Plaintif hath declared To this plea the Plaintif demurs because that by thus pleading the Plaintif is tied up to a particular day whereas he may give in evidence for any other baâ—rels of beer sold at any time before the Action brought The Court ordered cause to be shewn why the Plaintif should not have judgement upon this demurrer Banbury against Basely Hill 1649. Banc. sup
Hill 24. Car. rot 1062. THis case arising upon a special verdict found in an Ejectione firmae Argument upon the Case concerning the Manor of Callidown given to Mr. Pym. touching the title of the Manor of Callidowne being part of Sir Thomas Morgans estate that was given to Mr. Pym by Ordinance of Parliament and heretofore argued on both parts was again spoken to First by Twisden who argued for the Plaintif who said the Question is Whether the estate setled by Sir Thomas Morgan before the year 1641. be forfeited by the Act of Parliament and consequently well given to Mr. Pym or no And he said the intent of the Parliament in making this Act is first to be interpreted and he held that according to the Act no estate passeth but such estate as Morgan had in the year 1641. and no more for no man can forfeit a thing that he hath not but only that which he hath but Morgan then had not this estate and therefore he could not forfeit it 2ly There is a priority of vesting the estate in the Parliament and next from the Parliament to the Trustees and the Trustees can have no more than is forfeited to the Parliament and the estate setled before the year 1641. is not forfeited to the Parliament 3ly The penning of the Act is considerable The Act saith all the said lands that is all the said lands that Morgan had in the yeart 1641. and not all the lands that Morgan ever had before that time and had setled for the precedent words are restrained by the words subsequent Althams case 8 Rep. Dyer 369. and from the preamble of the Act to make a construction to punish innocent persons is against the Law of God Man and Nature Nichols case f. 398. Of rewards and punishments consist the essence of Commonwealths and it could not be the intent of the Parliament to punish innocent persons 3 Ed. 4. 2. The Parliament did not intend to give more of Morgans estate than what he had 1641. for then they might give that which might be evicted which they intended not And whereas it is objected that there is a clause of Revocation in Morgans settlement and so the estate was not absolutely setled It is answered That notwithstanding this power of Revocation the estate is not given by this Act unto Pym for it cannot give a power 7 Rep. 13. and a power cannot be forfeited and Mary Morgan had an interest in the land notwithstanding the power of Revocation And notwithstanding there is no saving for Mary yet the estate is not passed for Mary Morgan is not intended to be punished Nichols case Com. f. 483. and so there needs no saving for her 14 H. 8. f. 2. and it cannot be intended because there is no saving for her that therefore she shall forfeit her estate and the saving is not therefore idle for it hath an operation another way The saving is not intended of the estate of a Collateral Auncestor only for this is the begging of the question for the saving saves not any thing and the penning of the words are against this exposition and so he concluded that nothing was given by the Statute to Mr. Pym but the estate of Morgan which he had in the year 1641 and prayed judgement for the Plaintif Steel the Recorder of London for the Defendant said he would only answer the argument of Twisden because he had heard no other arguments And first he held that the Ordinance reaches all the estates that Morgan had as well before as at the time 1641. and the estate setled by Morgan before 1641. was the estate of Thomas Morgan in the year 1641. 2ly The lands are expresly named which are given by the Statute it is not material who hath the estate in them for certitudo nominis tollit demonstrationem Dowbey and Dudingtons case and Mildmayes case 1 Rep. do interpret how the word others shall be interpreted And here cannot be said to be any injustice in the Parliament The Question here is Whether the estate be setled by the Parliament and if it be setled it would be a supposition of injustice to suppose it is not rightly done The Law hath invested the Parliament with a power to dispose of all lands and therefore it cannot be intended injustice And the estate is not in Mary Morgan notwithstanding the Conveyance because there is a clause of Revocation in it for it is a void Conveyance as to her estate by reason of the clause of Revocation for that makes it fraudulent And the estate of Mary Morgan is not passed by the Statute notwithstanding the clause of eviction in the Ordinance an if or an an are no saving of an estate and here is no eviction in the case and here is no saving otherwise their estate cannot be saved for then the lands are all passed And the saving extends to the lands descended to the Children of Thomas Morgan from Collateral Ancestors and not from Tho. Morgan the Father and as reasonable a Construction ought to be made of an Ordinance of Parliament as this is as of an Act of Parliament and so he praid Iudgement for the Defendant Roll chief Iustice said He did not doubt of the power of the Parliament in this case but of their meaning whether they intended these lands should be forfeited or not And the Ordinance was made by the House of Commons without any proviso in it and the proviso was put in by the House of Lords and he enclined that Mary Morgans estate was saved But Jerman Iustice said he conteived that Maries estate was not saved but only the estate of strangers The Court was divided and said they would consider till next Term and then give Iudgement in this and the Case of Garret and Blizard Quaere What Iudgement was given in both cases for I was not in Court at the day they were spoken to again Vincent against VVallis Hill 1649. Banc. sup Hill 24 Car. rot 966. rot 906. IN a Replevin for distraining of Cattel the Defendant emparled A Demurrer to a plea in a replevin after imparlance and afterwards pleaded that the lands are antient Demesne where the distress was taken and to this plea the Plaintif demurred Serjeant Parker for the Plaintif and against the Demurrer held that the plea is not to be admitted because that the party hath made his defence Plea and cannot therefore afterwards plead to the jurisdiction of the Court and cited 11 H. 4. f. 47. 2 H. 7. f. 17 b. That freehold only is to be sued for in antient Demesne And 2ly the plea is not sufficient for it doth not appear that the lands are held of the Manor but only are parcel of the Manor and such lands are pleadable in other Courts 20 H. 6. Nat. Brev. 11 M. 41 Ed. 3. 3ly It is not said that the lande are pleadable by Writ of Droit Close which ought to be 2 H. 7. f. 17. 3 H. 6. f.
upon the Case and didst kill thy first wife The Error assigned was that it doth not appear in the Declaration that the Plaintif was maried before But the Court affirmed the judgement and said the Defendant hath confessed it by joyning issue non culp upon the words VVood against Topham Trin. 1650. Banc. sup THis case being an Action upon the Case quare filium suum cepit et abduxit Error to reverse a judgement in an Action on the Case et maritavit was again moved and the exception insisted upon was that the Plaintif doth not say Cujus maritagium ad ipsum pertiner But Roll chief Iustice said that it could not be otherwise intended but that the mariage belongs to him and it doth not appear that his Son was maried before and the value of the mariage is not here material for the mariage of his Son belongs unto him as a parent Mariage in regard of his protection and advice Ierman differed and said that if he were maried before he was then Pater Familias and is out of the protection of his Father Protection But Nicholas and Ask Iustices agreed with Roll and Roll said the matter here is not the loss of the mariage for that is but to increase the damages but the Action lies only quare cepit et abduxit Adjourned to be argued the next Term. Antea et Postea Oreswick against Armery Trin. 1650. Banc. sup Mich. 1649. rot 354. OReswick brought a writ of Error against Armery to reverse a judgement given against him in Bristow Error to reverse a judgement in an Action of Debt Debt Custom in an action of debt upon a Concessit solvere according to the custom of the City but the Iudgement was affirmed for the Court said an action of debt will lie by a custom upon a Concessit solvere but not if it be brought against an Executor Custodes Libertat c. against Valconbridge Trin. 1650. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment of Assault and Battery To quash an Endictment of Assault and Battery The Exception was that the Endictment was taken before the Iustices of Assize and Gaol delivery and Oyer and Terminer and so it doth not appear by vertue of what Commission it was taken Roll chief Iustice He ought to shew by virtue of what Commission particularly it was taken and therefore let it be quashed and a fine of 40 s. set upon the Clark of the Assizes for his negligence Fine Bowles against Clark Trin. 1650. Banc. sup IT was she wed for cause upon a rule of Court why a Prohibition should not be granted to the Prerogative Court Why a Prohibition should not be granted to the Prerogative That in the will which the Prerogative Court endeavoured to repeal there were lands given to the Executor The Court answered If the Prerogative have power to prove a will they may also repeal it by appeal but if lands be devised together with goods they have no power to repeal it as to the lands but if they should have no power to repeal it as to the goods it would be mischievous But they have no authority to make the devise good or ill as to the lands Prohibition And the Court was at first agreed to grant a Prohibition as to the lands only But afterwards the Court held that there could be no such division made of the will by Prohibition as to stand good in part and to be repealed for the rest and so would not grant the prohibition Nota. Keniston against Crouch Trin. 1650. Banc. sup THe Court was moved that upon a Judgement given in the Common Pleas For a rule to enter judgement in the Common Pleas denied since the Act that a writ of Error shall be no supersedeas a writ of Error was brought in this Court and the record removed but that depends undetermined and that the party had moved for execution in the Common Pleas but the Clarks refuse to make out execution without the rule of this Court Rule and therefore a rule was prayed to them to make out execution But the Court answered procéed as the Act directs we will make no rule But we conceive there is no writ of Error now depending and therefore you may take out execution of Course Q. Tamen Execution for it was doubted at the Bar. Denton against Harison Trin. 1650. Banc. sup DEnton brought an Action upon the Case against Harison in London For a Procedendo to London for speaking these words Thou art a Whore and my Husbands Whore and he doth maintain thee The Defendant removed the cause into this Court by a Habeas Corpus whereupon the Plaintif moved for a procedendo Roll chief Iustice was of opinion that a procedendo ought to be granted for if it should not the party hath no remedy to proceed and if they do proceed in London and the judgement he thereupon erronious the party grieved may bring a writ of Error in the Hustinges and reverse it Ierman Iustice said here is a wrong done and the remedy is given according to the custom of the City and it is a good custom Custom because it is for the preservation of the Peace of the City and it is the custom of the City to whip a Whoremonger and to Cart a Whore and this may be the ground or reason why an action lies in London for calling of a woman whore there thought it doe not lie in other places Trin. 1650. Banc. sup VPon an Issue joyned and a Tryal thereupon That Iudgement might not be entred a Verdict was found for the Plaintif and the Postea was delivered to the Clark of the judgements to enter the judgement but through the Clarks neglect execution was taken out the Iudgement being not entred upon this the Court was moved that the Iudgement might not be entred Iudgement because it should have béen entred before Execution issued forth and therefore it was suggested that now it was too late and prayed to supersede the Execution Supersedeas because there was no judgement to warrant it But Roll the Chief Iustice answered that this being but a neglect of the Clark judgement might be well enough entred though the Execution were issued forth and because the tryal betwéen the parties is right therefore let it be entred Cane against Pell Trin. 1650. Banc. sup CAne brought an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. for substraction of tithes against Pell and hath a verdict against the Defendant Arrest of Iudgement in an action upon the Statute for tithes The Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and took an Exception to the Plaintifs Declaration That it did not appear by it in what Parish the lands lie out of which the tithes grew due On the other side it was said 〈◊〉 appeared well enough by implication but if it did not it is not now material there being a
to the Sheriff for his appearance and therefore it was prayed that the party arrested might be discharged and that the bond given to the Sherif might be delivered up Roll the chief Iustice answered Endict the Bailies that made the Arrest or bring your Action against them if you please Discharge for we will not discharge the party arrested Bois against Cranfield Mich. 1650. Banc. sup rot Q. BOis as Executor to another brought an Action of Debt upon divers Obligations made to his Testator Debt upon divers Obligations by an Execution The Defendant pleaded that he did pay a lesser sum than is expressed in the Obligations to the Testator during his life and that he did accept there of in full satisfaction of the said Obligations To this plea the Plaintif demurred Roll Chief Iustice upon opening the matter said that the question here is whether the payment or the acceptance of the money paid in satisfaction be to be traversed And he held it was indifferent to traverse either of them Traverse but he said it was more proper to joyn issue upon the payment but the Court would advise It was then also said that if one pay money in satisfaction of an Obligation and the party to whom it is paid saith that he will receive it for another cause Satisfaction payment yet if he receive it it shall be judged to be paid in satisfaction of the Obligation for he must receive it upon such terms as the other will pay it Brian against Stone Mich. 1650. Banc. sup STone moves the Court for an Attachment against Brian and others For an Attachment for that he was arrested by a Latitat out of this Court in the County of Wilts and thence carried into the Town of Malborow and there arrested by a Serjeant of that Town by a writ out of that Corporation and the Plaintif procéeds there against him upon that writ and not upon the latitat by which he was first arrested which is a contempt to this Court. Attachment Habeas Corpus cum causa The Court ruled the party should have an Attachment nisi c. and also should have a Habeas Corpus cum causa Mich. 1650. Banc. sup THe Recorder of London moved for the Inhabitants of Bishopsgate against one Withringes For the setting a moderate fine upon one that submitted to a fine who for refusing to serve upon the Ward mote Enquest was indicted for his refusal in London and convicted and fined 20 l. the Defendant being committed for not paying his fine removed himself hither by a Habeas Corpus but now hath submitted himself to a fine it was therefore prayed he may be moderately fined here The Court thereupon fined him 20 l. Beal against VVyman Mich. 1650. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 849. VPon these words of a will Question upon words of a Will viz. I give and bequeath one half of my lands to my wife after her death I give all my lands to the heirs males of any of my Sons or next of Kin Latch made these questions in the Case 1. Whether there were a good estate created by these words of the will 2ly Whether the estate were destroyed by the fine levied of the lands For the 1. he held that the heirs males of any of his Sons are words certain enough to create an estate for it is all one as if he had said to the heirs males of all his sons if they have heirs males or to those who have heirs males and the words or to the next of Kin are also certain enough being joyned with the precedent words and shall be meant to the next of Kin and their heirs males if his sons have no heirs males For in a Win if there be words to express the meaning of the Testator it is sufficient enough though the words be not apt And he cited 21 Rich. 2. Devise 27. and 8 Rep. 46 and said that the case in 30 Ass pl. 47. is the same with this in terminis And here is no contingent remainder but only a contingent devise there is no necessity for a particular estate to support it for it ariseth out of the estate of the Devisor yet if there were néed of a particular estate here to support the remainder here is a particular estate in the wife who by implication of the will doth take all the land during her life as it is 13 H. 7.29 H. 8. Br. Devise 48. Trin. 3 Ed. 6. Bendloes Plow Com. 521. Whelpdales case Pasch 25 Eliz Com. Ban. To the 2 point he spake not holding it not material Hales of Councel on the other side held that the wife had not an estate for life in all the land by implication of the will but only an estate for life in a moyety of the land and so there is no particular estate to support the contingent remainder which he held was in this case that it is not a contingent Devise as Latch urged for the remainder here depends by way of remainder and not as a contingent Devise And he held the Devise it self to be void admitting all the precedent matter alleged to be true 1. Because the devise is uncertain for the intent of the deviser doth not appear for it appears not what heir male shall have the land whether the heir male of his son or the heir male of his next of Kin for the words are disjunctive 41 42 Eliz. Com. Banc. in the Case of Tayler Sawyer land devised to a Mans Issue was adjudged a void devise for the incertainty of it And he held that the intent was that the heir male of his son should inherit before the heir male of the next of Kin otherwise the further off of Kin should have the land before the nearer of Kin. And he said that Hill 2. Car. Rot. 1288. Com. Banc. in Hunt and Fishers case the case at the Bar was adjudged in point Roll chief Iustice said That the intention of the Testator here is coeca sicca Intention and senceless and cannot be known Will. and we ought not to frame a sence upon the words of a Will where we cannot find out the Testators meaning Ierman Iustice held that the devise was not void but that the words are to be interpreted as they may stand with Law and as the words will bear Nicholas Iustice prima facie that the devise is void but yet it is questionable Ask Justice to the same intent Roll chief Iustice said that there is too much way usually given to ambiguous devises But let it be argued again the next Term. Parker against Cook Mich. 1650. Banc. sup Hill 23 Car. rot 660. THe Action was an Action of Trespass quare Clausum fregit Upon a Demurrer the question was whether a Copyhold were forfeited or not The Defendant pleaded a special plea of justification viz. That the Plaintif was a Copyholder to his Manor and that for
to be measured by ordinary rules of Law And 2ly Antient grants are to be construed as the Law was at that time when they were made 9. rep 27.6 rep 48. 〈◊〉 H. 7. 〈◊〉 14 E. 3. Fitzh Scire facias 23. and the King is not bound by a general custom as Common persons are 35 H. 6.29 by Prisot 22 Ed. 3. The King shall not pay a heriot upon the purchase of heriatable Lands and we shall find that many maximes of Law upon serious scanning of them are not so certain to be relyed on as they are commonly held to be 5. rep Knights Case Pasc 3 Eliz. B. R. Conisby and Risby Dyer 10 Eliz. and the patentee of the King shall have the same privilege that the King should have had if he had not granted the Letters patents 27 Eliz. Stubs and Rigfords case At another day Arthur Harris spake again to the point that the King had no legall intent to destroy the Copyhold Estate by his patent and therefore it should not be destroyed and cited Grotius de jure belli et pacis 343. and that no such intent can appear in the words of the patent and cited 7. rep Inglefields Case and 17 E. 3. f. 19. and Cooks Institutes 373. and 1. rep 46. and Plow 333. and as to the last point he argued that the Patentée of the King shall be in the same condition as to the reviving of the Copyhold Estate as the King should have been if he had not made the grant because that the King hath the Fee and he may grant it as he pleaseth Dyer 16 Eliz. 337.1 rep 31.10 Eliz. Dyer 266.24 Ed. 3. Fitz. Tit. guard 27. and no priority can be pleaded against the King nor against his Patentee Hill 30 Eliz. Stubs and Rightwayes Case an Action of Accompt against Executors doth lye only for the King It is true that prerogatives inseparable and annexed to the person of the King cannot be granted away by the King but prerogatives separable may be granted away 12 H. 4. Fitzh guard 81. The Grantee of the Grantee of the King shall have the prerogative of the King by reason of the thing granted by the King Brook praerog 17. 21 H. 7.2 Br. entre congeable 4â—â— The King may distrein for a rent seck but not his Grantee because it is a prerogative executory and not executed for in such case it is otherwayes and as to the objection to the cause of the demurrer set forth that the Concessit is not answered because it only sayes mentionat esse concessum I hold it well enough but if it should not be yet it is helped for both partyes do agree in the setting forth of the Letters Patents 34 Eliz. B. R. in Harâ— and Smiths case and the grant is confessed in our rejoynder and though the demurrer should not be good yet the Avowant cannot have Iudgement for he hath not entitled himself to the Action as appears by his grant for his grant is void and cannot take effect rep 46.8 rep 201.39 Eliz. in the Chequer Chamber Where 2. Manours are granted by the name of one of them the grant is not good And in our case Thomas Boothby had nothing in the land at the time of making of the deed of Covenant to stand seised to use as it appears by the Avowants own pleading and the postea cannot help it Dyer 111. Clarks Case Hill 15 Iac. entred Trin. 15 Iac. rot 29. Desmons case 20 H. 615. Hales on the other side argued for the Avowant and prayes a return of the Cattel distreyned first he put the Case at large And he said that the Plaintiff hath not well set forth the Kings grant in his bar and so it is all one as if he had not set it forth at all Plowd 563. and he hath disputed that which we have not alleged and the sur rejoynder is but argumentaive and not positive and nothing appears to the Court and he hath quite mistaken his course and way But admitting the case and the points to be as they are made viz. 1. Whether the new Office be well granted because the word Constituimus is omitted 2. Whether the grant for life be good 3. Whether the grant of the Copyhold for life be a suspension of the Copyhold estate or an extinguishment of it which is the great question in the Case For the 1 point I hold that here is a good grant of this new Office and that the word Constituimus is not necessary because that there are special fées also newly granted 2ly This is not an Office in gross consisting and resting upon it self but it is a relative Office or an imployment incident in the interest of the house granted and therefore the word Constituimus is not here necessary Dyer 200. 3ly If it be not a formal Office yet here is a good grant of an employment to which a recompence may be added although an Assize cannot be brought for it 3 Ass Trin. 6 Iac. Abercromies Case And here the protestation that the King was not informed that this was Copyhold land is unnecessarily alleged and therefore it is not of necessity it should be answered and if it be not well set forth it is not material For the 2 question whether the King was deceived in his grant he said that the King needed not to take notice of any former estates and that the Statute expresseth that it is not necessary to recite them 24 H. 8. 2â— To the 3 point the chief question whether the Copyhold estate be suspended or extinguished he held it was extinguished and cited Knights case Alton woods case and said that the rules of the Civil Law ought not to be applyed to the Common Law nor to be cited to perplex the proceedings thereof and were this in the case of a Common person without doubt the Copyhold estate would be destroyed 20 Eliz. by Popham and Fenn and the King here hath the Fee simple and there is no difference between the case of the King and of a Common person in this regard a thing which will not pass by the King without notice will not pass with notice and here is no prejudice to the King in not taking notice whether by the Patent the Custom to grant Copyhold estates be destroyed or not and here is a necessary consequence in Law that the custom is destroyed because the King that had the fee in the Manor hath suspended the Copyhold by his grant All the Arguments used on the other side are to destroy the Kings grant and the cases put do all differ from our case and do stand upon their own bottoms Nor shall the King be intended to be mis-conusant of his particular grant such as this is although he may be in a general grant lib. Ass 21. pl. 19. Pasch 12 Car. C. B. Glover and Edgars case and it would be a great mischief if the Copyhold estate should be revived As to the last point whether the
Patentee shall be in the same condition as the King was he said that it is not material whether he be or no as to the Case in question and rested upon the 3 question If the King hath free warren in land and grants the land and mentions not the warren yet the warren passeth by the grant And here out Avowry stands pro confesso because the Plaintif hath made no title A grant of a Manor per nomen maneriorum is a good grant of the Manor and here is a good grant and if not yet it is helped by the Statute of 3 4 Phil. Mar. C. 1. 1 H. 7. f. 28 and the Postea here refers not to the grant of the Copy and here is no ouster alleged and if there be there is do disseisin but it passeth an estate for will between the parties Roll chief Iustice It would be dangerous to make the Patent void because the King took no notice of the Copyhold estate and this point is not fit to be argued A thing not materially alleged in pleading is not necessarily to be answered and it is not necessary to create such an Office as this is for it is but an employment The great question is whether after the death of Sr. Iohn Gate the Copyhold estate can be revived or not in the case of the King It may be dangerous whether it be one way or the other As to the pleading we will not make it ill if it may be good Argue the great point again for it is a difficult point and of great consequence Ierman Iustice to the same effect and enclined that the King had no intent to destroy the Copyhold and he held that the Office was well granted because it was but an imployment Nicholas Iustice inclined that the Copyhold was destroyed At another day Wadham Windham argued for the Plaintif and first he put the case at large and then said that 1. It appears by the replication that the Avowant hath no title 2. He confesseth that the Plaintif hath a Title Queen Mary seised of the Manor of Chingford Comitis whereof Pipers Down is parcel grants it per nomen duorum illorum maneriorum and it is not averred that she had two Manors First it is considerable whether the Patent be good by the Common Law 2ly Whether if not yet it be made good by the Statute of H. 8. and he held 1. That it is not good at the Common Law because it is incertain and wants sufficient words and here is an apparent falsity for he hath two Manors and he grants but one and if the King have two Manors and grant them per nomen Manerii this is not a good grant As tithes belonging to a Rectory cannot pass by the name of a portion of tithes neither do all the Statutes of Confirmation of Patents confirm less or greater values granted than are comprised in the Letters Patents 41 Eliz. Pasons case in the Exchequer A presentation to a Rectory where it ought to be ad Medietatem Rectoriae is not a good presentation 2. rep Dodingtons Case Dyer â—31 An ill grant is not helped by the Statute because it is not named 2ly A false suggestion is not helped by the Statute of 34 H. 8. 3 Car. Sir Hatton Farmers case and in our case here is a mistake of a thing and not of the name for it is a Manor for Manors and so there is no true meaning and therefore it cannot be helped by the Statute Pasch 1 Iac. rot 216. C. B. Dawson against Pickering The Queen was seised of two Manors viz. of Rushworth and of Dale and granted the Manor of Rushworth habendum the Manor of Rushworth with the Manor of Dale and it was held an ill grant at the Common Law and not helped by the Statute But it is objected that this Manor may be known by the name of two Manors and so in our case although the King was seised of one Manor and granted this Manor habendum per nomen duorum Maneriorum this is good Mich. 22 H. 6. pl. 16. f. 13. To this the answer is that it cannot be pleaded per nomen without an averment that there are two Manors 2 Ed. 4. f 28. the last case There is a difference between a feofment and a release a feofment may be pleaded per nomen without an averment but a release cannot be so pleaded for in a feofment the livery operates to pass the land 22 H. 6. Hill f. 39. pl. 9.13 and Dyer the Serjeants Case where there is certainty there needs no averment but it is not so in our Case 1 H. 7. f. 28. and it is a forein intendment to suppose that one Manor of Chingford Comitis shall be known by the name of the two Manors of Chingford Comitis and we need not plead by a non concessit because the Avowant hath made no title and so he can have no return 1 H. 7. f. 28. 6 H 7. f. 6. and here is no certainty added to make it certain by the words illorum quod nuper perquisivimus de c. To the second point The Avowant hath confessed the Plaintifs title for he hath confessed that K. H. the 8th hath made it a Copyhold and if the Copy be good our title is good As to the question whether when a Copyhold comes to the King and he leaseth it this doth not so destroy the Copyhold that when the lease is out it may not be Copyhold again I hold that if a Common person lease a Copyhold the Copyhold is destroyed but it is not so where the King leaseth it as it is in our case which ought not to be measured by the Common rule of Law for the Law of the Crown over-rules the Common Law and the Law of Custom 22 E. 3. The King is not bound by Custom as a common person is 35 H. 6. The King having Gavelkind lands may destroy the Custom which runs with such lands pro tempore only and the Kings grant shall not enure to a secondary operation as Knights case is and here is no prejudice to any person that the Copyhold estate should be revived here the consequence may be severed and it is not necessary and therefore the lease of the Copyhold not naming it Copyhold is good As to the Objection made that it is no benefit to the King to make it Copy-hold again the answer is That it is a prejudice to take away a mans privilege and liberty if there were no other inconvenience but here is more for there may be prejudice by losing the Common c. And the rule that a Custom is an entire thing and cannot be apportioned shall not bind the King although it do bind common persons and the Statute makes not the grant good as to the reversion The Copyhold is demised and yet shall be demisable hereafter and so it may be pleaded for pleading follows the Law A Custom interrupted in the right is gone for ever
the grant of the Office of the Custody of the house is a good lease for life notwithstanding it was Copyhold and it is not necessary to recite in the grant that it is Copyhold 2. That after the estate for life is determined the King may grant the house and land again by Copy of Court Roll because the Kings grants shall be taken favourably and not extended to two intents where there is no necessity for it as there is not here and we are not here to intend a collateral intent and so the Copyhold is not destroyed for the Law takes care to preserve the inheritance of the King for his Successors and it may be a benefit to the King to have it continue Copyhold viz. to have Common c. and his election is also destroyed if he may not have it Copyhold So Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi Pawsey and Lowdall Pasc 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1650. rot 275. IN this Case formerly argued Roll chief Iustice Iudgement reversed upon a special Verdict touching a Devise of Copyhold lands and Nicholas and Ask Iustices agreed that the devise of the Copyhold here is a devise to the Heirs of the Father and so a Fee-simple and that the party comes not in as a purchaser and for this cause the judgement was reversed nisi As to the other point whether the surrender of a Copyhold by a Tenant for life be good in this case the Court delivered no opinion Antea Trundall and Trowell Pasch 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 670. IN this Case it was held that Tenant in antient Demesn cannot after imparlance plead antient Demesn for he hath made a full defence Where antient Demesne cannot be pleaded for he says Defendit vim et injuriam quando c. which implyes all the rest Mich. 22 Car. Banc. Reg. Yet it was ruled to be again spoken to Peck against Ingram Pasch 1651. Banc. sup THis Case formerly spoken in was moved again and Latch held Whether a good notice that the words obtulit se in maritagium conjungi was a good notice upon the whole matter and therefore that the Action did well lye Roll chief Iustice answered this is a personal thing and ought to be offered to the party himself otherwise it is no notice and that doth not appear here and if there be no notice implyed then the Action lies not and Holmes and Twists case is that there ought to be notice if the thing be to be done by the party himself otherwise if it be to be done by a stranger so is it here but the question only is if notice be implyed here or not Ierman Iustice said there is no tender of mariage if the other party be not there The rule was for the Plaintif to take his Iudgement Rooke against Smith Pasch 1651. Banc. sup ROoke brought an Action upon the case against Smith for speaking these words of him Thou art a poor fellow Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the Case for words and art not able to pay 2s in the pound and art not able to pay thy debts Vpon an Issue joyned and a Verdict for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable for 1. the Plaintif is not by them charged with the crime of being a Bankrupt and so there is no particular losse to him 2ly It is not showed that the Plaintiff got his living by buying and selling or that he is indebted and 11. Iac. Brook and Clarks case was cited Twisden on the other side answered that the Plaintiffs credit was impaired by the words and by his credit his livelyhood is in part mainteyned And he cited Viccary and Barns case Adjourned to the next Term. Wild afterwards moved again for Iudgement because the words being spoken of a tradesman he conceived them to be actionable Maynard on the other side held them not actionable because there is no particular damage alleged to grow to the Plaintif by speaking of them and because there is no crime objected against the Plaintiff for poverty is no crime but a man may be poor and honest at the same time and he cited two cases to be adjudged that a particular damage ought to be alleged And said that these Actions are not favoured in Law and therefore if the words be not cleerly Actionable it was not reason to make a forced construction of them to make them so Next the Plaintiff hath not averred that he was able to pay all his debts for all the things bought but only of a debt contracted by the buying of the Oyl mentioned Twisden denyed the cases put by Maynard of the particular damage and held the words actionable Roll chief Iustice said a man may be a Bankrupt and yet be honest for he may become so by accident Averment and not of purpose to deceive his creditors But here is no need for the Plaintiff to shew he had a particular losse by the words for it is enough that he is generally scandalised by them neither is it necessary for him to averr that he was able to pay all his debts as Maynard hath alleged Therefore let the Plaintiff have his Iudgement nisi Antea Owen against Jevon Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1651. rot 211. OWen brought an Action of the case against Ievon for speaking these words of her Arrest â—f judgement in Action for words viz. This is the whore that my man Cowell begat a bastard on and spent all my mony upon and the quean hath been too long in Town to my ease Vpon an issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintiff Twisden for the Defendant in arrest of Iudgment urged that the words are not actionable because there is no special losse or damage alleaged by the Plaintiff hapning to her by reason of the words said that in one Lighfoot and Pigots case it had béen ruled that an Action lies not for saying a woman had a Bastard and he cited also Winter and Barnards case Trin. 1650. in this Court. Vpon these reasons Iudgment was stayed till the other side should move Iay against Iay. Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 1350. THis case formerly put and spoken to Argument in a special verdict touching the consideration of the words of a will was again spoken unto by Latch wherein he made this question viz. whether the limitation to I. and his Heirs were good or not and he held it was not good for he said that such limitation in case of a freehold is void He confessed that in the case of Pell and Brown 17 Iac. rot 44. the contrary was adjudged but that there did appear such apparent inconvenience in it that upon it the Court was afterwards divided and 21 Iac. in the Serjeants case it was made a flat quaere and ever since it hath been disputable whether a contingent devise be good or not and in Iacob and Tellings case it is not
determined and Hanbury and Cookrells case is not adjudged but if it be it is on my side and Mich. 37 38. C. B. rot 1149. It was adjudged upon solemn argument at the Bar and on the Bench contrary to the Iudgement in Pell and Browns case if lands be devised to one and his Heirs and if he dye without issue that the land shall be to another and his Heirs this is no Estate tail for it cannot stand with the rules of Law to devise â—uth an Estate for it is but a possibility and if it should be more it must be a Fee upon a Fee and so a perpetuity and it cannot be known within what bounds it shall end either in case of years or life or other contingencies and the comparison of Lampets case is not like to this case for that was or a Term but this is of a freehold and a contingent devise of a freehold is not good since the Statute of 32 H. 8. and Brook tit devise 2 Dyer 28 H. 8. f. 3â— is not an opinion against this And though there could be such a devise of other lands yet Copyhold lands cannot be so devised as the case is here for there cannot be so much as a possibility of reverter for there is no custom to warrant it Hill 5. Car. King and Leyden in this Court and Dyer 264. and though there might be a reverter yet he cannot devise it by will and if he could yet here the conbeyance is made up by surrender admittance and devise and the party is here in by the surrender and not by the devise and so is a Copyholder in by Act executed and not upon the contingency and the will is but to direct and though all this be otherwise yet the Plaintiff cannot have Iudgement for it appears not that the surrender is presented at any Court at all and here is nothing but a recitall found Ierman Iustice said by the Common Law there ought to be a presentment at the next Court Roll chief Iustice and Nicholas Iustice There is no certain time for the presentment but it is according to the Custom of the Manor so that it be within the life of the Tenant Roll chief Iustice said it is an inconvenience to devise such a contingent Estate Nicholas doubted for he said it would shake many wills if it might not be and so said Hales The Court would advise Hales confessed the verdict was imperfect but prayed it might be amended But Latch answered it is good enough for us the Defendants for we have primer possession The Court answered it would be good to have it amended and not to have a venire de novo Venire for that will be chargeable but if the verdict be imperfect to bring the matter in Law into question we can grant a new venire although it hath been heretofore doubted Therefore be advised so that it may be argued Antea Heal against Green Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 370. THe case between Heal and Green upon a special verdict formerly argued by Latch was again spoken to and argued by Twisden Argument upon a special verdict upon construction of words of a Will and he held that the Feme had power by the Will to make the lease notwithstanding that she hath but an Estate for life and cited 11 Car. B. R. Hill rot 810. Iob and Whites case and 21 Iac. Danyel and Vgnel and he said that the remainder limited to the daughter doth not hurt for it may very well stand with the will and the intent of the Testator appears upon the whole to be to give such a power to his wife to make this lease and cited 8 Car. Perd and Bensams case And there is a clause in the will that shews that the Testator did intend to advance his wife by this devise And the Feme shall be in by the power which shall make the estate of the lease good and it is not necessary to recite the power as it is held in Rogers case Maynard on the other side said he would not dispute the power but here is no such power given to the wife as it appears by the expresse words of the Will which doth only describe that she shall only make Estates but for her life otherwise she might make Estates in Tail or in Fee and if this should be the last part of the Will which doth limit the remainder would be destroyed and generals in a Will shall not revoke an express devise but they ought so to be construed that all the Will may stand together as Bonhams case is 8. rep Roll chief Iustice It is a difficult thing to shew the meaning of the Testator here but the general must not destroy the particular devise to which Nicholas Iustice assented and Roll enclyned that the Feme had power by the Will to make this Estate otherwise the words of the Will must be idle and void and it may be the Baron intended to give his wife such a power that she might destroy the remainders and otherwise there cannot be any construction made of the Will Ask Iustice differed in opinion and said it was unreasonable the remainder should be destroyed which is expresly limited by the Will and a Will doth differ from a conveyance Nicholas Iustice said that the words shall be expounded to shew his bounty to his wife but not to give her power to destroy the remainder Ierman Iustice There are expresse words for the Feme and the daughter and the Feme hath a power but not to destroy the Estate of the daughter Curia advisare vult Antea Booth against Lambert Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 201. VPon a speciall verdict upon these words Argument and judgement upon special verdict the question whether dower well assiâ—gâ—ed or not viz. I do endow you of a third part of all the lands my Cosen I. S. your husband dyed seised of The question was whether the feme were well endowed by these words because he doth not say that he endows her by metes and bounds Chase held she was not well endowed and cited 8 Ed. 2.15 and said that here is incertainty which begets dissention which ought not to be and the thing is not here entire but may be devided And this is an assignment of dower which differs from a demand of dower for a demand may be general as in the cases of Thyn and Thyn in this Court and of Fairefax and Fairefax and so the book of 8 E. 2. entry congeable S 5. which seems to prove the contrary that is not to our case for it differs from it Merifield of Councell on the other side held the feme was well endowed and agreed the cases put by Chase That of Common right a feme ought to be endowed by metes and bounds yet sometimes it is otherwise as 3 Eliz. Dyer 27. a feme endowed in Common And the feme that is to be endowed and the
dis-inherited by doubtfull and ambiguous words as it must be here if these tithes should pass Next as to the verdict he said that it is not thereby found that the Testator died possessed of the tithes as it ought to have been as it hath been adjudged 43 Eliz. and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintif Maynard of Counsel with the Defendant argued That the tithes did pass by the Will otherwise part of the Will must be void which ought not to be if all parts may be so construed that they may stand together and he agreed that lands and tithes are distinct things but in Wills it is not to be so much considered whether the words of them be proper but what was the intent of the Testator in them and whether they do declare his meaning or not and here by construction of the words by freelands inheritance is meant in opposition to Copyhold lands or terms for years 2ly Here is a positive assertion of the Testator himself that in his understanding he had free lands in Holford for he had no other lands there 35 Eliz. Robinsons case rot 504. Banc. Reg. by a will things of one nature may pass by words which are proper to pass things of another nature 44 45 Eliz. rot 125. A devise of lands and tenements will pass leases for years if there be no other lands to pass by those words in the place expressed in the Will and so prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Verdict Roll chief Iustice asked what he said to the exception that it is not found that the Testator dyed seised of the tithes without doubt it had been ill upon a Demurrer therefore see if you cannot help it by the notes by which the Verdict was drawn up But for the matter in Law me thinks it is a strong case that the tithes do pass for we are in the case of a Will where the meaning of the party shall be observed if it may be found out by any means though it cannot be collected ex vi Terminis and should it not be so here part of the Will would be void which may not be if we can make it otherwise by a reasonable construction But I will consider of the Verdict and do you consult with your notes Ierman Iustice The Verdict ought to find the dying seised and till I am satisfied from the Notes I will deliver no opinion Nicholas Iustice held both the devise good and the Verdict also but said it had been otherwise upon a Demurrer Demurrer Ask Iustice to the same intent Ierman Iustice It is clear that the Testator intended to devise the lands in Holford and it is a good devise but if the Verdict be imperfect it is for the Plaintif but if otherwise it is for the Defendant The Court would advise touching the Verdict Hayward against VVilliams Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 824. THe Case was this a Feme was sued as a Feme sole but by the Sirname of her Husband Who may bring a Writ of Error who not she being then Covert The Feme appears and pleads and Iudgement is given against her and the Baron and Feme joyn in a writ of Error to reverse this judgement The question was whether the Baron who was a Stranger to the Record might joyn in the writ to reverse the Iudgement It was moved divers times and the Court advised and at last they said that a Stranger to a Record may not bring a writ of Error to reverse it but that is only where he may have another remedy to avoid the prejudice he may receive by it but in this Case the Baron hath no other remedy for his Wife is taken in Execution and by this means he shall lose her society And therefore reversetur nisi Antea Shann against Bilby Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 1065. SHann brought an Action upon the Case upon a promise against Bilby Arrest 〈◊〉 Judgement in an Action upon the Case upon a promise and declares that in consideration that the Plaintif should surrender a Copyhold unto I. S. and his heirs according to the Custom of the Manor the Defendant did assume and promise to pay unto him 100 l. and that he did surrender the Copyhold into the hands of a Customary Tenant of the Manor according to the Custom of the Manor to the use of I. S. and his heirs and that the Defendant had not paid the hundred pound according to his promise and declares to his damage c. Vpon non Assumpsit pleaded and Issue thereupon joyned a Verdict was found for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement by Latch of Councel with the Defendant that the Declaration is not good 1. Because it doth not set forth to whom the promise was made and if it do not appear to be made to the Plaintif it is nudum pactum for the promise here is the consideration 2ly The Consideration is Executory and the Plaintif doth not shew that he hath performed it and then he hath no cause of Action The Consideration was that the Plaintif should surrender a Copyhold to I. S. and his heirs according to the custom of the Manor and he only shews that he did surrender the Copyhold into the hands of a Customary Tenant according to the Custom of the Manor to the use of I. S. and his heirs and doth not shew that this surrender was presented at the next Court and so it appears not to be a good surrender Surrender for it is uncertain whether it shall be presented or no and till it be presented it is imperfect To which the Court assented and ruled against the Plaintif a Nil capiat per Billam nisi ◠c. In this case it was said that if a man covenant to convey lands Covenant it ought to be done at the charge of him that covenanteth to do it except the contrary be agreed Consideration And that if there be a double consideration alleaged for a promise if one of them be good and the other be not yet an action will lie upon the promise that is broken which was grounded upon these consisiderations Barcock against Tompson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 444. A Writ of Error was brought by the Bail to reverse a judgement given against him upon a scire facias the Error assigned was Error brought by the Bad. that there was no Capias taken out against the principal and therefore the scire facias against the Bail is not good Hale answered that it was too late to urge this now for Error for the judgement is upon two nichils returned and cited 21 E. 3. f 13. 6 Roll chief Iustice said that two nichils is as much as a scire feci returned and it is no Error to give judgement upon it but it had been a good plea upon the scire facias to say that there was no Capias against the principal but now there
is a Iudgement well given Plea and it is too late to assign it for Error But the Court advised Postea Kerman against Iohnson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 153. KErman brought an Action of Trespass and Ejectment against Johnson Special verdict in Trespass and Ejectment and upon a special Verdict found the Case was this A man devised to I. S. his whole estate paying his debts and Legacies and dies possessed of Goods and Chattels to the value of five pounds only and dyed also seised in fee of divers lands and was indebted forty pounds at the time of his death The question was whether the lands passed by the Devise Barry of Councel with the Plaintif argued that the lands did pass because that wills ought to receive a favourable construction And 2ly The intent of the Testator is to be considered who by the words all his estate did mean to comprehend as well his land as his goods and chattels for there is no restraint of the words here 7 Ed. 3.10 The word estate is a word of large extent and extends as well to the real as personal estate if it were in Case of grant much more in the case of a Will And there is another word used here to explain the Testators meaning to be to devise his lands as well as his goods and that is the word All which comprehends all manner of estates without exception Next if the land should not pass his debts and Legacies cannot be paid according to the express intent of the Testator and the intent of the party ought to be satisfied although the words be not proper because it is in a will though it might be other wise in a grant And whereas it is objected that the Iuries finding of the value of the debts and Legacies is to no purpose because the will cannot be helped by the averment of the Iury. I answer that averments if they stand with the will may be received to make the Testators intent to appear But besides this is not an averment only but a true stating of the Case to the intent to find out the Testators meaning 3ly The devisee of the land is not made Executor but Trustee or Devisee this is since the Statute of Devises 32 H. 8. The 2. question is what estate the Devisee hath in the lands I conceive he hath Fee simple because he hath all the Estate which must be the largest and that is Fee-simple Hob. rep pl. 280. The word whole goes both to the quantity and quality of an estate also And here the consideration that he is to pay all his Debts and Legacies is a good consideration to pass the fee-simple of his lands and though there may be a surplusage after the Debts and Legacies paid this hinders nothing for it is his intent that the Devisee shall have that surplusage and so he prayed Iudgement for the Plaintif Twisden for the Defendant argued that either nothing passeth by the Will or if any thing then only an estate for life passeth He agreed that improper words may sometimes pais things yet sometimes proper words will not passe things viz. if the intent of the party appear to be contrary 24 Eliz in the Earl of Northumberlands case A Devise of all his Iewels did not pass his Collar of Esses and his Iewels annexed to his Parliament Robes and the words here are not that he deviseth all his estate in his lands but his whole estate generally and if the words here should pass the lands yet the fee simple passeth not but only an estate for life in the lands which do pass nor do the words paying his Debts and Legacies cause the Fee-simple to pass for here is no likelyhood of any loss to the Executor for the words are not that he shall pay all his Debts and Legacies and if he be an Executor as the contrary appears not he shall not be charged with more than the personal estate will discharge The words do amount to a Condition and it is not found that there are any Debts or Legacies paid and so it is not performed and the heir may well enter into the lands in question for the Condition broken 2ly The Verdict doth not find how the lands are held whether in Socage or by Knights service and so it appears not whether they can be devised or no and they shall not be intended to be Socage lands Dyer f. 207. Hill 32 El. rot 2. and Pell and Browns case 3ly It is not found that the Testator dyed seised of the lands as it ought to have been and he prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Special Verdict Roll. chief Iustice to the second Exception to the Verdict answered that in a Special verdict it is not necessary to find whether lands be held in Sorage or by Knights Service and he said that the words in the Will do goe to the nature and extent of the estate as Barry urged and he doubted how the verdict shall supply the Will if it be defective for that is only to make the intent of the Will certain Adjourned to be argued again Postea Marshal against Ledsham Trin. 1651. Banc. sup MArshal as Administrator brings an Action of Debt for rent Arrest of Judgement in Debt and upon a Verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and takes exception that the Plaintif had not shewn by whom the Letters of Administration were granted unto him as he ought to do but only says that the Administration debito more commissa fuit But it was answered that it is too late to move this Exception after a Verdict for the Iury have now found that the Administration was duly granted and the Letters of Administration were produced in Court and therefore not necessary to shew who granted them Declaration and it was said that in a Declaration it is not necessary to shew by whom Letters of Administration are granted or to say they were granted by him Cui pertinuit or per loci illius Ordinarium But in a Plea in Bar it is otherwise for this is not the cause of the Action Plea and effect of the sute but to shew they have been in the Spiritual Court Judicium nisi pro quaerente was afterwards given Antea Giles against Timberley Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 176. AN Ejectione firmae vi et armis was brought in the Common Pleas Error to reverse a judgement in an Ejectione firmae and a judgement given for the Plaintif upon a nihil dicit and in a writ of Error brought in this Court to reverse the judgement the Error assigned was in the judgement which was entred thus Ideo consideratum est quod recuperet and the word Capiatur was omitted which ought not to be because the Action is a Trespass vi et armis Roll chief Iustice said It is an ill course they use in the Common Pleas to enter
the judgement so in this Action Iudgement for by this course the Plaintif shall gain his possession of the land and the Defendant cannot bring his writ of Error until the writ of Enquiry returned and the Iudgement perfected Error which it may be will never be for when the Plaintif hath gotten possession of the lands he will little regard the damages Therefore let the judgement be reversed Antea Elyott against Blague Trin. 1651. Banc. sup ELyott brought an Action upon the Case against Blague for speaking these words of him viz. Thou art a Bastard getting Rogue Arrest of Iudgement in an Act on for words and hadst a Bastard at Oxford and art a pocky rogue and for ought I know thou hast filled my Bed full of the French pox and no such pocky rogues shall lie with me Vpon not guilty pleaded and a Verdict found for the Plaintif it was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words were not actionable because some of them were adjectively spoken and others uncertain and some of them clearly not actionable But Twisden answered that if the words were taken together as they were spoken they were very scandalous and actionable and cited one Colyers and Lydyers case 1 Can To which the Court agreed and ruled the Plaintif to take his judgement except better cause should be shewn Custodes against Iinkes Trin. 1651 Banc. sup SErjeant Bernard moved to discharge an Order of Sessions made against a Feme Covert to keep a Grand child of hers To discharge an Order of Sessions Order of Sessions because a Feme Covert was not bound by such an Order Roll chief Iustice answered that her Husband is bound to keep his wifes Grandchild by the Statute but in regard that the Husband is not charged by the Order but the wife who is covert is only charged Therefore let the Order be quashed Trotman against Standard Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 1768. IN an Action upon the case a special verdict was found Special verdict in an action on the case upon which the case fell out to be this Two being seised of lands in Fée did make a charter of feoffment unto two others and to their heirs and in the deed was a letter of Attorney to enter into the lands in the name of the seoffors and make livery and seisin according to the effect of the deed and livery of seisin was made to one of the Feoffees by the Attorney in the absence of the other Feoffee The question was whether here were a good livery and seisin or not 2ly Whether the letter of Attorney was good or no in regard it had false latin in it for the letter of Attorney was made by two and the words of it are pro me in nomine meo to make livery which are words of the singular number whereas they ought to be of the plurall Hales as to the 2d question held the letter of Attorney good enough because the authority given to the Attorney proceeds from both the Feoffors and therefore the words shall be intended to be the words of both of them as spoken by them severally And he also argued that the letter of Attorney was well executed to both the Feoffees because it was by deed and he cited 15 E. 4 f. 18. and he said if the livery had been made by the Feoffor himself it had been good without question and there is no difference between that and our case because it is made according to the effect of the deed and the Feoffee who is present is Attorney for the Feoffee that is absent to receive livery for him and the effect of the letter of Attorney is executed although the words are not Cooks Lit. f. 5. and Hoxon and Polts case in the Exchequer 34 Eliz. Boltons case Livery made to the husband was held a good Livery to the wife also Latch of Councel on the other side made two questions 1. Whether here was a good authority 2ly Whether it was well executed For the first he argued that here was no authority given to the Attorney to enter into the lands in the name of both the Feoffors for the words are that he should enter in nomine meo which cannot comprehend both of them the words being in the singular number and he agreed that Livery made by the Feoffor himself to one in the name of both had been good but here the livery is by Attorney and an Attorney hath nothing but a bare authority given him which ought to be strictly pursued especially it being to passe away an Estate He also took exceptions to the special verdict and said that the tryal upon which the verdict was found was directed out of the Chancery to discover a fraud and the verdict finds nothing according to the direction and so it ought to be set a side besides the verdict in it self is incertain for it is of 300 Acres of land generally which is incertain and so the Plaintiff can have no Iudgement for the Declaration warrants not the verdict for the Declaration mentions Houses and Cottages besides the 300 Acres of land 2ly The verdict doth not find the date of the Indenture and the Title to the land is to commence a die datus Hales answered 1. It shall be intended the day of the date 2ly It shall take effect after the delivery if there be no day of the date expressed And to that exception to the verdict that there are not so many Acres conteined in it as are expressed in the Declaration he answered that the Iudgement shall go to all which is land in kind only and shall not extend to Houses and Cottages and there appears to be a residuum or surplusage Verdict Roll chief Iustice said that it is incertain by the verdict what lands are meant for there are 400 Acres of land and four messuages and four Cottages and 40 Acres of medow in the Declaration and so there appears to be a residuum besides the land found in the verdict which makes it to be incertain what is found And though it should be a verdict for part and be uncertain for the rest although the Plaintiff will relinquish his damages for the rest this will not help it for there must be two Iudgements and the verdict is ill as to that which is found yet he held that it might be good without relinquishing the damages at all because the verdict is good for so many Acres as are in the Declaration and it shall be intended that the Iury mistook the number of the Acres and intended by the verdict no more than the arrable land Ierman and Nicholas Iustices doubted whether there be a verdict at all because the Iury have not found the things conteyned in the Declaration Roll chief Iustice and Nicholas mutate opinione held the verdict good but said it would have béen otherwise upon a demurrer and it was said that if one declare for 40 l. and the
and upon it the case sell out to be thus Special verdict in an ejectione firmae A having lands in see simple and also goods and chatels to the value of 5 l. only in Tavestock made his Will and devised to his wife totum statum suum viz. his whole Estate paying his Debts and Legacies and his Debts and Legacies did amount to the value of 40 l. Hales made 2 questions 1. Whether the lands passe to the wife by the Will or not 2ly If they do what estate passeth to her in the Lands For the first he argued that the lands do passe to the wife 1. Because the generality of the words do include the lands as well as the goods for the words are his whole Estate so that nothing is excluded 9 E. 4. a release of all Actions is held a release of all Actions that the party had in all his capacities 2ly The ordinary maner of spéech doth shew that he intended to devise his lands as well as his goods Riches case Mich. 45. Eliz. C. Banc. A devise of all his rents was held to passe all the partyes lands Also the subject matter in fact doth prove this to be his intent and although here is not a collateral averment to prove the intention but a collateral proof to declare the Testators intent this may be admitted to ascertain the Court of his meaning as it is in the case of proving an Act of Parliament In the Lord Cheneys case an averment standing with a Will was accompted allowable though an averment against a Will be not In Cooper and Lanes case 35 Eliz. a devise seigniori puero where the Testator had a Son and a Daughter was held a good devise to the Son although puer signifies as well a Daughter as a Son and the Daughter there was elder than the Son and Hill 8. Car. In Bartler and Rodes case in B. R. a devise of all his lands in Dale if he had leases as well as lands there passed not the leases For the 2d point he argued that a fee simple passed 1. Because his whole Estate is devised and that is to be applyed as well to the lands as to the goods 2ly Because in regard that there is a consideration for it to wit that the wife shall pay his Debts and discharge his Legacies and whereas it is objected that it is not said she shall pay all his Debts I answer that it shall be so intended Here is land and goods mentioned and not land only and it is found that the goods only are not sufficient to pay the Debts and also the goods were liable to the payment of the Debts without this expression in the Will and therefore the land must be intended to be devised And for the verdict it is not material to find the lands to be held in socage for they shall be intended to be so held because it is the most antient Tenure for where the Law creates a Tenure it shall be socage Tenure 2ly Lands may possibly be deviseable although they be not held in socage for if they be neither held by socage nor chivalry yet they are deviseable Dyer 307. Neither is it material to find the Debts and Legacies paid for it is a condition here an not a limitation and there is a person to take advantage if the condition be broken this is a special verdict the breaking of the condition if it had béen broken would have appeared upon evidence therefore it is not necessary to aver it it is in case of a Fee simple which is an Estate intended to continue Devise Roll chief Iustice held that the lands did passe for so he said the common understanding imports and the words do go to the value of the estate 1. It comprehends the thing to wit the land 2ly The extent of the Estate given viz. Fee simple and so it shall be here intended and the words paying his Debts and Legacies doth enforce this construction for they are to be paid presently which cannot be if the lands passe not in Fee and so the aberment it is but to supply the meaning of the Testator and stands very well with the Will and is not so collaterall as it is in Cheyneys case And for the verdict the lands shall be intended to be socage lands Intendment as being the most Common Tenure except the contrary were shewed on the other part Denham and Bakers case Mich. 24 〈◊〉 entred Trin. 23. rot 12.80 and the words paying his Debts and Legacies are words of condition and not of limitation Ierman ad idem and said Condition̄ Limitation when we say a man is a man of a great Estate we mean his Estate in lands as well as goods Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same effect but Ask said he doubted of the verdict because no Legacies are found and this is part of the case Iudicium pro querente nisi Antea Pickering and Emma Trin. 1651. Banc. sup EMma obteined a Iudgement against Pickering For a supersedeas upon an audita querela brought and had satisfaction upon it and gave a release to the Defendant yet afterwards takes out a capias ad satisfaciendum against him whereupon he brings his Audita querela and moves the Court that he may have a supersedeas to the capias ad satisfaciendum The Court desired to see the release and upon view thereof The rule was that the party should proceed in his audita querela but said they would grant no supersedeas because the release was ambiguous Custodes c. against Rivett Trin. 1651. Banc. sup VPon a rule of Court to shew cause why an Attatchment should not be granted against one Cause why an Attatchment should not be granted for proceeding to a tryal in an iuferior Court notwithstanding a habeas corpus directed to remove the cause An Affidavit was made that the proceeding to tryal was because it was supposed the habeas corpus was against the Statute of 21 Iac. The Court answered you ought to have returned this matter upon your return and not to have proceeded against the habeas corpus but let the Secondary examine the matter and then move again Return But it is dangerous to execute the Iudgement if the Statute be not against the habeas Corpus The Custodes against my Lord Morley Trin. 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved on the behalf of the Lord Morley for a Certiorari to remove an Endictment preferred against him at the Sessions of Peaco at Hicks Hall upon the Statute against hearing of Mass For a Certiorari to remove an Endictment The Court answered that they would advise but that they did not see how a Certiorari could be granted at the prayer of the party but they said at the prayer of the Councel for the State it may be granted Baker against Smith Trin 1651. Banc. sup BAker brought an Action upon the Case against Smith and
in London and the Bill was found against him But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be granted upon a motion Good behaviour but you must prefer Articles against him here upon Oath and then you may move for it and if there appear cause in the Articles it shall be granted Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved for a writ to swear one in the Office of a Maior For a Writ to swear one in the Office of a Maior of a Town to which he was elected for the Borough of Trevenny in Cornewall because the old Maior did not swear him in due time as he ought to do but did adjourn the Court before it was done Roll chief Iustice answered that there is no president to swear such an Officer yet ordered that notice should be given to the Town and presidents to be brought into Court if any were to warrant it Whitway against Pinsent Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1651. rot 61. A Man made a lease of lands for years by deed Demurrer to a plea in Covenants and covenanted that the Lessée his Assigns should enjoy them during the Term the Lessor made the Defendant his Executor dyed The Lessee assigns over his Term a Stranger enters upon the Assignee the Assignee takes 40 l. in satisfaction for his being ejected of the Assignor and afterwards brings an Action of Covenant against the Executor of the Lessor the Defendant The Defendant pleads the acceptance of the 40 l. of the Assignor in satisfaction of the wrong done him in Bar of the Action and to this plea the Plaintiff demurred Bar. The question here was whether the Action of Covenant did lye against the Defendant since that the Plaintiff had received 40 l. of his Assignor in satisfaction Roll chief Iustice said that here is a double Covenant one of the Lessor and the other of the Assignor and therefore the party may have two Actions Action and therefore he is not here barred to bring this second Action though he have barred himself by the acceptance of the 40 l. from bringing an Action against his Assignor and the Defendant hath not pleaded that the 40 l. was given in satisfaction of both the Covenants for then it had been otherwayes Ierman Iustice to the same effect That they are several Covenants by several deeds and both the parties are severelly bound and satisfaction given by one of them is not the satisfaction of the other And he said if Lessee for years assign over his Term the Lessor having notice thereof and he accept the rent from the assignee he cannot demand the rent of the Lessee afterwards yet he may sue other Covenants conteined in the lease against him as for reparations or the like The rule was for the Plaintiff to take his Iudgement nisi Mich. 1651. Banc. sup SErjeant Glyn moved for a certiorari to remove an endictment of forcible entry that was once before removed hither For a certiorari to remove an endictment and after sent down by a procedendo because the Iustices below will not grant restitution Roll chief Iustice answered There is a plea put in and in such case it is not usual to grant a certiorari yet it may be that it may be granted therefore let the other side shew cause on Monday next why it should not be granted Cantrell against Stephens Mich 1651. Banc. sup CAntreli brought an Action upon the case against Stephens for stopping his way in a Meoow called Madbrook in the parish of Redriff in Kent Arrest of judgement for an Action upon the case for stopping a way upon not guilty pleaded and a verdict found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Plaintiff as Lessee to the Haberdashers company of London claimed to have a way for them whereas they having let the land cannot have the way but the Lessée in possession 2ly The prescription is not rightly applyed for it ought to be for them to have a way pro tenentibus et occupatoribus suis which is not so here Twisden answered it shall be intended Tenants and Occupyers to the Haberdashers though it be not said suis Latch said that a prescription per que estate is good in an Action upon the Case because no land is claimed and Green on the same side said the exception taken was helped by the verdict Wild on the other side said that it doth not appear that the Tenant who brings the Action comes in by the Haberdashers who claim the way and so he cannot prescribe to have it Prescription and the prescription ought to be laid pro tenentibus subtenentibus which Roll chief Iustice denyed and said that it is laid that the Haberdashers were seised in Fée postea huc usque and so they have the Fée at the time and may prescribe but it had been better for the party to have shewed that he was their Tenant but it being after a verdict the question is whether it be not helped Vpon reading the Record Roll chief Iustice observed that it appeared not whose Occupyer and Tenant the Plaintiff is but only by way of argument but said the question is whether the verdict do help it and he inclyned it did not Verdict because the Action is brought by the Tenant who hath not entitled himself to the Action for he hath made only a title to the way in the Haberdashers Title but hath derived no Estate from them to himself At another day Roll chief Iustice said we must not take things by intendment and here is a failer in the very gist of the Action for the Plaintiff hath not entitled himself to the Action for he hath no interest for it appears not how he is Ocupyer of the land for he doth not say he is Ocupator suus and as he hath laid the Declaration the Company ought to have brought the Action Ierman Iustice to the same effect and said that upon a demurrer it had been cleerly naught and the verdict here doth not help it for no title appears for the Plaintiff and the verdict cannot give him that he had not before Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same effect Roll If it had been Ocupator suus I doubt it would not make the Declaration good because it shews not by what title So The rule was nil capiat per billam nisi Tayler against Web. Mich. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 240. IN an ejectione firmae upon a lease for 7 years there was a special verdict found Special verdict in an ejectione firmae and the questions in the Case grew upon the words of a Will that were false orthography viz. I do make my Cosen Giles Bridges my Solle Ayeare and my Yexecutor meaning my sole Heir and Executor Powis of Councel with the Plaintiff held that the Will was good to make Giles Briges the Testators Heir and Executor notwithstanding the mis-writing of the words
upon them according to the fact found upon the Record because it was a foul riot The Court answered they are found guilty of the riot Fine and therefore the fine cannot be lesse than ten pounds at the least for the principal there being a verdict in the case and so let it be and 4. marks a piece for the rest For we must preserve the peace of the County Baker against Smith Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe case of Baker and Smith formerly spoken to was again moved In answer to a matter spoken in arrest of judgement and Maynard answered the exceptions offered in arrest of Iudgement 1. It was objected that here was not a mutual promise set forth between the partyes for there is no agreement made by the Feme for it is only said that she consented to marry the party which is not a binding agreement To this he answered here was a mutual and binding agreement though it be not so plainly expressed in words as it might have been 3 H. 6.36 37. A verbal promise may be discharged by words and so it is here London and Stokes case Trin. 10 Car. rot 236. Next it is not necessary here to give notice of the discharge of the promise though if there be notice it is well enough because the thing to be done upon it to wit the payment of the 1000 l. is certain and the discharge shall be intended to be in the presence of the party to whom it is given for the Declaration is exoneravit ipsum which shall not be intended in his absence Pasch 10 Car. Harvy and Inglethorps case and Mich. 8 Iac. Martin and Wilbie Hodges and More Pasch 1 Car. Banc. Reg. 7 Iac. Bradlyes case 14 Iac. Beedly and Goodrose Latch on the other side argued that here is no binding promise on the behalf of the woman to marry with the Defendant and so the discharge of it can be no consideration for this is not a reciprocal but a bare acceptation of the promise made by the other and an action of the case lay not against her if she had refused to marry with the Defendant because here is no repromission made by her 2ly It appears not that the discharge was in convenient time for it was 2 years after but admitting that to be so yet here is no notice of the discharge and that is necessary to be given and it shall not be intended to be given without shewing it for the Declaration ought to be certain and here is no inducement in it that there was any notice given in his presence and if it were given in his absence he ought to have notice given him of his discharge else how should he know it and it were unreasonable to charge him if he had no notice and by a third person he cannot receive notice as it is in the Cases put by Mr. Maynard on the other side In the Case of Peck and Ingram in this Court adjudged that the party ought to have notice when the Feme left her Fathers House and came to such a place Roll chief Iustice said here are two promises 1. The Feme assumed that if the Defendant would marry her she would consent to him Coâ—sideration Promâ—se in Law Mutual Coâ—tract Implication and here is a consideration although there be not an absolute mutual promise for it is a promise in law and the Action may be laid by way of consideration or by way of mutual Contract 2ly Here is but a promise de futuro and there may be a temporal loss although the thing to be done viz. the mariage be spiritual And the dis-engagement of the party doth not imply notice but the demand of the 1000 l. now implies a discharge nor can the party here take notice of a third person and therefore it is necessary to give him notice Notice for where the party cannot take notice from any but the party himself there notice must be given him Ierman Iustice held here was a good mutual promise to raise a consideration and by the words exoneravit ipsum it shall be intended to be to the person himself this implyes a notice especially it being after a verdict Nicholas Iust much to the effect as Roll chief Iust but he doubted whether the words do imply a personal notice for it may be it was in his absence and the verdict will not help it and so there can be no judgement Aâ—k Iustice said here was a good promise but the words exoneravit ipsum do not imply a notice so the Court was divided and would advise Hume against Hinton Mich. 1651. Banc. sup HUme brought an Action upon the Case against Hinton Aâ—rest of judgement in an Action upon the case upon a promise and declared That whereas the Son of the Defendant did in his life-time owe unto the Plaintif 8 l. and dyed intestate the Plaintif did demand the said 8 l. of the Defendant being Mother to the intestate whereupon she being satisfied of the justness of the debt did assume and promise unto the Plaintif that if he would stay for the money till Mich. next that then she would pay it Vpon non Assumpsit pleaded and a verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that here was no consideration to ground the Assumpsit upon because it was not the debt of the party that assumed to pay it neither was she Executor or administrator nor consequently lyable any way by law to pay it and therefore an Assumpsit to pay a remediless debt if the Plaintif would stay for it is no good Assumpsit as in 6 Car. in this Court in Morgans Case An Assumpsit to pay the rent of the land behind if the party would forbear to distrain Corn in the shocks was adjudged no good Assumpsit because such Corn is not distreinable and it appears not here what person the Son was or where he lived or that he either had or lest any goods and the meer ground of the Action is the piety of the Mother and no other matter And here appears no person liable to pay this debt neither plainly nor by intendment and the Ordinary is not chargeable if no goods come to his hands And 2ly There is now no Ordinary for it is taken away by the Parliament and 9 rep Bains case is not like to this case neither is Iones and Smiths case Trin. 8 Iac. rot 192. like to this case for there was a person liable to be sued but it is not so here so that this is a stronger case But if there should be a good consideration yet the averment of the performance of it is not good for it is not certain how he stayed Wild for the Plaintif held that here is a good consideration because the Plaintif is hereby tyed not to sue any person whatsoever for the debt till Michaelmas and so it is a prejudice to him to forbear And it shall be intended
here that the Intestate did leave sufficient goods to satifie the debt and though there be no Ordinary yet the party that takes the goods may be sued and the Case of Homes and Smith cited is for the Plaintif in my Report and the judgement is not there entred in the Roll but in the Margent only it is entred pro Defendente and the case of Hill and Baily is since that and that is with me and is to be preferred before the other because it is a later judgement 2ly The averment is good in substance although it be not so express in words as it might have been and it is now after a Verdict The Court for the first point held here was a good consideration Consideration for it is that the Plaintif shall forbear to sue for the money generally which goes to all the world and it is not only to forbear to sue a particular person but to forbear to sue for the money and this forbearance may be a prejudice to the party and a loss in not suing till that time But for the latter exception Roll chief Iustice said if the breach be not well assigned the verdict will not help it Breach and you say that you stayed in expectation of the money and do not say absolutely that you stayed Therefore let us see a book Ordinary and speak to the last point again on Saturday next In this case Roll chief Iustice said where there is no body else to be sued for a Debt the Ordinary is to be sued Debt although he is not to be charged if he have no goods and in London it is usual to do it and now Sir Nathaniel Brent is in place of the Ordinary throughout all England Afterward judgement was given for the Plaintif because the consideration and the averment were held both good Mich. 1651. Banc. sup ONe Harding was endicted 21 Car. for an Assault and Battery made in Westminster hall and the party found guilty For a rule to enter judgement the Court was moved for a rule to enter judgement against him because it was so long since the Verdict But the Court said if you may do it by the rules of the Court enter it for we will make no rule without hearing the other side therefore give notice then move it again Mich. 1651. Banc. sup AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation of 2000 l. for performance of the Covenants of an Indenture Demurrer to a Dâ—claration in D bt upon an Obligation to perform Covenants Discontinuance The Defendant demurs to the Declaration and the Plaintif joyns in the Demurrer and after reading of the Record and the Exceptions opened Twisden moved the Court for the Plaintif that he might discontinue his action because there was a fault in the laying it Roll chief Iustice said Let it stay as it is this Term for this is in our discretion and it is but a slip in pleading and in the mean time we will advise Barnard against King Mich. 1651 Banc. sup Pasch 1651. rot 467. BArnard brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation of 500 l. to stand to an Award D murrer to a repsication in Dâ—bt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award The Defendant pleaded nullum arbitrium The Plaintif replies that the Vmpire made the award and sets it forth and assigns a breach To this Replication the Defendant demurred and takes exception that the Plaintif sets forth that the Arbitrators could not agree and after they had denied to make the Award the same day the Vmpire made the Award Latch of Councel with the Defendant held this Award set forth in the Replication to be naught because the submission was that if the Arbitrators shall not make the Award to morrow then the Vmpire shall make the Vmpirage and here the Vmpirage is made upon the same day that was given to the Arbitators to make the Award and they have the whole day by the submission to make it in and although they cannot agree to make it one part of the day they may agree afterwards the same day to make it and this disagreement is not a giving up of their authority and Wood and Clements case 24 Car. is not against this 2ly It is not said that the arbitrement was delivered 3ly The matter awarded is not within the submission namely the payment of the rent expressed Hales on the other side argued that the Vmpire might make the Award upon that day that is set forth and the Condition here is all one as if it had been said if the Arbitrators make the Award to morrow or if the Vmpire make the Award to morrow Pasch 14 Iac. Barry and Fells case And the words here Postquam denegassent et deseruissent is a direct averment that the Arbitrators could not agree to make the Award and Arbitrators may make an award after they have chosen an Vmpire and although the Vmpire had power to make the Vmpirage a day after they made it yet it it be made before it is a good Vmpirage if the Law permit it and the Vmpirage here is well delivered for the submission is not that it shall be delivered to both parties but generally that it shall be delivered and therefore it is well if it be delivered to one it being ready to be delivered to the other And for the payment of the rent although it be a future Act yet being matter of satisfaction it is good although it be not expressed in the submission 〈…〉 Roll chief Iustice said for the last matter the words super praemissis brings the payment of the rent within the submission otherwise the awarding of the payment thereof would not be good by way of satisfaction But here the Controversie is for the land for which the rent is to be paid and the matter doth not appear to be out of the submission and it is not necessary to aver that the land was in Controversse Averment 2ly For the delivery of the Award it is well enough as it is for it is not specified to whom the Vmpire shall deliver the Vmpirage although it be expressed to whom the Arbitrators were to deliver their Award if they had made it But the main question here is if the Vmpire could make the Vmpirage the day it was made and for that I hold he could not Umpirage because the authority given by the submission to the Arbitrators was not determined when the Vmpirage was made Award and by the submission the Arbitrators have no authority to make an Vmpire for then it had been good and it appears not that the Vmpire had concurrent authority with the Arbitrators for it is not said if the Arbitrators make no arbitrement then the Vmpire shall make it but here is a Condition for the Arbitrators to have all the day precedent to make the arbitration in and no concurring power is given to the Vmpire that day for
the Arbitrators have all of it to agree in and till it is ended the Vmpire hath no power at all otherwise the submission would be repugnant in it self The rest of the Iudges concurred in all and so ruled That the Plaintif all capiat per billam nisi Theoballs against Newton Mich. 1651. Banc. sup ONe was sued upon the Statute of Inmates and the distringas jurata bare date on a Sunday and out of Term and so is erronious The question here was whether it be not helped by the Statutes of Ieofails of 18 Eliz. and 21 Iac. Roll chief Iustice held Ieofails that the Statutes extend not to penal Laws although it be ambiguously penned nor to any processes grounded upon them for the Proviso exempts the Original action and by consequence all processes depending upon it are excepted Venire de novo so that here is no good tryal but there shall be a venire de novo nisi Tayler and Webb Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Case of Tayler and Webb which arose upon a special verdict upon these words of Will Special Verdict upon the words of a Will viz. I make my Cosen Giles Bridges my soll ayere and yexecutor was again moved and argued by Hales and he made three questions 1. Whether any estate passeth by the words of the will 2ly If any what estate passeth 3ly Whether the false Orthography doth hurt the Will For the first he said that by making one his sole heir his land passeth to him The word heir is to be considered either in relation to an Ancestor and so one cannot make one his heir or it may be considered in relation to a thing to be inherited to wit lands or tenements and so one may make another his heir and thus a Custom may make one a mans heir as it is in Borough English and an accident may thus also make one a mans heir as it is in the Case of possessio fratris Coundens case Hob. Rep. Case 947. And here it is all one to make one his heir and to make hint heir of hislands and the reasons are First the word heir here cannot have any other relation than to the Testators lands for he cannot make him his heir otherwise and the words may be more reasonably intended so 2ly The words carry in them the plain intention of the Devisor that the party should have his lands although the words are not very proper â— H. 7. A devise of lands to his son after the death of his wife passed an Estate for life to the wife although no such Estate was expressed in the Will so here although no expresse Estate of land be devised yet the Devisee shall have the lands by the intent of the Devisor 3ly In ordinary speech if one make such an one his Heir it is intended that he gives him his lands 8 Car. in the C. B. in Spurt and Bents case A devise of his inheritance was held a devise of his lands and Trin. 3. Iac. in Terryes case A devise of all his rents in tayl passed his lands because in vulgar acceptance it is the rents of lands and in Pits and Sands case in this Court A devise of all his free lands in Holford did passe a portion of Tithes and in the case of one Iohnson a devise of all his estate passed all his lands And the words cannot bear the fence to make him Executor according to the Civill Law as hath been objected for the Will shall be intended as it is to be an English mans Will and so the word Heir in it shall he interpreted according to out Law and not the Civill Law and even in the Civill law to make one his Heir doth convey unto him all his lands for he is haeres testamentarius although not haeres legitimus And in this Will here are two expressions for the party is made Heir and Executor which two words cannot signifie one thing for that would be an idle expression 4ly There are some clauses in the Will which shew the intent of the Testator was to convey his lands if it were needful to make use of them 1. There are several annuities for the Devisee to pay 2ly He directs him where the conveyances and assurances of his lands were laid up which plainly shew he meant he should have his land 3ly The words Heir and Executor are joyned together to shew that he gives him all his lands and goods else one of the words must be imperfect and ineffectual which shall not be intended For Authority 7 E. 6. Br. devise 38. by devising that one Son shall be Heir to the other it shall be intended of lands so in construction of law it shall be here intended that the Devisor made him Heir of his lands Hob. Reports in Sparkes and Burnells case William and Anthony shall be each others Heir and it is not said of land yet adjudged that it shall be so meant and so is it in our case and if I have lands in see simple and make one my heir it shall be intended that he shall have my lands in see simple although I say not that I make him Heir of my lands For the second question the reasons before expressed do also shew that the lands are passed in Fee as it is in Purnells and Hambletons case for the word Heir shall relate to the same Estate that the party had in the land who makes the other his Heir 8 Iac. Inkersals case For the 3d point whether here shall be any good devise at all by reason of the false English he said it was all one and to as good effect as if the words were all true English and neither the incongruity nor the insufficiency of the words shall hurt the Will as it is pretended For 1. This is not in case of pleading or of writs but in conveyance of lands It is true that in the former it doth hurt because writs and pleadings may be amended if they be naught but it is fatal in conveyances for they cannot be amended as in Trotman and Standards case Trin. 1651. in this Court it was held that impropriety of words shall not hurt it they can admit of a good construction Desinet in piscem mulier formosa superne 2ly This is in a Will which is such an instrument that is much favoured in Law and therefore to be favourably construed 3ly This is an English Will and admits of much variety of dialects and therefore is not to be critically interpreted Neither are there here any insignificant or missignificant words as hath been objected but significant for the sound of the word as it is written is the same as if it had been rightly spelled for Ayer and Heir sound both alike As in 3 H. 4. f. 4 Baxter and Baxster sounded alike 2ly If the word Heir might receive any other sence yet it cannot do so here because there are other words joyned to it to declare and signifie that the
willingly kept a Bawdy house and then he is not punishable Pepes on the other side held the words to be actionable and cited Hill 3 Car. Elsey and Harisons case thou art a whore and a Bawd to thy daughter and keeps a Bawdy house which words were adjudged actionable 24 H. 6.14.38 39. Eliz. In the Lady Barkleys case the keeping of a Bawdy house is an offence punishable at the Common Law and therefore the words spoken are actionable Case Roll chief Iustice To call one whore in London is Actionable And the words here are actionable for the keeping of a Bawdy house is a crime punishable at the Common Law for the party may be endicted for it and it shall be intended to be a common Bawdy house although it be not so expressed Endictment and the Plaintiff is scandalised by the speaking of the words Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices were of the same opinion Iudgementt was given for the Plaintiff nisi Snelgrave and Bosvile Pasc 1652. Banc. sup Mich. 1651. rot 200. BOsvile brought an Action of debt against Snelgrave Debt against an heir upon an obligation as Heir unto his Father upon an Obligation entred into by him unto the Plaintiff the Defendant pleads riens per discent jour del bref the Plaintiff replyes that he had lands by descent and upon this an issue is joyned and the Iury find he had lands by descent and name them particularly and upon this a Iudgement is given for the Plaintiff in the Common pleas that he shall recover his debt of the lands descended upon this Iudg ment a writ of Error was brought here and the Error assigned was that the Iudgement ought to have been given generally against the Defendant and not particularly of the lands descended 2ly the Iury ought not to have found what lands particularly the Heir had by descent but generally that he had lands by descent because the issue is general whether he had lands by descent or not and therefore the Iudgement given upon this ill verdict is not good Roll chief Iustice The Iudgement is unwarrantable for the verdict is against the issue joyned Iudgement Verdict and the Iudgement here ought to have been generall of all the lands and goods and against the person of the Heir for his false plea and not particular to recover of certain lands as it is here for this is not so good a Iudgement for the Plaintiff as the general Iudgement is and this Iudgement may be against the Plaintiffs mind Error for any thing doth appear to the contrary and a like Iudgement was reversed in Alleâ—n and Holdens case in this Court Ierman Nicholas and Ask of the same opinion And thereupon the Iudgement was reversed Floyd against Morgan Pasc 1652. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement in an Action of Trespasse for taking away of certain Houshold stuff Error to reverse a judgment a trespasse for taxing away of of goods and the Error assigned was that the Declaration was incertain for that it wanted latin words to expresse the things for which the Action was brought for the Declaration is for the taking away of quoddam instrumentum ferri Anglice a gridiron et quoddam instrumentum ferri Anglice a morter et quaedam instrumenta ferri Anglice brandirons which are words utterly incertain for the generality of them what they may signifie Roll chief Iustice My Iudgement is that the Iudgement is erroneous for we must not take meanings because we are bound up to proceed by the rules of the Law and Statutes and we are to consider here whether there be Latin words in the Declaration as there ought to be to expresse the things for which the Action is brought and certainly this word quoddam instrumentum ferri is too general to expresse any thing and the Anglice added to it will not help it for if the word precedent in it self be not fit Latin to expresse the thing the Anglice subsequent is litle to be regarded Anglice Declaration and these words being incertain the Declaration must be incertain and so the Defendant cannot know what to answer to it or how to defend himself as he ought to do which may prove very prejudicial to him Ierman Iustice Issue The issue cannot be certain if the Declaration be incertain and by the Common Law and Statute Law our pleadings must be Latin and where there are not elegant Latin words to expresse things we may use those which they call barbarous words if they be known for use makes a language and where there are no Latin words we may coyn words and add an Anglice to them and here the Declaration is as incertain also for the number of the things as for the nature of them for here is quaedam instrumenta ferri which may signifie any number be it more or lesse Nicholas and Ask ad idem And so the Iudgement was reversed nisi Antea Brian against Twite Pasc 1652. Banc. sup AN Action upon the Case was brought for speaking these words of the Plaintiff Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words you are a whore and have plaid the whore with so many men you cannot number them upon not guilty pleaded and a verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable for the saying the party had plaid the whore are words incertain and do not enforce any Act of whoredom to be done by her but Ierman Iustice gave Iudgement for the Plaintiff for he said the words should be construed to a common intendment THe Court was moved for Iudgement upon a verdict given 2 years since Motion for Iudgement denyed and the cause stayed till now by the Committee of indempnity but it was denyed because it was the last day of the Term. Nota. Pasc 1652. Banc. sup IT was shewed for cause why a certiorari should not be granted to remove an indictment of battery Certiorari to remove an endictment against an Attorney of his Court preferred at a Sessions of the peace in the Country that the bill was found there and the party hath entred into a recognisance there to go to a tryal the next Sessions Roll chief Iustice The recognisance may be also removed by the certiorari and what hurt can it be if the endictment be removed and the tryal had at the assises and if it be removed hither we will not quash the endictment but the party shall plead and carry it down and try it at the next assises at his own charge Byron against Stonehowse Pasch 1652. Banc. sup Trin. 1651. rot 1658. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in a writ of dower in the Common Pleas Error to reverse a judgment in dower in the common pleas the Errors assigned were that the Iudges of the Common Pleas had set a side the verdict given by default by the Iudge of
assise because it ought not to have been taken but a petite cape of the lans awarded whereas though this was a fault in the Iudge to take the verdict yet this is to be amended by a writ of Error for the Iudge of assise and the Iudges of the Common pleas in this case are but as one Iudge Dyer f. 194. f. 76. and here is a waiver of the default because the enquest was taken at the prayer of the party 27 H. 8. f. 18. 10 H. 7. f. 21 And the Demandant may release the default either expresly or implicitly 3 H. 6. f. 48. 10 H. 7. f. 21. 3ly Here is a discontinuance which is not helped because the Enquest is taken by default and the Tenant by the Iudges taking advice is out of the Court 7 H. 4. f. 14. pl. 13. Here is day given in Court to the Demandant but not to the Tenant and the Iudges cannot advise afterwards And here the judgment is given upon a default after a default whereas the 2d default was the same day with the 1. not at another day as it ought to have been Hales on the other side held that the judgment was not erronious for here is no judgement but only an awarding of the Enquest and if it be not good it is done by those that had no power to doe it and so not material and the Iudges of the Common place have a distinct authority from the Iudge of the nisi prius 2ly Here is no release of the default nor Enquest nor can the Iudge of the nisi prius take a release of the Default for by awarding the default the power of the Iudge of the nisi prius is determined And the release ought to be of the default upon which the judgement should be given and it is not so here Next here is no discontinuance for it is not necessary to give day to the Tenant by the Curia advisare vult for then there could be no petite Cape And the judgement here is good for there is no other day of default Roll chief Iustice Verdict by default Petit Cape The Iudge ought to have called the Tenant or to award a petite Cape of the land and not to have taken the Enquest by default but here the Iudge of Assize did not award a petite Cape For the 1 Exception The Iudge of the nisi prius had no authority to take the verdict and so that is done coram non judice and so the nullo habito respectu to the Enquest by the Iudges of the Common Pleas is good enough Error and so they may in that Court award a petite Cape and they may also advise and there is no need for them to give a day of continuance to the party for that were to take away that of which they would advise and the ad alium diem is also good and so there is no Error in the judgement Affirmetur nisi Doctor Trigg against the College of Physicians Trin. 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1651. rot 1143. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in the Common Pleas for the College of Physicians against Doctor Trigg in an action of debt brought upon the Letters Patents Error to reverse a judgement for practising Physick without License and Stat. of 3. H. 8. for practising Physick without licence The 1 Error assigned was that it is said that quidam Willielmus Trigg and so it may be intended another party and not the same whereas it ought to have been praedictus Willielmus Trigg But to this Roll chief Iustice answered that the party came in and pleaded and so he must néeds be the same party The 2 Error was that the Iudgement was wholy given for the President of the College of Physicians wheress it should have been given part for the President and part for the King Hales in maintenance of the judgement answered that the judgement is to be given for the party who brings the Action and if the Action had been brought by the King only Iudgement should have been given for him only yet the money recovered shall be distributed as the Statute directs Roll chief Iustice The King may be better trusted than a Common Informer So the Case is not alike where the King brings the Action as where the Informer brings it for the King may receive all the money and the Informer may have his part by Petition to the King and here neither the Information nor the Verdict is pursued for that is tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso c. and here the Iudgement is only for the Informer Iudgement The King may if he will sue alone and have Iudgement for all if he begin his sute before the Informer but if he begin it afterwards the Informer shall have his part And if the King do inform tam pro seipso as for the College there the College shall have its part For these reasons the Iudgement is not good Therefore let it be reversed nisi Trin. 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to vacate a latitat that issued out of this Court erronice To vacate a Latitat Supersedeas for that it was made retornable two days before the Term Ierman Iustice Take a supersedeas Godwin against Batkin Trin. 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 1477. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action of Trespass upon the Case in the Court at Burton upon Trent Error to reverse a judgment in an Action upon a promise wherein the Plaintif declared that the Defendant in consideration that he was indebted unto the Plaintif in 20 l. did assume and promise to deliver divers Cattel to I. S. to the use of the Plaintif and for non performance of this promise he brought his Action and had a Verdict and a Iudgement But the Iudgement was reversed because the Court held that here is no consideration expressed which can relate to the discharging of the debt of 20 l. and so the promise is but nudum pactum Consideration Nuâ—um pâ—ctum and the Plaintif is notwithstanding the promise at liberty to bring his Action against the Defendant for the money Child against Sir Iohn Lenthall Trin. 1652. Banc. sup AN Action of Escape was brought against Sir Iohn Lenthall as Mareschall of this Court Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for an escape wherein the Plaintif declared that whereas I. S. was indebted unto him by Obligation in a certain sum of money and was thereupon by a latitat out of this Court arrested and did thereupon put in Bail and did appear to the Action and the Plaintif obtained a judgement against him who thereupon in discharge of his Bail did render himself to Sir Iohn Lenthall in Execution and that afterwards Sir Iohn Lenthall had suffered him to escape per quod c. to this Declaration Sir Iohn Lenthall pleaded and a Verdict was had against
him Wild in Arrest of Iudgement takes these Exceptions to the Declaration 1. It saith that the Principal rendred himself in Execution to discharge his Bail and saith that afterwards he escaped whereby he could not have him in Execution which séems contradictory to what he formerly said 2ly He saith that he rendred himself to the Mareschall whereas he ought to say that he rendred himself to the Court for it is the Act of the Court that turns him over to the Mareschal Roll chief Iustice He cannot render himself to Sir Iohn Lenthal in discharge of his Bail Bail for only a Iudge can take and discharge a Bail and not Sir Iohn Lenthall but here it is that he did it in Court and therefore it is well enough for he may render himself to Sir Iohn Lenthall in Court though out of Court he cannot and therefore let the Plaintif have his Iudgement Rogers and Done Trin. 1652. Banc. sup Pasch 1652. rot 354. IN an Action of Trover and Conversion for 3 Cart loads of Dats Arguments upon a Demurrer to a Plea to the jurisdiction of this Court Barlie and Pease The Defendant pleaded a special Plea to this effect That the land where the Trover was supposed to be is 5 acres of land lying in B. and that is within the County Palatine of Chester and that he holds the land for term of years and by vertue thereof did sow and take the Corn thereupon growing and traverseth the Conversion out of the County Palatine and avers that there are Courts of Iustice held within the County Palatine so that Iustice may there be had and says that he ought to be sued within the County Palatine and not elsewhere and therefore demands Iudgement if he ought to be sued in this Court. To this plea the Plaintif demurred and shewed for cause that the Action being for a transitory matter it may be tryed out of the County Palatine as well as within although if it were for a local matter it would be otherwise and the party here hath pleaded not guilty which may be tryed any where Cooks Instit 282. In some Cases an Obligation hearing date at Chester may be sued in another place 19 E. 3. Fitz. Oar. 29.45 Ed. 3. Fitz. visne 50.9 Iac. C. B. Richardson and Meares a Battery in Chester tryable out of it 11 H. 4. f. 40. Crompton Iuriâ—diction of Courts f. 213. Transitory things emergent in the County Palatine of Chester may be tryed else-where 45 E. 3. f. 17. And so it was prayed the Defendant might plead over Serjeant Glyn on the other side held that this plea was a good plea to the Iurisdiction of the Court. Here are many matters of fact confessed and the matter in Law is whether the title of the land within Chester shall be tryed out of that jurisdiction In 31 Ed. 1. in the Exchequer it is clear they have conusance of Pleas. Roll chief Iustice to that answered but it is not that they shall not be removed thence Serjeant Glyn proceeded said that also upon a reference to 4 Iudges by Queen Elizabeth it was certified that all Actions real and personal arising in Chester are tryable there and not elsewhere 22 E. 4. Fitz. Iurisd 61. 21 H. 7. f. 23. 1 H. 7.26 10 H. 6.14 a H. 4. f. 25. As to the Objection that this is a clear personal Action and therefore transitory 1. I deny the authority of Cook in his 4 Institutes cited on the other side Next the Action here by the pleading of it is made real and then though Cooks opinion should be Law it comes not home to our case and a transitory action may be made real by the pleading of it 27 H. 6. f. 1. Hill 38 Eliz. Banc. sup Hill 2 Car. in Belamy and Bolthorps case in this Court 6 rep 14. A thing is tryable there where the best conusance of it may be had 6 H. 7. 3 2ly The averment of the party here is that all actions personal and real within Chester are tryable there and this being matter of fact is confessed by the Demurrer 9 H. 7. Porter Nicholls in the Exchequer 10 Car. And it would be a great inconvensence to try the title of lands lying within Chester out of it for so all causes real may as well be tryed in forein Counties even through all England which would be very mischievous Roll chief Iustice Tryall If we can avoid it it is not good to try causes in forein Counties but here you have by your demurrer confessed that all causes real and personal shall be tryed there and what say you to that 2ly Traverse Waiver Issue It is to be considered whether your Traverse be not repugnant to your Plea for you have waived the plea to the jurisdiction of the Court and put your self upon an issue by the traverse which you ought not to have done but you ought to have relyed upon your plea to the jurisdiction of the Court for as the traverse is taken untill a tryall be had in the cause we cannot tell whether the Trover and Conversion be within the County Palatine or out of it and this is matter of substance and tryable and therefore it would be hard to maintain your plea. At another day the case was argued again and first by Twisden for the Plaintiff and he took thrée things into consideration 1. Whether the plea were a meer plea to the jurisdiction 2ly Whether it be made good by the demurrer 3ly Whether the traverse have not spoiled the plea. 1. He held the plea was not good because the Action is meerly transitory and may be laid in any place 2. Mar. Br. traverse 983. Cooks Lit. f. 202. and the Defendant cannot plead that the cause of Action lyes in any other place than where the Plaintiff layes it Cooks Iurisd of Courts is full authority in point what ever is objected against it 30 H. 6. f. 6. I admit of the jurisdiction of the County Palatine but yet it must not entrench upon the Common Law and I admit all the books cited but they are of other local matters or of things transitory which are fixed to Chester by the pleading of them and Dyer 122 comes not to our case nor crosses the case of 10. Iac. 3. rep Ridgwayes case and here it shall be intended that the Iury may there have best conusance of the matter where the Action is laid and not else-where although the Action do savour of the Land For the second matter the demurrer makes not the plea good for the law sayes it is not good and the partyes cannot alter the Law Burtons case 5. rep f. 59. 5 H. 7.1 3ly The traverse makes not the plea good for the traverse is waived and he relyes upon another matter 5. Car. rot 817. Burton and Cornish the traverse taken took away the justification before pleaded so doth it here and the traverse here is not good because it is in a
of recital and not material and you have confessed the deceit by your demurrer and therefore let the Plaintiff have his Iudgement nisi Vpon which rule Baâ—ington at another day moved the matter again and urged that here was an assignment of papers mentioned which could not be for that it is a thing in Action which is not assignable nor can the Ordinance of Parliament give authority to assign a thing in Action Roll chief iustice Assignment The ordinance of Parliament doth give authority to assign the papers Latch the paper may be assigned Green The Action is brought for the deceit grounded upon the ordinance and it is not necessary for the Ordinance to name the Aldermens Christian names and these may be true bills though not subscribed which is the deceit here alleged Twisden on the other side said that the acquâ—ittance is in nature of a bill according to the intent of the Ordinance for it is not only an acquittance of discharge but to recover monies upon them and so the Defendant calls them and by the assignment the paper is assigned and the Action is grounded on the deceit and not upon the Statute Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Burcher and Orchard Mich. 1652. Banc. sup BUrcher brought an Action upon the Case for words Arrest of judgement in an Action on the case for words against Orchard and his wife the Iury find that the Baron was guilty but that the Feme was not guilty Wadham Windham moved in arrest of Iudgement because that the Action is joynt and one of them is found not guilty and said it might have been otherwise if the Feme had been found gvilty and the Baron not guilty and cited 9 Ed. 4. f. 51. Yard on the other side said that the verdict hath made this exception good and if the Defendant would have taken any advantage of it he should have demurred to the Declaration Roll chief Iustice denyed the difference taken by Windham and said if any of the Defendants spake the words and be found guilty the Action will well lye and it is all one here as if the Defendants were two strangers the Action being joynt but the doubt is whether it being after a verdict this matter may be offered in arrest of Iudgement At another day Hales moved for Iudgement and said it was all one if any of the Defendants be found guilty as if both of them were found so and although it do appear by the Declaration that the Action could not be brought joyntly against them both because the wrongs are several and now one is found guilty and the other is acquitted 8 Ed. 4. f. 21. 11 H. 4. f. 5. 9 E. 4. f. 1. and damages are assessed against one only And now the verdict hath madei the Declaration good otherwise it had béen if both had been found guilty and entire damages given against both joyntly Latch on the other side said that the speaking of the words cannot be a joynt Act and therefore ought not to be so laid in one Declaration for they are severall Acts and severall offences as the words do proceed from them severally and this case is not like the case of a decies tantum nor the case of a joynt endictment against two for a joynt endictment shall be accompted as severall endictments and here if the Feme had been found culpable perchance it might have béen good because though the wise only speak actionable words yet the Action ought to be brought against the Husband and the Wife Roll chief Iustice The Declaration is not well laid for this cannot be a joynt speaking of the words by the Husband and Wife and therefore they ought not to be joyned in the Action therefore there ought to be several judgements and damages if you recover viz. One against the Husband another against the wife but here is a verdict found which helps it and this case is all one with the Case of 9 Ed. 4. for there the Declaration was not good as it is not here and here is not a verdict against both but only a discharge and he cited Rethorick and Chappels case where an Ejectment terrae haered is did not lie yet there by releasing of damages to the heir judgement was given for the land and here might have been a release of damages as to the wife if both had been found guilty but here in effect is a judgement but against one of the Defendants Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same effect and so judgement was given for the Plaintif Luddington and White Mich. 1652. Banc. sup Mich. 1651. rot 458. LUddington brought an Action of debt upon a bill against White Demurâ—er to a plea in debt up on a Bill the Defendant pleaded that after the money became due he and the Plaintif did by parol submit to an award and that there was an award made that the Defendant should pay 8 l. to the Plaintif at such a house and thereupon the Plaintif should give him a general release and accordly he tendred the money to this plea the Plaintif demurred and for cause shewed that here is a submission by paroll pleaded after the day of payment expressed in the Bill which is not good being by paroll to discharge a debt due by specialty Discharge But Wild answered here were other things submitted besides this and that may make the submission good Roll chief Iustice I see not what authority you have for this Reference nor how it can be and 4 H. 6. if one be awarded before auditors to accompt this cannot be referred and here would be an inconvenience to take away a duty created by bond by paroll therefore let the Plaintif have his Iudgement Neve and Cross Mich. 1652. Banc. sup NEve brought an Action upon the case against Cross for charging him with felony Arrest of Judgement in an â—ction upon the Câ—seâ— in nature of a Conspiracy and causing a Constable to carry him before a Iustice of Peace and accusing him to the Iustice in these words viz. He did come to my door and set a Pistol to my Brest and demanded money of me and I for safegard of my life did give him what money he desired Vpon not guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintif it was moved by Fletcher of Lincolns Inn that the words were not actionable and therefore that the Plaintif ought not to have judgment and that for these reasons 1. Because there is but a matter of Trespass alleged in the words 2ly They are but argumentative and do not charge the Plaintif directly with felony and it may be the money demanded was due to the Defendant and the Iury have found all that which sounds to charge the party with felony against the Plaintif Twisden on the other side said that the words ought to be taken together and so they are actionable and ought not to be severed And the ground of the Action is for charging
It is considerable in regard it is an office of trust whether it may be leased out although he may make a Deputy Therefore argue it again the next Term. Baker and Andrews Mich. 1652. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 1469. BAker brought an Action of Trespass quare vi armis clausum fregit Demurrer to a replication in Trespasse vi et armis and for taking his Cattel the Defendant as to the force and arms pleads non cul and as to the rest he justifies that the Cattel went in through the defect of the Plaintiffs inclosures the Plaintiff replyes that the Cattel came in through another mans fence into his ground to this replication the Defendant demurs 〈◊〉 shews for cause that the Plaintif doth not assign where the place of the other Close lyes through which the Cattel came through Yard said it is not necessary to shew where it lyes for they went not in where the Defendant hath alleged so the traverse is well taken Wadham VVindham on the other side answered here is a new assignment and he answers not the Trespass for which the Action is brought and because it is a new assignment we must give a new answer and therefore you must shew the place where your new assignment lyes Roll chief Iustice He pleads no more but that the Cattel came in at another place than is pleaded and he needs not shew the place But here the Defendants plea is not good Plea for he pleads a prescription where it ought to be a custom that the occupyers of the land ought to make the sences and he ought not so prescribe in the person Iudgement for the Plaintiff nisi Mich. 1652. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Who may take advantage of a fault in a Plea Advantage If there be a fault in a plea in matter of form and after there is a fault also in the replication and the Defendant demurs to it but shews no cause of demurrer he shall take no advantage of this fault in the replication but he who joyns in the demurrer shall take advantage of the ill plea and so was it adjudged Pasc 1. Car. in this Court in Prat and Thimblethorps â—ase and he said that all faults in pleading are incurable at the Common Law and therefore those that are not helped by Statutes are left as they were at the Common Law Mich. 1652. Banc. sup ONe was made Constable by order of a quarter Sessions but the party refused to serve Motion to quash aâ— order of Sessions and removed the order hither by Certiorari moved to quash the order but the Court would not do it although ther were material exceptions taken against it but ordered him to plead because they perceived the party was stubborn and they would not give encouragement to such persons Heath and Vdall Mich. 1652. Banc. sup HEath a Caryer brought an Action of the Case against Vdall Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case and declares among other things for plundering of him of viginti fardellas Anglice packs and in arrest of Iudgement it was moved that the words vinginti fardellas Anglice packs is uncertain But Maynard argued that it might be good because the Caryer could not declare otherwayes for he could not know what was in the packs and he cited one Bedingfields case Trin. 10. Car. Declaration where an Action was brought for a library of books and for apparell and adjudged good But Roll chief Iustice said it could not be good for the apparel Wadham Windham on the other side held the words uncertain as they are and said he ought to have shewed that they were packs with goods or have shewen what was in them for a pack is but a measure of a thing Roll chief Iustice answered if it be but a measure of a thing then no damages are given for them and then the Action is good for the rest But we will advise Afterwards in the same Term Maynard moved for the opinion of the Court and thereupon the Court held that the words are incertain as they are for he ought to have expressed what was in the packs and ruled a nil capiat per billam to be entred Levingston and Crompton Mich. 1652. Banc. sup LEvingston brought an Action in this Court against Crompton Exceptions to a plea of privilege The Defendant pleads that he is a Clark of the Chancery and that all Clarks of the Chancery ought to be sued in the Chancery only and not elsewhere and demands judgement if he ought to make any other answer in this Court Two Exceptions were taken to the plea 1. He saith That all Clarks of the Chancery have used to be sued in the Chancery and not elsewhere and doth not say nor any of them have been used to be sued elsewhere and though all of them have not been used to be sued elsewhere yet that hinders not but that some of them have been sued elsewhere 2ly He pleads that he is a Clark of the Chancery and ought to be impleaded in the Chancery held at Westminster before the Keepers of the liberty of England c. time out of mind which is not true Hales answered That this Court ought to take notice of the privilege of Chancery Notice Privilege although it be not well pleaded But Roll chief Iustice denied that they ought to do it and said That it is the Custom for the Clarks of the Exchequer when they plead their privilege to bring the red book wherein their privileges are written into the Court and upon sight of their privilege there written it is used to be allowed but it is not so of the privileges of the other Courts but they must be pleaded and so here And because it is not well pleaded here therefore shew cause why you should not plead in chief Pitton and Rey. Mich. 1652. Banc. sup PItton appeared to an Action brought against him at the sute of Rey Motion for the Plaintif to declare speedily but no declaration was put in against him Vpon an Affidavit that the Defendant was a Merchant speedily to go to Sea It was moved for him that the Plaintif might forthwith declare against him that thereby he might direct his Attorney what to plead and might have his liberty to be gone Roll chief Iustice By the course of the Court he hath thrée terms liberty to declare but this is an extraordinary Case Therefore let him declare Thursday next otherwise he shall not declare till he come back Nota. Mich. 1652. BY Roll chief Iustice A private Sessions of the Peace is not said to be held for the County Staples Case Mich. 1652. Banc. sup A Rule was read on the Capital side for Staples a Iustice of Peace of Sussex Cause why no Attachment against a Iustice of Peace to shew cause why an Attachment should not be granted against him for procéeding upon an Endictment of forcible entry and
be undestood eight hangings Roll chief Iustice A pair is properly when one of the things so called cannot be properly used without the other but yet the words may be also understood so many couple and here you cannot intend the words to mean so many suits of hangings and you might have expressed your meaning by so many pieces of hangings and therefore it seems doubtfull Ierman Iustice Here the words do not expresse the number of the things as they do when you say a pair of Oxen or the like Nicholas as Ierman Ask Iustice A pair is incertain for that word may be meant more than two in number as when you say a pair of cards and a pair of hangings in some places is meant a suit of hangings Roll chief Iustice If it be so then it is more incertain the word hangings may be good enough but how can the number be known Curia advisare vult Afterwards the Court moved the Defendant to suffer the Plaintiff to amend his Declaration and to plead anew and to consent to a new tryall Askwiths Case Hill 1652. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to quash an order of Sessions made at Durham against Askwith Motion to quash an order of Sessions for not serving the office of a Constable or finding an other able person to serve the place for him being elected according to the custom of the place where he was elected to serve The Exception taken was that it is not shewed that he was elected at a Court Leet and the Sessions have no power to elect a Constable Roll chief Iustice He is a Constable elected by a by-Law By Law it is not necessary there should be any other election then according to the custom and he must serve in his turn or contribute to the charge for another to serve for him Custom and this is a good custom used in many places and I do find one my self in my turn in one place and make no use of my privilege to avoid it Another exception was taken that the complaint made of the party was that he would neither serve the office nor contribute for another to serve it and the order is only that he refused to contribute and so is not warranted by the custom by which he hath an election to serve or contribute Quashed nisi c. Hill 1652. Banc. sup A Prisoner was brought into Court by a habeas corpus out of the Fleet to the intent to turn him over to the Marshalsea to charge him with an Action here Creditor examined upon oath it his debt were reall whereupon the creditor was examined upon his oath whether the debt was real for which he surmised he would bring his Action and upon making oath thereof the Prisoner was turned over accordingly Nota. Smith against Holyman Hill 1652. Banc. sup IT was moved in arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case upon an Assumpsit Arrest of Iudgement in Assumpsit False English and Exceptions taken 1. That the Defendants Christian name was mistaken And 2ly That the jurata was erroneous for it says in a plea of dept instead of a plea of debt and the Iudgement was arrested for dept written with a P. is no word though it sound like debt written with a B. Custodes and Howell Gwin Hill 1652. Banc. sup HOwell Gwin was brought to the Bar being convicted for forgeing of a deed Iudgement against one convicted of forgery and was demanded what he could say why Iudgement should not be given against him Boynton of Councel with the Prisoner moved the Court that in regard there was an information of perjury depending here against the witnesses upon whose Testimony the Prisoner was convicted of the perjury and that the Prisoner doth endeavour to proceed with all the speed that is possible against them in this information that the Iudgement may be stayed in the mean time against him Roll chief Iustice answered if they be found guilty of the perjury they shall be punished but we will give Iudgement against your Clyent in the mean time which was done accordingly in these words following Iudgement for forgery viz. you are convicted of forgeing a deed by putting a dead mans hand unto it therefore the Court gives this Iudgement against you that you are fined at a hundred pound and shall stand on the pillory two hours before the Hall dore with a paper on your head shewing the nature of your offence Memorandum the party cut off a dead mans hand and put a pen and a seal in it and so signed and sealed and delivered the deed with the dead hand and swore that he saw the deed sealed and delivered Mich. 1652 Banc. sup MRs. Lucy Fotherby was brought into Court to be turned over into the Marshalsea out of the Fleet with an intent to charge her with an Action of debt Against this it was urged that she was a Prisoner in the Fleet A Prisoner turned over committed thither by an order of the Court of Chancery Prisoner But Roll chief Iustice answered this order is nothing to hinder her turning over if the debt be reall and so upon proof that the debt was reall she was turned over Locky and Dumiloe Hill 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 1462. VPon a special verdict in an ejectione firmae the case fell out to be this Special verdict in an ejectione firmae I. S. seised of lands in Fée makes a lease of it to I. D. at Will A. B. puts the Tenant at Will out of possession and after the Tenant at Will enters and takes a lease at Will of him that put him out of possession the question was whether he should hold the land by virtue of his first lease or by virtue of his second agreement To this Roll chief Iustice said if one make a lease at Will to one and he be ousted Will. Determination and then enter again and take a new estate the Will is determined but a stranger cannot determine his Estate without his consent but here he hath determined his first Estate by his new contract with the disseisor of his Lessor And he said if Livery and Seisin be made upon one Acre of land in the name of two Acres it is good for both the Acres for it is not necessary that the party that gives the livery should go to all the land mentioned in the deed of Feoffment Livery and Seisin And he also said that if Tenant at Will cuts down a tree upon the land which he holds at Will by this Act he hath determined his Will Drake and Drake Hill 1652. Banc. sup DRake brought an Action against Drake for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words viz. Thou hast preached lyes in the Pulpit the Plaintiff being a master of Arts and incumbent of a living Wadham VVindham held the words actionable because they were spoken of the Plaintiff in relation to his
professision and cited one Hinkes case where these words spoken of the Plaintif being a Brasier were held actionable viz. Thou hast cozened me of a Pan. And if one say to another Thou hast poisoned a man If the man be dead the words are actionable although he doe not say that he did it wilfully The Court enclined the words are actionable because they are scandalous And the rule was Iudicium nisi c. Hill 1652. Banc. sup VVAdham Windham moved for a Certiorari to remove an Endictment preferred against one in Newgate Motion for a Certiorari to remove an Endictment Roll chief Iustice He lies there for murder and is outlawed thereupon yet take a Certiorari to remove the Record for his fact was the stabbing of a man and stabbing is in its nature but felony Felony Murther and is not murther although the party cannot have his Clergy for it by reason of the Statute made by King Iames against Stabbing else by the Common Law he might have had it Ashworth and Sir Tho. Stanley Hill 1652. Banc. sup VPon a Verdict given for the Plaintif in an Ejectione firmae Arrest of Iudgement in an Ejectione firmae Damages Ejectione firmae It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement That the Ejectment is laid to be of three Messuages or Tenements and a Toft which as to the Messuages or Tenements is incertain Roll chief Iustice You move too soon for it may be the Plaintiff will release the damages as to the Messuages or Tenement and take his judgement only for the toft and the Action lies well enough for that Hill 1652. Banc. sup TWisden moved to discharge Sir Thomas Revell and others of their recognisances for the peace in which they were bound the last Michaelmas Term Motion to discharge recognizances of the peace because the Affidavit upon which they were bound was only to this effect That the Prosecutor goes in fear of his life when he goes into such parcels of land whereas in truth those lands are setled upon Sir Thomas Revell by decree in Chancery and the Prosecutor hath also brought 18 several Actions against the Tenants of the lands and hath declared against none of them and there are four Affidavits against the first Affidavit Green on the other side said that the party is in Court and says he is still in fear of his life Peace and prays he may not be discharged But because upon reading the Affidavits and examining the matter it appeared to the Court that they were bound to the peace upon malice and for vexation they were discharged Hill 1652. Banc. sup BY Roll chief Iustice Who ought to repair High-ways of Common right All High ways of common right are to be repaired by the Inhabitants of that Parish in which the way lies But if any particular person will enclose any part of a way or waste adjoyning he thereby takes upon him to repair that which was so enclosed Massey and Aubry Hill 1652. Banc. sup AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation to stand to an Award Arrest of judgement in debt upon an Obligation to stand to an Award The Defendant pleaded that the Arbitrators made no Award The Paintif replies that the Vmpire made an award and sets it forth and assigns the breach and upon issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the assignment of the breach was not good for the incertainty of it for the breach is assigned upon but a part of the Award for the breach assigned is that the Defendant should pay the Arrears of rent due after the purchase of certain lands and doth not shew what these Arrears are But Roll chief Iustice said That the words since the purchase thereof seem to make this certain yet stay till the other moves At another day the case was moved again and the same exception insisted upon by Barry of the Inner Temple who formerly moved it Hales held the Exception not good and that the breach was well assigned because though it seem uncertain of it self yet it relates to a thing which makes it certain As an Award for one to deliver to another all the goods in such a Shop which belonged to him hath been held to be good But Barry answered That it is utterly incertain and that there is nothing in the Award which can make it certain and here is a four-fold incertainty in the Award 1. It cannot be known what these arrears are that are awarded to be paid 2ly It appears not by the Award for what lands these arrerages of rent awarded to be paid are due for there are no lands mentiond but only two leases of land 3ly It appears not by whom the arrerages are due 4ly It appears not to whom the arrerages are due Roll chief Iustice All the matter is whether it appears that these arrerages of rent awarded to be paid were in question or no and it seems they were because the lease and the rent thereupon reserved are both in question but it is not certain what these arrears of rent are and so the party that is awarded to pay them cannot tell what sum of mony he is to pay Ierman Iustice said he may know because he was Tenant of the land Barry replyed he cannot know when the purchase was made and the arbitrement is that the party shall pay all the arrears since the purchase Curia advisare vult At another day the case was again moved by Barry and exceptions taken that the breach was assigned upon a thing not submitted unto or awarded to be performed And secondly The award is incertain in many things First It appears not what rent was due to be paid but only by implication which is not good Secondly It appears not for what the rent is due nor 3ly How much rent is due and Salmons case in the 5. rep was cited Also it was objected that the award was not finall and concluding and therefore not good Also the Award is unreasonable and for that cause also it is not good and he cited 21 E. 4. f. 40. and 17 E. 4. f. 51. and prayed for the Defendant that judgement might be stayed Hales on the other side prayed for judgement said That the Arbitrators were not to ascertain particularly the rent to be paid but it is sufficient for them to make the Award touching all the differences betwixt the parties and an averment may ascertain the particular things being they are only matters of fact although one may not be admitted by an averment to supply an Award in a matter wherein it was in the substance of it defective before Roll chief Iustice What certainty is there by the Award that the party shall enjoy all his right in the two leases in difference between the parties for the payment of the rent Both parties know what rent is due reserved by the leases but how can the party know what the
Banc. sup Pasch 1653. rot 116 or 117. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in an Action of debt for rent arrear upon two leases for years Error to reverse a judgement in debt for rent viz. upon a lease for 3 years of divers Copyhold Lands and upon a lease for 31 years for other lands Howell assigns for Error 1. That the Declaration is not good because that it is for an entire rent reserved for 2 several terms whereas one of the terms is expired here cannot be made any apportionment of the rent because it appears not which of the lands are Copyhold and which are Free lands Roll chief Iustice He ought to shew how much of the lands are Copyhold and how much Freehold Hales Here is but one entire rent reserved and it shall be paid as well after the expiration of the Copyhold lands as before Roll chief Iustice Discontinuance Then for what term shall the rent be reserved for it doth not appear to us Therefore you were best to discontinue your action otherwise if we give judgement upon the Exception taken you may lose your rent Hill and Dechair Trin. 1653. Banc. sup AN Action of debt was brought for 5 l. for selling of Wine without Licence Arrest of judgement in an Action upon the Statute for selling wine without license and a Verdict was found for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement That the Action is not well brought because it is not by Original as it ought to be by the Statute of 18 Eliz. Wild on the other side answered that it is not necessary to be by Original for a Bill of debt as this is is in the nature of an Original writ if it should be otherwise the Statute would be repugnant for the debt one by Statute may be recovered in this Court by Information and this is the usual practice of this Court. Twisden took a difference between a penal Action and a popular Action A penal Action he said may be by Bill but not a popular Action 2ly It is not shewed that the party was not licensed to sell Wine 3ly The Verdict finds him guilty for selling of 5 pints of Wine between such a time and such a time Relation Action part where of was before the Information brought and part after the Information brought To the last exception Roll chief Iustice answered The matter shall relate to the filing of the Bail for then the Action beginneth not before But what say you to the other Exception Wild That is mistaken for the Action is upon another branch of the Statute Roll chief Iustice By an original Action it is meant in the Statute that the offence shall not be tryed upon a plaint in an Inferiour Court not to distinguish it from an information for a Writ Bill is all one in this Court Stat. 2 R. 3. A Bill is not an Original writ Writ Bill but an original Action and it is the common practice to sue in this Court in this manner But we will advise At another day the Court was moved for judgement because the Action is well brought though it be not brought by original and the Case urged of Winston against it is not to the purpose for that Case was not upon an information as our Case is but it was brought by the party grieved to recover his treble damages and in that case the party did not pursue the manner of suing for them as the Statute directed but we have here done it and it is the constant practice of this Court. Twisden answered that Winstons case is not answered for that was a popular Action as our case is Roll chief Iustice The question here is whether there be an original Action or not upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. C. 5. And I say it doth not appear whether that Statute meant to out this Court of its Iurisdiction or not but it is left at large in the Statute and me thinks it is an original Action Iurisdiction and Plats Case is that an original Action may be by Bill And I conceive the Statute intended only to exclude inferiour Courts and the constant course is that the party being in Custodia Marescalli he may be proceeded against by Bill and we will not suffer this Court to be excluded from its jurisdiction by obscure words in the Statute Therefore let judgement be for the Plaintif nisi c. Ricott and St. Iohn Trin. 1653. Banc. sup IN Action of Trespass an Ejectment brought by Ricott against St. Iohn Motion that the Defendant may plead as a third person shall direct the Court was moved for a third person that he will save the Defendant harmless and prays that giving him security so to do the Defendant may be ordered by the rule of this Court to plead as he should direct him and that he be not suffered to confesse a judgement Roll chief Iustice It is out of the way for you to give such security for there yet appears no collusion But you shall be made a party to defend the title and then move again Trin. 1653. Banc. sup IN the Case of one Clark it was said by Roll chief Iustice Where a day is taken inclusive where exclusive Arbitrement That if the submission to an Award be that the Award be made six days after the submission the day of the Award is to be taken inclusive and not exclusive so that if the Award be made the same day on which the submission was it is a good Award Ayre and Hauxesworth Trin. 1653. Banc. sup AYre brought an Action of Trespass against Hauxesworth for his Cattels damage feasant in D. the Defendant justifies in another County Whether a Traverse was well taken and traverseth absque hoc that he is guilty in D. or in any other place The question was whether the traverse be well taken or not Roll chief Iust answered he must take a traverse as this case is because the justification is local Traverse Discontinuance Therefore let the Plaintif take nothing by his Bill for he may not discontinue his Action because it is in Trespass Nota. Fletcher and King Trin. 1653. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in the Common Pleas in an Action of debt 〈◊〉 â—â—â—ght upon an assumpsit to save one harmless Error to reverse a Judgement in debt upon an Assumpsit in disposing of certain good â—sâ—ised by an Order of thâ— Commissioners of Haberdashers Hall 〈◊〉 â—â—sendant 〈◊〉 that he had saved him harmess The Plaintif replyed that he was damnified the Defendant rejoyns by protestation that there was no Order of Haberdashers Hall for plea saith non damnificatus and upon this the Plaintif demurred in the Common Pleas and a judgement was given there upon the Demurrer for the Plaintif In the writ of Error here the Error assigned was that the rejoynder is a
where it is and by the construction that we make of the Proviso all the Will may stand together but by another construction it cannot Elizabeth shall have a special entayl with her Husband by the last clause and yet the general Estate tayl given in the former part shall stand and we are in the interpretation of Wills to consider circumstances and conjectures and there are two publications found in this will although this doth not appear upon Record and so comes not in judgement Roll chief Iustice We are all of one opinion that judgement ought to be given for the Defendant If the first clause in the Will continue uncontrolled by the Proviso it is for the Defendant but if it continue not uncontrolled it is for the Plaintif and we hold that the first clause is not controlled for we ought not to make any part of a Will void if all the parts of it may stand together and this cannot be here if the Proviso should controll the former part Revocation and to make it repugnant but if the Proviso could stand with the former part of the Will it might revoke the former part and if this Proviso had been made after the Will it might have altered the Case but that appears not And we must collect the Testators meaning by the Will Intention and by the Will it cannot be understood that the Proviso should be void and the common reputation of Mill and Mills to be the same name shall not make Mill to be the Testators true Sirname and the Testator intended his Daughter should marry one of his own true Sirname and not one of his reputative name for this is a special case and goes not according to the ordinary rules of names that sound alike and it cannot be intended that the Testator did mean to destroy one part of his will by another part A general clause in a grant shall not extend to a particular thing provided for in the grant much less shall it do so in a Will Therefore let judgement be for the Defendant nisi Mich. 1652 Banc. sup AN Action of the Case was brought by one that kept a Victualling house Arrest of Iudgement in an Action for words for speaking these words of her There was a man killed in her house and she concealed the murther Vpon a rule to stay judgement till the Plaintif should move Wild moved for judgement because he held the words to be actionable in that they amount to a scandal of the Plaintif as well as they tend to cause her to be fined and imprisoned Roll chief Iustice Fine Imprisonment She shall not be fined and imprisoned except she receive and comfort the party that killed him but the words are scandalous and the Case differs from the Cases put on the other side Twisden for the Defendant urged that it was not averred that the Plaintif did know of the murther Roll chief Iustice The words imply she knew of the murther for how else could she be said to conceal it Bowlstrode for the Defendant said That it doth not appear by the Record that any man was killed in the house nor any time when nor is it said the Defendant spoke the words of the Plaintif Case but only by an innuendo Roll chief Iustice The words are actionable to say that thou hast murthered a man without averring that he is killed but if it appear by the Declaration that the man was alive after the words spoken it is otherwise And here if no man be murthered the feigning of a false thing makes the words the more actionable by saying she concealed a murther where there was in truth no murther done But the greatest doubt here is whether because admitting a murther were done the Plaintif is to be but fined and imprisoned for the concealing it the words can be actionable And I hold they are actionable notwithstanding because they are scandalous Endictment Declaration and he said that in an Endictment a thing must be expressed to be done false et malitiose because that is the usual form but in a Declaration those words are not necessary Therefore let the Plaintif have his Iudgement nisi Mich. 1653 Banc. sup IT was held by the Court that a Constable cannot be sued out of the County where he is Constable for a thing done by him in execution of his Office A Constable not to be sued out of his County but for other matters he may Elston and Drake Mich. 1653. Banc. sup ELston brought an Action of Debt for rent due upon a lease for years Error to reverse a judgement in debt for rent as being Administrator to I. S. and declares for rent due since the death of the Intestate and hath a verdict and a judgement in the Common Pleas. Drake brings his writ of Error here to reverse this judgement The Exception taken was that it doth not appear by the Declaration whether this rent sued for doth belong to the Administrator or not for he makes himself no title to it and for ought doth appear it may belong to the heir and not to him Wadham Windham on the other side This is no Exception now after a Verdict but if it had been upon a Demurrer it would have been good and we do not declare that the Intestate was seised in see who made the lease and so it may well be understood that he had but a lease of this land did let an under lease to the Defendant and the better construction shall be made for us Hales on the same side said non detinet is pleaded and the Iury hath sound detinet which would be impossible if the Intestate had been seised in fee and there is a double intendment that the rent is reserved upon a lease for it is reserved to Executors and not the heir Maynard on the other side said the Verdict helps nothing because the Declaration is naught in substance in our case for the Plaintif therein hath made himself no title to the rent and all that is in the Declaration to intitle him is expressed but by way of inference or conclusion and for the reserving the rent to the Executors this had been good if the rent had grown due during the time of the Intestate The Court moved the parties Amendment Tryal Costs that by consent the Declaration might be amended paying costs and that a new tryal might be had by consent which was agreed unto and so ruled Bedwell and Fenwick Mich. 1653. Banc. sup BEdwell brought an Action upon the case against Fenwick Arrest of judgement in an Action upon a promise and declares that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintif would marry E. his Sister he would give his Sister 300 l. for her mariage portion upon his mariage with her and for breach of this promise brings his Action and obtains a verdict against the Defendant The Defendant in Arrest of Iudgement urged that the breach
and upon this the Defendant demurred and upon the Demurrer the Case was this A Lease was made for one year the Lessee covenants for him and his Assigns to pay the rent so long as he and they shall have the possession of the thing let the Lessee assigns over his Term the Term expires the Assignee continues the possession after the Term expired and for rent behind by the Assignee after the expiration of the Term the Lessor brings the Action and the question was whether here be such an Assignee that the Action will lie against or not Roll chief Iust held that though here be not an Assignée strictly Assignee Covenant according to the rules of Law yet that he shall be accompted such an Assignee as is to perform the Covenants made between the parties and ruled the Defendant to shew cause why the Plaintif should not have judgement Nota. Wood and Markham Hill 1653. Banc. sup VPon an Ejectione firmae brought For a restitution after an habere facias possessionem executed and a Tryal thereupon had a Verdict was found for the Plaintif but upon an agreement made betwéen the Plaintif and the Defendant the Defendant was to hold the land recovered the remainder of his Term to come and according to this agreement he held it for 2 years but afterwards before his term expired the Plaintif takes out an habere facias possessionem and executes it Serj. Bernard moved for the Defendant upon this matter shewed to the Court That the Defendant might have a rule for restitution But Roll chief Iustice answered It cannot be Restitution but you must have your Action upon the Case against the Plaintif for not performing his agreement Case for the Act seems to be unconscionable Masters and VVallis Hill 1653. Banc. sup Pasch 1652. rot 581. A Writ of Error was brought in this Court to reverse a Iudgement given in the Common Pleas in an Action of Trespass quare vi et armis and the Error assigned was Error to reverse a judgement in Trespass quare vi et aâ—mis that the Trespass is concluded to be contra pacem c. but doth not say publicam Twisden answered that it is well enough because the Action was comment'd by Original but if it had been by Bill it would have been otherwise Roll chief Iustice It is the use in the Common Pleas to make such short recitals but in the beginning of the Record here it is recited at large and if it were not recited at large it would not be good Recital but for the matter it self it is matter of substance and generally it ought to be concluded to be contra pacem publicam yet it is good here as it is for the reasons before alleged Affirmetur judicium nisi c. Hill 1653. Banc. sup VVIld moved against a Sherif that he may not be admitted to file the retorn of a writ directed to him Against filing a return of a writ because an Action upon the Case is depending against him for not returning this writ and if he should now be admitted to file the return he would thereby abate our Action Roll chief Iustice If the writ be not filed it shall not be filed till the Court be moved but he cannot file it as of this Term though he should file it for the return of the writ as it seems is long since past but if the retorn be already filed you move too late Swan and Fenham Hill 1953. Banc. sup Trin. 1650. rot 1072. IN an Action of Trepass and Ejectment a special Vâ—rdict was found Special verdict in Trespass and Ejectment and in it this Custom viz. That the Owners of Houses in the Town of New-Castle in fee simple may devise them by Paroll but not Tenants in tayl and it was further found that the Testator was seised of the Houses in question in fee tayl in possession and of the remainder of them in fee-simple and so seised did devise them by Paroll The question was whether this devise was warranted by the Custom Shafto argued that the Custom did not warrant this devise because Customs are not to be enlarged by construction but are to be taken strictly and according to the letter because they run in abridgement of the Common-law and so are not to be favoured 9 E. 3. f. 38.11 H. 4. f. 33.5 H. 6. f. 51. Next here are immaterial words found in the Verdict for if it be the Custom for Tenant in fee-simple to devise yet this extends not to tenant in tayl 27 H. 6. f. 5.21 E. 4. f. 24. and a devise of rent to be issuing out of these Houses is not good within the Custom although that a rent doth follow the nature of the Land 22 Assis pl. 78.26 H. 8.54 It is true Cook in his Littleton f. 111. saith that one may devise a rent in remainder but I deny this for the authorities of the Books are against him An estate in remainder is not Assets nor can be devised 3 H. 7. f. 23 24. a condition goes to an Estate tayl not to a fée-simple in remainder 6 Rep. f. 33. And here is but a power of an Estate and not an Estate in possession Lit. sect 137. And the finding here that the Tenant in tayl did die without issue is not material for this could not be known at the time of the devise and the devise takes its effect in the time of the Devisor 27 H. 8. Dyer 45.5 Eliz. Dyer Bishops Case 1 Rep. Archers Case f. â—6 2ly Here is no Custom found to intitle the party for a Town cannot have a Custom as it is here found though a Borough may 22 Ass 178 and this is not found to be an antient Vill 7 H. 6. Dyer 22 H. 6. Fitzh praescript 47. Next the Custom is not found that Burgers may devise as it ought to be Turner Iohn on the other side held that some Estate doth pass by the Will and it matters not what Estate passeth and the Owners of Houses in our Case shall be intended to be Tenants in fee-simple and it is not necessary that they be Tenants in fee in possession Perkins devises Plowd 262. Dyer 22.22 Eliz 371. p. 5. and the Custom here found is no more but an ordinary Custom common to other Boroughs and it shall not be intended a special Custom And this case may be resembled to Cases upon the Statute of 32 34 H. 8. for devising of Lands 10 Rep. f. 81. Trin. 34 Eliz. Benefilds Case there cited and 35 Eliz. Howards Case which prove that reversions may be devised Nat. brev 199. a. Perkins Devises Pl. 540. is the very Case in question and the Cases put on the other side come not to our Case Roll chief Iustice It is not necessary in a special Verdict to be so precise as in pleading Special verdict but something may be supplyed and the verdict hath found that he was Owner and that the
173 C. 2. 191 192 275. 27 Principal and Accessory VVhere one shall be said to be principal and where but accessory p. 86 C. 1. Prison and Prisoner vid. Bail and discharge VVhere a Prisoner may be discharged and where not 96 97 129 C. 1. 238 C. 5. 369 C. 2. 369 C. 3. 386 C. 4. 395 C. 1. 418 C. 4. 433 C. 1. 454 C. 2 3. 475 C. 1. 475 C. 2. vid. discharge VVhere a Prisoner may be bailed and where not 96 97 166 C. 1. vid. bail VVhere a Prisoner may be removed and where not 339 362 C. 2. 363 C. 1. 397 C. 2. 434 C. 1. 450 C. 1. 29 Privilege VVhere a writ of privilege lies and where not and for whom and for whom not 139 C. 3. 234 C. 1. VVhere one may claim or plead a privilege and where not 167 168 214 C. 2. 222 223 234 C. 1. 252 253 254 295 C. 3. 373 C. 1. 413 C. 1. 454 C. 1. 460 C. 3. vid Plea The privilege of the Clergy vid. Clergy The privilege of Peers vid. Honour 30 Procedendo Where a procedendo lies and where not p. 69 70. p. 100 C. 1. 127 C. 3. 151 C. 2. 226 227 229 C. 1. 245 C. 1. 321 C. 2. 31 Proceedings What proceedings of Courts are good and what not p. 45 C. 2. p. 91 C. 1. 125 C. 2. Where the Court will stay proceedings and where not 413 C. 3. How to proceed in an endictment and how in an information 217 C. 2. 32 Processe vid. Filing For what things processe may issue out of the upper Bench Court for what not p. 26 C. 2. What retorn of process is good and what not p. 330 C. 1. Processe how to be directed p. 26 C. 3. Where processes shall be said to be discontinued and where not p. 58 C. 2. p. 66 C. 2. p. 70 71 97 C. 1. p. 111 C. 1. 122 C. 3. 209 C. 1. 210 339 C. 3. Where processes shall be said to miscontinue and where not 237 339 C. 3. Where the Court may discontinue processes where not 306. Where processe may be stayed and where not 147 C. 2. 185 C. 2. 33 Proclamation What proclamarion is good what not 91 92 237. 34 Proof What shall be accompted a good proof of of an Act of Parliament or other matter of fact 155 C. 2. 462 C. 3 4. 35 Prohibition Where a Prohibition to the Prerogative Court or other Court may be granted and where not p. 10. C. 1. p. 55 56 74 75. 87 C. 2. 102 C. 1. 147 C. 1. 228 C. 3. 299 C. 1. 346 C. 1. 439 440 455 456. Where a Prohibition lyes to an interiour Court or Jurisdiction and where not p. 45 C. 2. 45 C. 3. 89 C. 2. 150 C. 1. 166 167 170 C. 1. 172 173. 183 C. 2. 207 C. 2. 233 C. 1. 285 286 418 C. 1. 170 C. 4. 36 Promise How a breach of promise must be assigned p. 17 C. 2. p. 107 C. 1. How one must declare in an Action for a breach of promise where a promise by paroll is reduced into writing p. 19 20. What is a good consideration to ground a promise upon and what not 57 C. 1. p. 58 C. 1. p. 63 C. 1. 131 C. 1. 248 C. 1. 264 C. 1. 280 C. 2. 295 C. 2. 296 C. 1. 303 C. 3. 304 305 330 C. 2. 395 396 411 C. 2. 440 C. 1. 459 460. 472 473. Where a promise may be said to be discharged and where not 303 C. 3. What is a good promise to ground an Action upon the â—afe and what not p. 63 C. 1. p. 104. C. 3. 111 C. 2. 152 153 1. 5. 7 C. 3. 249 C. 1. 291 C. 2. 303 C. 3. 304 305 330 C. 2. 405 C. 2. 416 C. 2. 419 C. 2. 420 C. 1. 440 C. 1. 459 460 465 C. 2. 472 473. Where a promise shall be said to be joynt anâ— where several 23 C. 1. What is a good plea in discharge of a promise and what not 309 C. 1. 37 Property Where one shall be said to have a property in a thing and where not p. 54 C. 2. 55 73 74. Where one may alter the property of a thing and where 338. 38 Protection Of a Protection and the benefit of it p. 40. Where and from whom Protection is due and where not and to whom and to who not 227 C. 4. 39 Protestation Of the nature of a Protestation and what is a good Protestation and what not and where it lies and where not 266 267 c. 40 Purchase Who may be said a Purchaser and who not 139 C. 1. 273 C. 1. Who may purchase lands and who not 388 C. 3. VVho shall be said to be intitled to lands by purchase and who not 148 149. Q 1 Quashing of Endictments Orders c. vid. Endictments Orders c. 2 Quo Warranto For what a Quo Warranto lyes and for what not 418 C. 5. R 1 Recital What Recital shall be good and what not p. 107 108 185 C. 1. 344 345 408 C. 2. 411 C. 1. 421. C. 2. 2 Recognisance Where a Recognisance may be discharged and where not 364 C. 3. 3 Record How a Record is to be pleaded and how given in evidence 22 C. 1. What is matter of Record what not 464 C. 4. Where one may have view of a Record and where not 444 C. 1. Where a Record may be amended and where not vid. Amendment 4 Recovery What things are recoverable at the Common-law and what not p. 55. Of what things a Recovery lies and oâ— what not 215 C. 3. 450 C. 2. Where a Recovery shall be good and where not 246 C. 1. 319 320 321. Recusant How a Recusant ought to conform since Bishops taken away 26 C. 4. 5 Reference Where the Court will make a reference and where not 110. C. 2. 214 C. 2. 372 C. 2. 6 Rejoynder Upon what a Rejoynder ought to be and upon what not p. 70 C. 1. Where one may rejoyn and where not 401 c. 440 C. 1. 7 Relation How and to what time things shall be said to relate and to what not 341 C. 3. 356 C. 2. 381 C. 2. 8 Release VVhat Release is good and what not 175 C. 1. 286 287 473. 9 Repeal vid. Statute What things may be repealed and what not 228 C. 3. 10 Repleader VVhere there ought to be a Repleder and where not 210 211 412 C. 1. 11 Replication VVhat Replication is good and what not p. 41 C. 2. 110 C. 3. 309 C. 1. 356 C. 2. 373 C. 3. 379 380 396 401 402 432 C. 4. 440 C. 1. 12 Request VVhere a special Request is necessary and where it is not 49 C. 1. p. 54 C. 1. p. 4 C. 2. 107 C. 1. 141 C. 1. 143 144 207 C. 4. 458 C. 1. VVhat shall be said a good Request and what not 138 C. 1. 13 Rescous For what causes a writ of Rescous may be quashed for what not 155 C. 4. 417 C. 2. 14
and that by the Will the Land and personal Estate passed unto him for he said if by my Will I make one my Heir This is a devise to him of all my Lands in Fee for the Devisee is put in loco haeredis and shall be like an Heir by descent for he is haeres factus although he be not haeres natus Mich. 31 32 Eliz. rot 235 Godfreys Reports Hob. rep f. 34. b. Coundens case Hob. new edition 75. Spark against Burrell the very case in point adjudged 7 E. 6. Br. Done 44. and Devise 48. and in this Case the Devisee had annuities to pay and monies for Legacies which shews the intent of the Testator to be that he shall have his Lands and Goods neither shall the misspelling of the word Heir hurt the Will for the intent of the Testator shall be followed if it may be known as it may well be here Hob. f. 32.15 H. 7. f. 12. Cooks Lit. f. 323. Dyer 325. 2ly Misnaming in a Will shall not hurt the Will Dyer 323.21 Rich. 2. Fitzh devise 27.10 rep 57. 3ly False Latin shall not destroy deeds nor pleadings though it will abate writs a fortiori false English shall not destroy a Will 9 H. 7.16.10 rep Osborns case Hob. 227.10 rep 133. a. 9. H. 6.7 a. and here is only vitium scriptoriâ— and that cannot destroy a Will Hob. f. 162. Walkers case f. 104 104.9 rep 48. a. Dyer 17 Eliz. f. 342. Digbyes case Another reason is the word Heir is here written according to the pronunciation and sound of the word though it agree not in letters and H. that is left out is no letter but an asperte note and the language in England as it differs in time so it differs in place for men speak not nor write English in all parts of England alike and a Will in latin or greek is a good Will within the Statute so that it is not necessary for a Will to be good English and the Testator was bred in France and could neither write nor speak good English and his Will so much the rather is to be favoured And false English hath been allowed in a Bond viz. senteen for seventeen pounds 9. rep 48. a. much more may it be in a Will and so he prayed Iudgement for the Plaintiff Latch for the Defendant argued that the Will was not good he considered 2. points 1. When a man makes one his solle Ayeare and Yexecutor what construction the words shall have 2ly What Estate is conveyed by them And first he said that Hoberts Case cited by Powis was not to the purpose 1. Because it is not the principal case And 2ly It is but an opinion there and an Heir may be without land And for Counden and Clarks case that was cited as it was urged it is for me and not against me and there can be no authority cited that if one make a man his Heir that his lands are thereby conveyed to him in Fee simple But in our case there can be no certain intent of the Testator found out and the making of one his Heir in France where the Testator was bred according to the Civil Law there used is but to make him his Executor and so the Testator might mean it And if one in his Will say I make one of my Daughters my Heir and do not say of his Lands this shall not disinherit the other Daughters and if there should be any Estate conveyed here it cannot be but an Estate for life Brook Done 44.8 Jac. C. B. Inkersalls case 3ly The ill orthogrophy here makes the Will naught for a Will cannot be made good by conjectures Hob. 34. Mich. 23 Car. Robinsons case the Iudgement was reversed for writing the word Aeris insteed of aeris with a dipthongue Trin. 17 Car. C. B. rot 74. and in Skirret and Skinners case libis with a dash over put for libris was adjudged ill and in our case here are divers words miswritten And for the variation of our English dialect which is objected it is to no purpose because this will was lately made the dialect alters not in so short a time and the dialect of the County where the Will was made viz. Glocester Shire agrees not with the Will And Hill 6. Car. this Will came in dispute in the Court of wards and a decree there passed against the Will in this point The Court said the case is doubtful Will. because the Will doth not say I make him heir of my Land but generally my heir and Executor but the false writing hurts not a Will if the Testators mind may be found out Adjourned to be argued again Wood against Topham Mich. 1651 Banc. sup VVOod brought an Action of Trespasse upon the case quare filium baeredem rapuit et maritavit against Topham Arrest of judgement in an Action on the case upon not guilty pleaded and a verdidict found for the Plaintiff the Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and takes these exceptions to the Declaration 1. That the Plaintiff doth not say cujus maritagium ad ipsum pertinet 2ly That he doth not say that the Heir was within age and Maynard of Councel with the Defendant said that the exceptions are not to the writ but to the Declaration and the Action being a Trespasse to recover the Damages the Plaintiff ought to entitle himself to the mariage for the losse whereof he would recover damages for the Heir it may be is not Heir apparent to him and then is no mariage due to him and here is a special Declaration for the losse of the mariage Roll chief Iustice answered Writs Declaration the writs are good both wayes and so may the Declaration be either with those words or without them and he makes not the ground of his Action to be that the mariage belonged to him Common right but of Common right it doth belong to him and the words are used to be alleged only to increase the Damages and the ground of the Declaration is only quare filium suum haeredem rapuit and for this the Plaintiff ought to have his Iudgement Ierman Iustice differed and said the Plaintiff doth not shew he had any damage by the mariage it may be that he had been maryed before or was of full age so no cause of Action Nicholas Iustice as Roll and said that by the Law the mariage belongs to the Father and it may prove a dishonour to the family to have his son taken away and maryed without the Fathers consent Ask Iustice to the â—ams effect and so Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff nisi Antea Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to mitigate fines Motion to mitigate fines for riots that were to be set upon rioters that were found guilty upon an information exhibited against them for the riotous cutting down of wood But Wild on the other side prayed there might be good fines set