the Corporation spake these words of the Plaintiff to his Brethren of the Corporation He praedict the Plaintiff innuendo is an ignorant man and not fit for the place and he said that by reason of speaking of these words that they refused to elect him Steward and whether these words were actionable or no was the Question This case was argued twice in Trinity-Term by Callis and Gotbold Serjeants and the Judges seemed to incline to opinion That the words were Actionable but yet no judgment is given Selden against King in Common Pleas Trin. 17 Car. Regis 218. IN a Replevin the Case was thus A man granted a rent out of certain Lands and limited the same to be paid at a house which was another place off the Land and in the grant was this clause that if the rent were behind and lawfully demanded at the house that then it should be lawful for the grantee to distrein the Rent was afterward behind and the grantee distreined and upon traverse taken upon the demand whether this distress upon the Land which had been good in Law if there had not been a special limitation of demand at a place off the Land be a good demand as this Case is was the point Mallet Serjeant the distress is a demand in it self and there needs not any other demand although the rent be to be paid off the Land as here And it was adjudged in this Court about 3 years past that the distress was a sufficient demand but I confess that a Writ of Error is brought in the Kings Bench and they incline there to reverse it and there is no difference where the rent is payable upon the Land where not and so it was adjudged Trin. 3 Car. Rot. 1865 or 2865. betwixt Berriman and Bowden in this Court and he cited also Fox and Vaughans Case Pasch. 4 Car. in this Court and Sir Iohn Lambes case Trin. 18 Car. Rot. 333. in this Court both adjudged in the point and he cited many other Judgments Iermyn Serjeant contrary that the distress is no sufficient demand as this Case is he ought to demand it at the place appointed by the grant for it is part of the grant and the words of the grant ought to be observed 28 H. 8. Dyer 15. and in the Comment 25. a. it is said that Modus legem dat donationi and therefore by the same reason that the grantor may appoint the time and place of payment as here he hath done by the same reason he may appoint a place for the demand and that he shall make that demand before he distrein for the same is neither repugnant nor impossible nor against the Law and therefore good and by consequence ought to be observed and then he answered the Cases which were cited to be adjudged against him In Symmons Case in the Kings Bench there it was resolved that a distress was a demand in Law and a demand in Law is as strong as a demand in fact as it was said by Justice Barckley in debate of that Case But note that in that Case there was no time in certain limited and further in that Case the Rent was payable upon the land and therefore in that Case I agree that a distress will be a good demand because that the demand is to be made upon the land but it is not so in our Case In Sands and Lees case Trin. 20 Iac. in this Court there also the rent was payable upon the land Berriman and Bowdens Case Trin. 3 Car. cited before I agree was our very Case in point but there Judgment was given upon Confession and therefore doth not rule our Case and in Sir Iohn Lambes Case there was no Judgment given and therefore that doth not rule our Case but Melsam and Darbies case M. 6 Car. Rot. 389. in the Kings Bench a Case in the point where Judgment was reversed upon a Writ of Error there brought for want of demand and Selden and Sherleys case in that Court a Case also in the point was reversed Mich. 16 Car. in the Kings Bench upon a Writ of Error brought for want of demand wherefore I conclude that there ought to have been an actual demand at the house according to the grant in our Case and therefore the Traverse in this Case taken by the grantor is well taken Note that Justice Crawley said that Lambes Case was adjudged that there needed no demand and he said that there were three Judgments accordingly in this Court but Rolls Serjeant said that Darbies Case was reversed in the Kings Bench for want of a demand But note that Foster and Reeve Justices did incline that there should be a demand and so Bankes Chief Justice for he said that it is part of the contract and like a condition precedent for as in a condition precedent a man ought to perform the condition before he can take any thing by the grant so in this Case the grantee ought to make a demand to enable him to distrein for before the demand he is not by the manner of the grant which ought to be observed entitled to a distress wherefore he give direction to the Counsel that they would view the Records and shew them to the Court and further he said to them that where it appeareth that the Rent was demandable upon the land that those cases were not to the purpose and therefore wished that they would not trouble the Court with them Levet and Sir Simon Fanshawes Case in Common Pleas Trin. 17. Car. Regis 249. LEvett brought debt against Sir Simon Fanshawe and his Wife as Executrix of another and sued them to the Exigent and at the return of the Exigent the Defendant Sir Simon Fanshawe came in voluntarily in Court and prayed his Priviledge because he was an Officer of the Exchequer and whether he should have his priviledge in that case or not was the question and that rests upon two things First because he is sued as this case is meerly for conformity and necessity-sake and in the right of another viz. in the right of his wife as Executrix And secondly because he demands his priviledge at the Exigent Whitfield Serjeant that he ought to have his priviledge and he cited Presidents as he said in the point as Pasch. 44 Eliz. in the Exchequer Iames Ashtons case sâ—rvant to the Treasurer and Pasch. 23. Iac. Rot. 131. Stantons case also in the Exchequer in both which cases he said husband and wife were sued in the right of the wife and the husband had his priviledge But he cited a Case which was nearer our Case and that was Hill 8. Iac. in the Exchequer Wats and Glovers case where husband and wife were sued in the right of the wife as Executrix and he said that it was over-ruled that the husband should have his priviledge 22 H. 6. 38. and 27 H. 8. 20. in those Cases the husband and wife were sued in the right of the wife and yet the husband
Case because it is but one clause the whole grant is void Another difference is Where the distinct clause is repugnant and where not where it is repugnant there it is void and the grant good quia utile per inutile non vitiatur But in our Case as I have said before it is one intire sentence M. 13. or 23 Iac. in this Court Rot. 679. Sympson and Southwells Case the very Case with our Case There was a surrender of a Copy tenant to the use of an Infant in ventre sa mier after the death of the surrenderor and there it was resolved by all the Judges except Dodderidge that the surrender was void First because it was to the use of an Infant in ventre sa mier and Secondly because it was to begin in futuro which is contrary to the rule in Law and Copy-tenants as it was there said ought to be guided by the rules of Law but Dodderidge doubted of it and he agreed the Case at Common Law that a freehold could not commence in futuro but he doubted of a Copyhold and he put the Case of surrender to the use of a Will But he said that Judgment was afterwards given by Coke Chief Justice in the name of all the other Judges that the surrender was void and therefore Quod querens nihil capiat per billam wherefore he concluded that the surrender was void and prayed the Judgment of the Court. Langhams Case 237. LAngham a Citizen and Freeman of London was committed to Newgate by the Court of Aldermen upon which he prayed a Habeas corpus which was granted upon which return was mane First it is set forth by the return that London is an ancient City and Incorporate by the name of Mayor Comminalty and Citizens and that every Freeman of the City ought to be sworn and that a Court of Record had been held time out of mind c. before the Mayor and Aldermen And that there is a custom that if any Freeman be elected Alderman that he ought to take an Oath cujus tenor sequitur in haec verba viz. You shall well serve the King in such a Ward in the Office of Alderman of which you are elected and you shall well intreat the people to keep the Peace and the Laws and Priviledges within and without the City you shall well observe and duly you shall come to the Court of Orphans and Hustings if you be not hindred by Command of the King or any other lawful cause you shall give good counsel to the Mayor you shall not sell Bread Ale Wine or Fish by retail c. Then is set forth a custome that if any person be chosen Alderman he shall be called to the Court and the Oath tendred to him and if he refuse to take it then he shall be committed until he take the Oath Then is set forth that by the Statute of 7 R. 2. all the customs of the City of London are confirmed And lastly is set forth that the 11 of Ian. Langham being a freeman of London and having taken the Oath of a freeman was debito modo electus Alderman of Portsoken-ward and being habilis idoneus was called the first of February to the Court of Aldermen and the Oath tendred to him and that he refused to be sworn in contemptum Curiae contra confuetudines c. wherefore according to the custom aforesaid he was committed by the Court of Aldermen to Newgate until he should take the Oath haec fuit causa c. To this retorn many exceptions were taken Maynard the retorn is insufficient for matter and form for form it is insufficient for the debito modo electus without shewing by whom and how is too general then it is insufficient for the matter for he is imprisoned generally and not until he takes the Oath which utterly takes away the liberty of the subject for by this means he may be imprisoned for ever Besides here is no notice given to him that he was chosen Alderman but they elect him and then tender him the Oath without telling him that he was chosen Alderman and therefore the retorn not good for it ought to be certain to every intent Further the Oath is naught and unreasonable for he ought to forswear his Trade for if he sell Bread Ale Wine or Fish before now he must swear that he shall never sell them by retail after which is hard and unreasonable for perhaps he may be impoverished after and so necessitated to use his Trade or otherwise perish wherefore for these reasons he conceived that the Retorn was insufficient Glynn upon the same side that the Retorn is insufficient and he stood upon the same exceptions before and he conceived that notice ought to be given to him that he was chosen Alderman for this reason because of the penalty which he incurs which is imprisonment and he compared it to the Cases in the 5 Rep. 113. b. 8 Rep. 92. That the feoffâ—e of Land or a Bargain of a reversion by Deed indented and inrolled shall not take advantage of a condition for not payment of Rent reserved upon a lease upon a demand by them without notice given to the lessee for the penalty which insues of forfeiture of his Term. So in our Case he shall not incur the penalty of imprisonment for refusing to be sworn without notice given him that he 〈…〉 chosen Alderman He took another exception to the Oath because he is to swear that he shall observe all Laws and Customs of the said City generally which is not good for that which was lawful before pâ—radventure will not be lawful now for some Customs which were lawful in the time of R. 2. are now superstitious and therefore are not to be kept Further it is to keep all the customs within and without the City which is impossible to do Wherefore for these reasons he conceived the Retorn not to be good and prayed that the prisoner might be discharged Saint-Iohn Sollicitor of the same side The custom to imprison is not good Besides here the imprisonment is general so that he may be imprisoned for ever which is not good and the Statute confirms no customs but such as are good customs I agree that a custom for a Court of Record to fine and for want of payment to imprison may be good because the custom goes only to fine and not to imprisonment the Case of 1 H. 7. 6. of the custom of London for a Constable to enter a house and arrest a Priest and to imprison him for incontinencie comes not to our Case for that is for the keeping of the peace which concerns the Commonwealth as it is said in the Book and therefore may be good but it is not so in our Case A Corporation makes an ordinance and injoyns the observance of it under pain of imprisonment it hath been adjudged that the Ordinance is against the Statute of Magna Charta that Nullus
choose their Church-wardens and they chose two the Parson chose a third The Official of the Bishop gave Oath to one of them chosen by the Parish but refused to swear the other and would have sworn the party chosen by the Parson but the Parish was against it upon which the Parson Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court And a Mandat was here praid That the Official swear the other who was chosen by the Parish and a Prohibition to stay the Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court. Upon the Mandat the Justices doubted and desired that Presidents and Records might be searched and at length upon many Motions Presidents and Records shewed a Mandat was granted But there being Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court bâ— the other whom the Parson chose a Prohibition was granted without any difficulty But at first the Counsel prayed a Prohibition for not swearing the other which the Court refused to grant because there was no proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Court and a Prohibition cannot be granted where there is no proceeding by way of Suit Vaughan against Vaughan in Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit 51. THe Defendant did promise that he would make such a Conveyance of certain Lands and pleaded That he had made it but did not shew the place where it was made And the Court was clear of Opinion that he need not for it shall be intended upon the Land And so in case of performance of Covenants it is not needful to shew the place where c. Norrice and Norrices Case 52. COpy-holder for life where the custome is That if the Tenant die seised that he shall pay a Heriot The Lord granted the Seigniory for 99 years if the Tenant should so long live And after that he made a Lease for 4000 years Tenant for Life is disseised or more properly ousted and died Here were two Questions 1. Whether there were any Heriot to be paid and admitting there were yet who should have it whether the Grantee for 99 years or he who had the 4000 years And the Court was clear of Opinion in both points without any argument 1. That a Heriot was to be paid not withstanding that the Tenant did not die seised because he had the estate in right and might have entred although he had not the possession And Justice Barckley compared it to the Case in C. 3. Rep. 35. a. in Butler and Bakers Case where a man hath one acre of Land holden in Capite and a hundred acres of Socage Land and afterwards he is disseised of the Capite Land and afterwards makes his will of all his Socage Land in that case he is a person having of Capite Land as the Statute speaks And yet that right of Capite Land shall make the devise void for the third part for notwithstanding the disseisin yet he is Tenant in Law And as to the second point the Court was clear of Opinion also That he in remainder or he that had the Estate for 4000 years for note the Action was brought by him in the Remainder for the Heriot should not have it And their reason was because the Tenant for life was not the Tenant of him who had the future interest of 4000 years but of him who had the interest for 99 years But they were not clear of opinion that the Grantee for 99 years should have the Heriot Justice Barckley was that the Grantee for 99 years should have it But Justice Iones there being then none in Court but they haesitavit And the reason of the doubt was because that eo instante that the Tenant died eodem instante the estate of the Grantee for 99 years determineth Justice Iones put this Case A Seigniory is granted for the life of the Tenant the remainder over in fee the Tenant dieth Who shall have the Ward Justice Barckley said he who is Grantee of the particular estate but Iones seemed to doubt it Vide 44 E. 3. 13. Lewes against Jones in a Writ of Error 53. JUdgment was given for Iones against Lewes in an Action brought in the Common Pleas And Lewes here brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error That he was an infant at the time of the Action brought against him And that he appeared by Attorney whereas he ought to appear by Guardian or procheine amy The defendant pleaded in avoidance of this Writ of Error That there was no Warrant of Attorney The Plaintiff allegando shewed the Error before And the Defendant pleaded in nullo erratum est And the Judgment was reversed But the Opinion of the Court was That the better way had been for the Plaintiff to have demurred in Law for there being no warrant of Attorney there was no appearance at all and so are the Books 38 E. 3. and 14 E. 4. 54. In Vtburt and Parhams Case it was agreed That a man may be Non-suit without leave of the Court but he cannot discontinue his Suit without consent of the Court. Davis and Bellamies Case in Attaint 55. THe Defendant brought Attaint and the Verdict was affirmed and Costs prayed upon this Rule that where the Plaintiff shall have costs there the Defendant shall have costs But they were denied by the Court for that ought to be taken in the original Action and not in case of Attaint But upon the restituatur there costs shall be given but that is in the original Action 56. If two joynt-tenants be of a Rectory and one sueth for Tithes by himself only it is nâ— cause of Prohibition So if a Feme Covert sue solely upon a desamation a Prohibition shall not be granted 57. The Sheriff of a County made a Warrant Balâ—ivis suis to arrest the body of such a man and the Bayliffs of the Liberâ—y return a Rescous And Exception was taken to it because that the Warrant was Ballivis suis and the Return was made by those who were not his Bayliffs and it was adjudged for the Liberty might be within his Bayliwick and so are all the Presidents And there was another Exception because the place of the Rescous was not shewed and for that the Book of 10 E. 4. was cited for there the Rescous was adtunc ibidem and did not shew the place To that it was answered by the Court and agreed that adtunc ibidem is altogether incertain if the place be not shewed but in the principal Case the place was shewed at the first and always after that tunc ibidem only without naming of the place and adjudgâ—d good For that tunc ibidem throughout the Declaration hath reference to the place first shewed and it was adjudged good 58. Outlawry was reversed for this Error because that the Exigent was Secund exactus ad Com' meum ibidem c. 59. A Hundred may prescribe in Non decimando and it is good for it is the custome of the County which is the best Law which ever was But a Parish or a particular Town cannot prescribe in Non decimando And
Common Law there notwithstanding he shall recover costs also So in our Case these being Acts of Creation which give remedy where there was no remedy before shall be taken strictly according to the Letter and shall not extend to such penalties as in our case And upon this difference he cited the Cases in Pilfords case and especially the Case upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. of Ingrossers the Plaintiff shall not recover costs but only the penalty given by the Statute grounded upon 37 H. 6. 10. I agree That there be many Presidents in the Common 〈◊〉 That damages have been allowed in our very Case but that is the use of the Clerks and passed sub silentio without any solemn debate or controversie Vide Greislies case and the first Case of the Book of Entries Presidents and Judgments in this Court Pasch. 33 Eliz. Rot. 292. Halesworth against Chaffely A Judgment of the Common Pleas was reversed for this very point M. 36 Eliz. Ruddal and Wilds Case M. 44 45 Eliz. Rot. 22. Shepwiths Case Avowry for relief a stronger case Judgment was reversed because damages was assessed Hill 14 Iac. Rot. 471. Leader against Standwell in a Replevin Avowry was made for an Amercement in a Leet and found â—or the Dâ—fendant and damages assessed But the Entry upon the Record was thus Super quo nullo habito respectu c. The Plaintiff was discharged of the damages because nulla damna debent esse adjudicanda per Legem terrae but he shall have his costs But it was objected by Justice Crook That by the Statute of 4 Iac. c. 3. which giveth costs and damages to the Defendant in certain Actions there specified where the Plaintiff shall recover damages and that where the Plaintiff is Non-suit or verdict pass against him That Demurrer hath been construed to be within that Statute Notwithstanding that it is an Act of Creation I agree that and answer that Demurrer is within that Statute and the mischief of it but it is not so in our Case for in our Case there is no such mischief For there is no colour to extend it beyond the words of the Statute For which cause I conclude that the Judgment in this case ought to be reversed 65. A Clerk of the Court dwelling in London was chosen Churchwarden and prayed a Writ of Priviledge which was granted And it was agreed by the whole Court That for all Offices which require his personal and continual attendance as Churchwarden Constable and the like he may have his Priviledge but for Offices which may be executed by Deputy and do not require attendance as Recorder and the like from which the Justices themselves shall not be exempt for them he shall not have his Priviledge And where he hath his Priviledge for the not obeying thereof an Attachment lieth Swift against Heirs in Debt upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for setting out of Tythes 66. THe doubt in this Case did arise upon two several Indentures found by special verdict which were made by the Vicar and Subchauntors Corrols of Lichfield one 2 E. 6. the other 2 3 Phil. Mar. The Question upon the Indenture of 2 E. 6. was Whether the Grant upon the Habendum be a grant of a Freehold to begin at a day to come or not The chief Justice Justice Crooke and Justice Barckley were clear of Opinion That it was a grant of a Freehold to begin at a day to come And for that the Case is thus In the Indenture of 2 E. 6. there is a recital of a former Lease for years And by this Indenture in 2 E. 6. another Lease was to begin after the first Lease determined the remainder in Fee to another And upon that the three Justices before were clear in their Judgments That it was a Grant of Freehold to begin at a day to come which without doubt is void 8 H. 7. 39 H. 6. and Bucklers case 3 Rep. And in 8 H. 7. the difference is taken betwixt the grant of a Rent in esse and Rent de novo A Rent de novo may be granted in futuro but not a Rent which is in being But Justice Iones in this Case was of Opinion That here is not any grant of a Freehold to begin at a day to come because in this case the Lease doth begin presently because the Lease recited is not found by the Jury and therefore now it is all one as if there had been no Lease at all contrary in the case of the King because it passeth a good estate of Inheritance to the Grantee And therefore if I make a Lease for years unto a man after the expiration of such a Lease where in truth there is no such Lease in being the Lease shall begin presently The Question upon the Indenture of 2 3 P. Mar. was no more but this The Vicar and Subchauntors of Lichfield made a Grant of all their Tithes in Chesterton and name them in certain and in specie as Tithe-wool Tithe Geese Pigs Swans and the like and that in a distinct clause with especial Exception of four certain things After which came this clause All which were in the Tenure of Margaret Pâ—toe And the Jury sound that none of these Tithes were in hâ—r Tenure And whether that Grant were void or not was the Question And resolved by the whole Court nullo contradicente That the Grant notwithstanding this fallâ— reciâ—al was good For these reasons But first it was resolved That where they grant all their Tithes in Chesterton that it is a good grant and hath sufficient and convenient certainty 13 E. 4. and â—â—â—lands Case There are two Generalities 1. Absolute 2. Genâ—â—al in particular â—o here And in our Case it is as câ—râ—ain that demand in an Action may be for them by the name of all their Tithes in Chesterton So in the like manner an Action of Ejectione firme will lie For an Ejectione firme will 〈◊〉 for Tithes as it hath been adjudged here If the King grant all his Lands it is altogether incertain and void but if the King grant all his Lands in Dale or which came to him by the dissolution of such an Abby it is good because it is a generalâ—y in particular And it was agreed that convenient certainty is sufficient And therefore it was said by Justice Iones That if I grant all my Rents in Dale which I have of the part of my Mother that he conceives the same to be good The first reason wherefore this grant shall be good notwithstanding the false recital was this because the words here All which c. are not words of denotation or restriction but of suggestion or affirmation and therefore shall not make void the Grant And here the difference was taken between the Case of a common person and of the King Suggestion which is false in the Case of the King makes the Patent void but contrary in the case of a common person And
therefore iâ— the King be deceived either in point of profit or in point of Title his Grant is void 9 H. 6. Where he is not deceived in point of profit he shall not avoid the Grant 26 H. 8. The second reason That a Deed ought to be construed Vt res magis valeat quam pereat 34 H. 6. A man having a Reversion deviseth his land in Manibus thereby the Reversion passeth 9 E 4. 42. Release of all Actions against Prior and Covent shall be construed and intended all Actions against the Prior only for an Action cannot be brought against the Covent Farther by this construction you would avoid this deed and by the Rule of Law the deed and words of every man shall be taken very strong against himself ut res magis valeat as is said before And it is against reason to conceive that it was the meaning of the parties that nothing should pass A third reason was because the grant was a distinct clause of it self And the words which were objected at the Bar to be restrictive were in another distinct clause and therefore shall not restrain that which was before for words restrictive ought to be continued in one and the same sentence Wherefore they having granted all their Tithes in Chesterton by one clause the false recital afterwards in another clause shall not make the grant void See 3 4 Eliz. Dyer in Wast 31 Eliz. the Lord Wenworths Case in the Exchequer upon this Rule of distinct clauses And Atkins and Longs case in the Common Pleas upon which cases Justice Iones did rely The fourth reason was That construction ought to be made upon the whole Deed And it appeareth by the context of the Deed That it was the meaning of the parties to grant the Tithes by the Deed. Further the Exception of the four things sheweth That it was the meaning of the parties to grant all things not excepted as the Tithes in this Case For exceptio firmat Regulam And to what purpose should the Exception be if they did not intend to pass all other things not excepted See 4 Car. Hâ—skins and Trâ—ncars Case Sir Robert Napwiths Case 21 Iac. cited by the chief Jâ—â—tice to that purpose Wherefore it was agreed by the whole Court that Judgment should be given for the Defendant And the Opinion of the Court was clear also That although some of the Tithes had been in the Tenure of Margaret Petâ—e that yet the grant was good And that was after Argument upon the Demurrer to avoid all scruples to be after made by Counsel because it was conceived That some of the Tithes were in her Tenure Crisp against Prat in Ejectione firme 67. THe Case upon the four Statutes of Bankrupts viz. 34 H. 8. 13 Eliz. 1 Iac. and 21 Iac. was thus Ralph Brisco 9 Iac. purchased Copyhold to him and his Son for their lives the Remainder to the Wife in Fee 11 Iac. he became an Inholder and about twelve years after a Commission of Bankrupt is obtained against him And thereupon the Copyhold-land is sold by the Commissioners to the Defendant Ralph Brisco dieth and his Son Iohn Brisco entred and made the Lease to the Plaintiff The Defendant entred upon him and he brought an Ejectione firme And Judgment was given upon solemn argument by the Justices for the Plaintiff The first point was Whether an Inholder be a Bankrupt within these Statutes And it was resolved by all the Justices viz. Iones Crook Barckley and Bramstone chief Justice that an Inholder quatenus an Inholder is not within these Statutes Justice Barckley and Justice Iones one grounded upon the special Verdict the other upon the Statutes did conceive That an Inholder in some cases might be within these Statutes Justice Barckley did conceive upon this special Verdict that this Inholder was within them because it is â—ound That he got his living by buying and selling and using the Trade of an Inholder And he conceived upon these words Buying and selling in the verdict and getting his living thereby although that the Jury have also found him an Inholder that the same is within the Law And he agreed That he who liveth by buying or selling and not by both is not within the Law but in our case the Jury have found both And it hath been adjudged That he who buys and sells cattle and stocks his ground with them that he may be a Bankrupt within those Statutes I agree that a Scrivener was not within 13 Eliz. for he doth not live by buying and selling but by making use of the monies of other men but now he is within 21 Iac. But in our case the Inholder buys his grass hay and grains and provision also for his Guests and by selling of them he lives But he agreed That if the Jury had found that he was an Inholder only and not that he did get his living by buying and selling that in that case he was out of the Law And for these reasons he did conceive That this Inholder as by the special Verdict is found was within the Statutes of 13 Eliz. and 21 Iacobi Justice Iones An Inholder may be or not be within these Laws upon this difference That Inholder who gets his living meerly by buying and selling as many of the Inholders here in London do they are within these Statutes But those who have Lands of their own and have hay and grain and all their provisions of their own as many have in the Country those are not within the Statutes Farther he said That buying and selling doth not make men within these Statutes for then all men should be within the Statutes but they ought to be meant of them who gain the greatest part of their living thereby and live chiefly or absolutely thereby But Bramston chief Justice and Justice Crook were clear of Opinion that an Inholder could not be a Bankrupt neither by the Statutes nor according as it is found by the special Verdict And their reason was because that an Inholder doth not live by buying and selling for he doth not sell any thing but utter it He which sells any thing doth it by way of contract but an Inholder doth not contract with his Guests but provides for them and cannot take unreasonable rates as he who sells may and if he doth he may be Indicted of Extortion which the seller cannot Wherefore they concluded that an Inholder is not within the Statute of 13 Eliz. 1 Iac. Justice Crook remembred these Cases Webb an Inholder of Vxbridge brewed in his house and sold his Beer to his Guests And it was adjudged in the Exchequer that it was not within the Statute of Brewers And Bedells Case who being a Farmer bought and sold cattle and adjudged that he was not a Bankrupt within these Statutes And he put thâ—se cases upon this reason That where the Statutes said Get their living by buying and selling that it ought to bâ—â—or the greater part that they gain
the Actions brought by the other Creditors But Justice Bramston contrà That the damages were well assessed because that the Actions brought by the Creditors were added for aggravation only and the cause of the Action was the Arrest and Imprisonment like the case where a man speaks words which are in part actionable and others only put in for aggravation and damages is assessed for the whole it is good There was a third Error assigned That the Venire facias was de Warda omnium Sanctorum de Bristow without shewing in what Parish Childe against Greenhil 77. CHilde brought Trespass against Greenhill for Fishing in seperali piscaria of the Plaintiff and declared that the Defendant pisces ipsius cepit c. And Verdict found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Saint-Iohn in Arrest of Judgement because the Plaintiff declared of taking of pisces suos whereas the Plaintiff they being ferae naturae hath not property in them Register 94 95. and F. N. B. and Book Entries 666. No count that the Defendant cepit pisces ipsiuâ— but ad valentiam c. without ipsius So Fines Case in Dyer 7 H. 6. 36. 10 H. 7. 6. 12 H. 8. 10. by Brudnell 13 E. 4. 24. 7 Rep. case of Swannes And the Book of 22 H. 6. 59. is over-ruled by the case of Swannes 34 H. 6. 24. And the same is matter of substance and therefore not helped after Verdict An Action of Trover and Conversion against husband and wife quia converterunt is not good and it is not helped after Verdict because it is matter of substance Rolls for the Defendant I agree that lepores suos or pisces suos without any more is not good But where he brings an Action of Trespass for taking them in his Soil there it is good because it is within his Soil So in our case for taking pisces suos in his several Piscary and with this difference agree 22 H. 6. 59. 43 E. 3. 24. so Regist. 93 102. 23 H. 6. tit Tresp 59. 14 H. 8. 1. and the Book of 43 E. 3. saith That in Trespass the Writ shall not say Damam suam if he do not say that it was taken in his Park or Warren or saith damam domitam or as the Book is in 22 H. 6. in my Soil or Land and by Newton he shall say there damas suis. And admit that it was not good yet I hold that it is helped after Verdict because it is not matter of Substance for whether they be pisces suos or not the Plaintiff shall recover damages Justice Barckly It is true that in a general sense they cannot be said pisces ipsius but in a particular sense they may and a man may have a special or qualified property in things which are ferae naturae three ways ratione infirmitatis ratione loci ratione privilegii and in our case the Plaintiff â—ath them by reason of Priviledge And it was agreed by the whole Court That Judgment should be affirmed upon the very difference taken by Rolls that where a man brings Trespass for taking pisces suos or lepores suos c. and the like that the Action will not lie But if he bring Trespass for fishing in his several Piscary as in our Case or for breaking of his Close and taking lepores suos c. there it will lie Pitfield against Pearce 78. IN an Ejectione firme the Case was thus Thomas Pearce the Father was seised of Lands in Fee and by Deed in consideration of Marriage did give and grant this Land to Iohn Pearce the now Defendant his second Son and to his Heirs after his death and no Livery was made Thomas Pearce died the Eldest Son entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiff who entred and upon Ejectment by the Defendant brought an Ejectione firme Twisden The only question is whether any estate passeth to the Son by the Deed and it was said there did and that by way of Covenant And it was agreed That in this Case if Livery had been made it had been void because that a Freehold cannot begin at a day to come But I may Covenant to stand seised to the use of my Son after my death So a man may surrender a Copyhold to take effect after a day to come Com. 301. So a man may bargain and sell at a day to come 1 Mar. Dyer 96. Chudleighs Case 129. 20 H. 6. 10. A use is but a trust betwixt the parties and 7 Rep. 400. There need not express words of Covenant to stand seised to an use 25 Eliz. Blithman and Blithmans case 8 Rep. 94. Besides these words dedi concessi are general words and therefore may comprehend Covenant and words shall be construed that the Deed may stand if it may be 8 Ass. 34. 7 E. 3. 9. But I agree that if the intent appeareth that it shall pass by transmutation of possession that there it shall be so taken but here his intent doth not appear to be so for if there should be Livery then the son should take nothing for the reason before given which is against his meaning Mich. 21 Iac. Rot. 2220. Buckler and Simons Case Dyer 202. Vinions case The cases cited before are in the future tense but the words are here I give c. 36 Eliz. Callard and Callards Case Stand forth Eustace reserving an estate to my self and my wife I do give thee my Land and the better Opinion was That in that case it did amount to a Livery being upon the Land for his intent is apparent Mich. 41 42 Eliz. Trelfe and Popwells Case adjudged in such case That an use shall be raised For which it was concluded that in this case there is a good estate raised to Iohn Pearce by way of Covenant Rolls I conceive that not estate is raised to Iohn Pearce by this conveyance It was objected That it shall inure by way of Covenant to raise an use I agree that if the meaning of the party may appear that he intended to pass his estate by way of raising of an use otherwise not And here is no such appearance Foxes Case in 8 Rep. is a stronger case and here it doth not appear that he meant to pass it by way of use But by the word give he intended transmutation of possession 8 Rep. Bedells case Mich. 18. Car. Rot. 2220. in the Common Pleas it was adjudged That a gift of a Remainder after the death of the grantor was void wherefore he concluded for the Plaintiff and so Judgment was given by the whole Court And Justice Iones said When a man makes a doubtful Conveyance it shall be intended a Conveyance at the Common Law And it shall not be intended that the Father would make him Tenant for life only punishable of wast Mich. 15º Car ' in the Kings Bench. 79. IT was moved for a Prohibition to the Counsel of the Marches and the Case was such A man seised of Lands in Fee
made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life the remainder in tail to I. S. He in the remainder Levied a Fine And the Counsel of the Marches upon a surmise That the Tenant for life died seised according to their Instructions would settle the possession upon the heir of Tenant for life against the Conusee For their Instructions were made That where a man had the possession by the space of three years that the same should be settled upon him until trial at Law were had But the whole Court was against it because it doth appear that he had but an estate for life and so the possession appertained to him in the remainder And here it was said by Justice Barckley that their Opinion hath been That the possession of Tenant for life should be the possession of him in the Remainder as to this purpose Note that the Principal case here was although the Case before put was also agreed for Law thus Tenant in Tail levied a Fine to the use of himself for Life the remainder in Fee to I. S. and died In that Case the Council in the Marches would settle the possession upon the heir of Tenant in tail against the Purchaser who held in by the Fine which had bar'd the estate tail by which the Issue claimed and the whole Court was against it for which cause a Prohibition was granted 80. Habeas corpora was directed to the Porter of Ludlore to bring the bodies of Iohn Shielde and William Shielde into the Kings Bench the case shortly as appears upon the retorn was this Powell the Father brought a Bill in the nature of an Information against the said Iohn and William Shield before the Council of the Marches in Wales for an unlawful Practice Combination and Procurement of a clandestine Marriage in the night betwixt Mary Shield a Maid-servant and the Son of Powell who was a Gentleman of good credit and worth the Parson also being Drunk as he himself sware and the same also being without Banes or Licence for which offence they were severally Fined to the King and an hundred Marks damages given to the Plaintiff and farther ordered by the Council that they should be imprisoned till they paid their several fines to the King and damages to the Party and found Sureties to be bound in Recognisance for their good behaviour for one year and till they knew the farther Order of the Council and these were the causes which were retorned And upon this retorn Glynn who was of Counsel with the Prisoners moved many things and many of them as was conceived by the Court altogether impertinent But the Objections which were pertinent were these First That the Councel of the Marches as this case is have no Jurisdiction because the clandestine Marriage is a thing meerly Spiritual and therefore not within their instructions The second was That they have exceeded their Instructions in that they have given damages to the party above fifty pounds For by their Instructions they ought not to hold Plea where the Principal or Damages exceed fifty pounds But as to the first he said there may be this Objection That they did not punish them for the clandeâ—â—inâ— Marriagâ— which in truth is a thing meerly Spiritual but for the unlawful Practise and Combination and for the execution of it To which he answered That they have not Juristiction of the Principal and therefore not of the Accessory here note that it was afterwards said by Bramston Chief Justice That the unlawful Practise and Combination was the Principal and the clandestine Marriage but the Accessory which was not contradicted by any Farther it was objected by Glynn That they were Imprisoned for the damages of the Plaintiff and it doth not appear whether it was at the Prayer of the Party as he ought by the Law Bankes the Kings Atturny-General contrary And as to the first Their Instructions give them power to hold Plea of unlawful Practises and Assemblies And this is an unlawful Practise and Assembly and therefore within their Instructions And although that Heresie and clandestine Marriage and such offences per se are not within their Instructions yet being clad with such unlawful circumstances and practises they are punishable by them As to the second he said The Instruction which restraineth them that they do not hold Plea above fifty pounds is only in civil Actions at the several suit of the party But there is another Instruction which gives them power where the cause is criminal to assess damages according to the quality of the Offence and at their discretions As to the third Objection he said That the Retorn being that they were in execution for the damages it ought to be meant at the Prayer of the Party otherwise it could not be For which causes he prayed thâ—â— the Prisoners might be remanded And the whole Court Crooke being absent were clear upon this Retorn That they should be remanded because it appeareth that their Fines to the King were not payed And therefore although that the other matters had been adjudged for them yet they ought to be remanded for that one And as to the Objections which were made the Court agreed with Mr. Attorney except in the point of Damages and for the same reasons given by him But as to the point of the Damages whether they have gone beyond their Instructions and so exceeded their power in giving above fifty pounds damages or not It seemed to the Court they had and as it seemed to them if the Retorn had been That the Kings Fines were paid it would have been hard to maintain that the assessing above fifty pounds damages was not out of their Instructions but because the Kings Fines were not paid they were Remanded without respect had thereunto for the reasons given before 81. It was said by the Court That when Judgment is given in this Court against another and Execution upon it and the Sheriff levieth the mony the Lord Keeper cannot order that the mony shall stay in the Sheriffs hands or order that the Plaintiff shall not call for it for notwithstanding such Order he may call for it And it was farther said by the Court That an Attachment shall not be granted against the High Sheriff for the contempt of his Bayliffs And a Writ of Error is a Supersedeas to an Execution but then there ought to be notice given to the Sheriff otherwise if he notwithstanding serve the Execution he shall not run in contempt for which an Attachment shall be granted 82. Serjeant Callis came into Court and moved this case Chapman against Chapman in Trespass done in Lands within the Dutchy of Cornwal which were Borough-English where the custome was that if there were an estate in Fee in those Lands that they should go to the younger Son according tthe custome but if in Tail the should descend to the Heir at Common Law And it was moved by him that the custom was not good because it cannot
be at one time customary and go according to the custom and at another guildable And the whole Court Crooke only being absent were against him that the custom was good Hicks against Webbe 83. IN Trespass for a way the Defendant did justifie and said that he had a way not only ire equitare averia sua fugare but also carrucis carreragiis carriare The Plaintiff traversed it absque hoc that he had a way not only ire equitare c. in the words aforesaid and thereupon they were at issue and found for the Plaintiff Glynn moved in arrest of Judgment that the Issue was ill joyned because it was not a direct affirmative but by inducement only And the whole Court was against him And Justice Iones said That if I say that not only Mr. Glynn hath been at such a place but also Mr. Iones without doubt it is a good affirmative that both have been there But they all agreed that the pleading was more elegant than formal 84. In the Case betwixt Brooke and Boothe Justice Barckley said that it is a Rule That if there be two things alledged and one of necessity ought to be alledged and he relies on-only upon the other it is no double Plea As if a man plead a Feoffment with Warranty and relieth upon the Warranty it is not double 85. Justice Barckley said That the Court of the Exchequer they may make a Lease for three Lives by the Exchequer-Seal Clarke against Spurden 86. IN a Writ of Error to reverse a Judgment given in the Court of Common Pleas the case was shortly thus A. wife of I.S. intestate promiseth to B. to whom Adnistration was committed that if he shall relinquish the Administration at the request of C. and suffer A. to Administer that A. will discharge B. of two Bonds In Assumpsit brought by B. in the common Pleas he alledged that he did renounce Administration and suffered A. to Administer and that A. had not discharged him of the two Bonds And it was found for the Plaintiff And thereupon Error was brought because B. doth not shew that he did renounce the Administration at the request of C. And Rolls for the Plaintiff in the writ of Error did assign the same for Error Justice Barckley all the other Justices being absent held that it was Error for consideration is a thing meritorious and all ought to be performed as well the request on the part of C. as the permission of the part of B. which ought to be shewed For perhaps B. was compelled to relinquish it in the Ecclesiastical Court as it might be for of right the wife ought to Administer And therefore it ought to have been averred that it was at the request of C. And therefore if it had been that he should renounce at the charge of C. it ought to be averred that it was at the charge of C. And it was adjourned 87. A man Libelled in the Spiritual Court for Tithes for barren cattle and it was moved for a Prohibition upon this suggestion viz. That he had not other cattle than those which he bred for the Plough and Pale and thereupon Barckley being alone there granted a Prohibition And the same Parson also Libelled for Tithes of Conies and for that also he granted a Prohibition for they are not Titheable if not by custome And here Barckley said That if Land be Titheable and the Tenant doth not plough it and manure it yet the Parson may sue for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court North against Musgrave 88. IN Debt upon the Statute of 1 2 Phil. Mar. c. 12. the words of which Statute are That no man shall take for keeping in pound impounding or poundage of any manner of distress above the sum of four pence upon pain of forfeiture of five pounds to be paid to the party grieved And the Plaintiff shewed that his Cattle were distreyned and impounded and that the Defendant took of him ten pence for the poundage And thereupon the Plaintiff brought an Action for the penalty of five pounds and found for the Plaintiff And the Judgment was That he should recover the five pounds and damages ultra praeter the mony taken for the poundage And thereupon a Writ of Error was brought and three things assigned for Error First because the Action was brought for the penalty of five pounds only and not for the six pence which was taken above the allowance of the Statute which ought not to be divided Which was answered by Justice Barckley all the other Justices being absent That notwithstanding it is good for true it is that he cannot bring his Action for fifty shillings part of the penalty because it is entire but here are two several penalties and he may divide and disjoyn them if he will or he may wave the six pence For quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se introducto The second was That he doth not demand that which is ultra praeter the four pence given by the Statute and yet the Judgment is given for that which is not good To which Justice Barckley said That the Judgment was good For no judgment is given for that which is ultra praeter the four pence but only for the four pounds because he doth not demand it And we cannot judge the Judgment to be erroneous by Implication The third Objection was That Costs and Damages are given which ought not to be upon a penal Law For he ought not to have more than the Statute giveth and therefore upon the Statute of Perjury no Costs are given so upon the Statute of Gloucester of Wast the Plaintiff shall recover no more than the treble value But Rolls who was on the contrary said That there are many presidents in the common Pleas that Damages have been given upon this Statute But Barckley and Iones who afterwards came and seemed to agree with Justice Barckley in the whole was against it That no Damages ought to be given and desired that the Presidents might be viewed But here Rolls offered this difference Where the penalty given by the Statute is certain as here upon which he may bring Debt there he shall recover Damages but where the penalty is uncertain as upon the Statute of Gloucester for treble damages the Statute which giveth the treble value and the like there because it is incertain he shall have no more Barckley asked Mr. Hoddesdon If the Informer should recover Damages And he and Keeling Clerk of the Crown answered No but said Damages should be given against him and it was adjourned 89. Skinner Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for thâ— Tithes of Roots of a Coppice rooted up And Porter prayed Prohibition And it was said by Iones and Barckley Justiceâ—â— no other Justice being present That if cause were not shewed before such a day that a Prohibition should be awarded because it is ad exheredationem and utter destruction of 〈◊〉 And the Opinion was that the
doubted thereof and did conceive that no costs should be given in this case and that upon Pilfords case 10 Rep. As to the Presidents he said that they did not bind him for perhaps they passed sub silentio And afterwards it was adjorned Johnson against Dyer 96. IN an Action upon the Case for words the Defendant having speech with the Father of the Plaintiff said to him I will take my Oath that your Son stole my Hens For which words the Plaintiff brought the Action But did not aver that he was his Son or that he had but one Son And it was holden by the whole Court Crooke being absent that the plea was not good Leake and Dawes Case 97. LEake brought a Scire facias in the Chancery against Dawes to avoid a Statute and the Case as it was moved by Serjeant Wilde was such Hopton acknowledged a Statute to Dawes and afterwards conveyed part of the Land liable to the Statute to I. S. who conveyed the same to Leake the plaintiff and afterwards the Conusor conveyed other part of the Land to Dawes the Defendant who was the Conusee by bargain and sale the Conusee extended the Lands of Leake the Purchaser who thereupon brought this Scire facias to avoid the Statute because that the Conusee had purchased parcel of the Land liable to the Statute and so exâ—inguished his Statute And this case came by Mittimus into the Kings Bench. And here it was moved by Serjeant Wilde for Dawes the Defendant in arrest of Judgment And taken by him for Exceâ—â—ion That the bargain and sale is alledged to be made to Dawes but it is not shewed that it was by Deed inrolled but yet it is pleaded That Virtute cujus viz. of Bargain and Sale the Conusee was seised and doth not shew that he entred And here it was said by the Court There are two points First Whether an Inrolment shall be intended without pleading of it Secondly Admitting not what Estate the Bargaineâ— hath as this Case is As to the first Justice Iones took this difference Where a man pleads a bargain and sale to a stranger and where to himself In the first case he need not plead an Inrolment but contrary in 〈…〉 Barckley agreed it and took another difference betwixt a Plea in Bar and a Count In a Count if a man pâ—â—ad a grant of a Reversion without attorâ—ment it is good contrary in Bar so in this Case The second question is admitting that the Deed shall be intended not to be inrolled without pleading What estate Dawes the Conusee hath before Entry the Deed not being inrolled For it was agreed by the whole Court That if he be a disseior or if he hath but an estate at will that the Statute is suspended And first whether he hath an estate at will at the common Law or not without Entry Barckley that he had But Iones and Bramston contrary and it seemed that he had an estate at will by the Statute And put the case of feoffment in Bucklers case 3. Rep. Where the Feoffee entreth before Livery that he hath an estate at will and Barckley agreed therein with him for the possibility of inrolment But Iones conceived that an estate at will could not be executed by the Statute And it was adjorned Curtisse against Aleway 98. THe Case was thus A woman was dowable of certain Land within the Jurisdiction of the Council of the Marches of which I. S. died seised She accepted a Rent by parol of the Heir out of the same Land in satisfaction of her Dower And afterwards there was a Composition betwixt them for defalcation of that Rent Afterwards there was an Action brought before the Council of the Marches for the Arrerages of the Rent where the question was Whether the Rent were in satisfaction of her Doweâ— or not and it was moved by Moreton for a Prohibition And it was granted by the Court because the same did concern Freehold of which they have not Jurisdiction for by the express Proviso of the Statute of 34 H. 8. of holding of plea of Lands Tenements Hereditaments or Rents But because that it appeared by the Bill that the woman was dead so as the realty was turned into the personalty viz. into Debt And therefore it was conceived by Evers Attorney of the Marches That although it was not within the Jurisdiction before yet being now turned into a personal Action that they have Jurisdiction But Iones and Barckley Justices were of a contrary Opinion and Iones said That an Action of Debt for Arrerages would not lie before them because it touched the realty which was denied by none but Evers Attorny Edwards against Omellhallum 99. IN a Writ of Error to reverse a Judgment given in Ireland in an Ejectione firme the Case was this as it was found by special verdict A Mortgager made a Lease for years by Deed indented and afterwards performed the Condition and made a Feoffment in Fee the Lessee entred upon the Feoffee who re-entred and the Lessee brought an Ejectione firme And the only question as it was moved by Glynn was Whether this Lease which did inure by way of Estople should binde the Feoffee or no and by him it did and Rawlyns case in the 4 Rep. 53. expresly and 1 2 Phil. Mar. Dyer agreeth And the whole Court Crooke only absent without any argument were clear That it should binde the Feoffee for all who claim under the Estople shall be bound thereby vid. Edriches case 13 H. 7. 100 Serjeant Iermayn came into the Court and shewed cause why a Prohibition should not be granted in the case of Skinner before who Libelled for Tythes of Coppice rooted up He agreed that for timber-trees above the growth of twenty no Tithes should be paid and so he said was the common Law before the Statute of 45 E. 3. which was but a confirmation of the Common Law And he said That as the body of the tree is priviledged so are the branches and root also which is a proof that where the body is not priviledged there neither shall be the root â—or branches And in our Case he Libels for roots of underwoods and the underwood it self being titheable therefore the roots shall be also tithable And he said that the 〈…〉 are not parcel of the Land But Justice Barckley was against it for they are not crescentia nor renovantia as Tithes ought to be and therefore no Tithes ought to be paid for them and he said that a Prohibition hath many times been granted in the like cases But Dr. Skinner did alledge a custome for the payment of Tithes of them And upon that they were to go to trial And here it was said that Dr. Skinner had used to have some special particular benefit of the Parishioners in lieu of Tithe of Roots And thereupon Barckley said That it is a Rule where the Parishioner doth any thing which he is not compellable by the Law to do
which cometh to the benefit of the Parson there if he demand Tithes of the thing in lieu whereof this is done that a Prohibition shall be granted And there is another rule That Custom may make that titheable which of it self is not titheable And here he said to Dr. Skinner being then in Court That he had two matters to help him and if any of them be found for him that a Prohibition ought not to be awarded 101. Justice Barckley said That if a man be living at the day of Nisi prius and dieth before the day in Banck the Writ shall not abate So if a man be living the first day of the â—â—rliament and dieth before the last day yet he may be Attainted and the reason is because in the eye and judgment of Law they are but one day by relation which the Law makes 102. There were three Brothers the Eldest took Administration of the goods of the Father and after Debts and Legacies paid the younger Brothers sued the eldest in the Ecclesiastical Court to compel him to distribute the Estate And thereupon a Prohibition was prayed and denied by the Court for they having Jurisdiction of the Principal may have Jurisdiction of the Accessary 103. A. Libelled against B. in the Spiritual Court for these words Thou art a Drunkard and usest to be Drunk thrice a week And upon that 150 Caroli in Easter-Term as you may see before a Prohibition was prayed and granted And now Littleton the Kings Sollicitor came in Court and moved for a Consultation and he said that the Statute of Articuli Cleri gave power unto the Ecclesiastical Court to have conusance of those and the like words Register 49 F. N. B. 51. They may hold plea for defamation as for calling Adulterer or Usurer 13 H. 7. Kellaway 27 H. 8. 14. And he cited many Judgments in the like cases where Prohibitions had not been granted and amongst others this Case Mich. 20 Iac. inter Lewis Whitton Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for calling him Pander and no prohibition granted And the like Case was for calling another Pimp and no Prohibition granted Justice Iones That a Prohibition should be granted for they have conusance of defamation for any thing which is meerly Spiritual or which doth concern it where they have conusance of the principal else not as in Heresie Adultery and the like but in this Case they have not Conusance of the principal True it is that it is peccatum But if they should punish every thing which is Sin they would altogether derogate and destroy the Temporal Jurisdiction And therefore if I say that another is an Idle man or envious these are deadly Sins and yet they have not Conusance of them And he cited Coltrops Case adjudged in the Common pleas which was our very Case in point and there he said that upon solemn debate it was adjudged That a Prohibition should be awarded Bramston Chief Justice agreed Barckley contrary That a Consultation should be awarded and he said in many Cases although they have Jurisdiction of the principal yet they shall not have Conusance as in the Case of 22 E. 4. tit ' Consultation But he said that the Offence of Drunkenness is mixt and is an offence against the Spiritual and Common Law also and if it be mixt both may hold plea and Adultery and Murder are the common effects of Drunkenness which are offences against both Laws and therefore he shall be punished by both But yet Barckley yielded to the Judgment cited by Iones And therefore the whole Court Crooke being absent was That a prohibition should be awarded 104. Rolls moved this Case The Parishioners of a certain Parish in Devonshire did alledge a Custom to chuse the two Churchwardens of the Parish and they did so the Parson chose another and the Archdeacon swore one of the Church-wardens chosen by the Parish and refused to swear the other but would have sworn him who was chosen by the Parson And because they did refuse him they were Excommunicate Rolls prayed a Mandat to the Archdeacon to compel him to swear the other chosen by the Parish and a Prohibition also by reason of the Excommunication And he cited a preeedent for it which was the case of Sutton-Valence in Kent And the whole Court Crooke being absent inclined to grant them for they said they conceived no difference betwixt London and the Country as to that purpose for as in London they are a Corporation and may take Land for the benefit of the Church So throughout England they are a Corporation and capable to take and purchase Goods for the benefit of the Church And therefore they did conceive there was no difference See the case before the case of the Parish of Saint Ethelborough London 105. Keeling moved to quash an Indictment of Rescous because it is shewed that the Rescous was at W. and doth not shew that W. was within this County and if it was not within the County then it was an Escape and no Rescous And we cannot aver in this case that it was out of the County Farther it was not shewed where the Rescous was so that upon the matter it is no Arrest nor was the Indictment vi armis as it ought to be As to the first the Court strongly inclined that they might well intend it to be within the County because the Indictment says in Com. meo apud W. tent But for the other Exceptions the Indictment was quashed 106. In Trespass of Assault and Battery and Wounding the Defendant pleaded Not Guilty as to the Wounding and pleaded special matter of justification as to the Assault and Battery and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in arrest of Judgment That the plea was repugnant for Assault and Battery doth imply Wounding and therefore it is repugnant for him to justifie it for it is a confession of wounding But Justice Crooke and Justice Barckley the others being absent were clear that the plea was good for so is the common form of pleading and farther he might be guilty of the Battery and not of the wounding for Crooke said Wounding implied Assault and Battery but not è contra Brookes against Baynton 107. IN a Writ of Error to reverse a Judgment given iâ— the Court of Common pleas in Trespass for assault battery and wounding it was assigned for Error by Maynard That there was variance betwixt the Original and the Declaration for the Original was only of Battery and Wounding of himself and he declared of Battery and wounding of him and his horse also for he said that quendam equum upon which the Plaintiff equitavit percussit its quod cecidit c. and that was not helped by the Statute But Rolls contrary and here is no variance for the alledging of striking of the horse was only inducement to alledge the Battery of himself for he doth not bring the Action for the beating of his horse for it was not alledged
killed B. inter horam decimam undecimam was adjudged to be naught And he took many exceptions all which were disallowed by the Court. For which cause Sir Matthew prayed his Clergy and had it Pasch. 17º Car. in the Common Pleas. Weeden against Harden 128. CUstome to pay Tithes in kinde for Sheep if they continue in the Parish all the year but if they be sold before shearing-time but an half-penny for every one so sold. And custome in the same Parish also to pay no Tithes of Loppings or Wood for fire or Hedges c. The first is an unreasonable custom for by such means the Parson shall be defeated of his Tithes But the last custom is good by the whole Court Sir Edward Powells Case 119. THe Lady Powell sued Sir Edward Powell her husband in the High Commission Court for Alimony Whereupon a Prohibition was prayed in this Court and granted Serjeant Clark who argued for the Prohibition The Spiritual Court cannot meddle with any thing which is not redressable by them they may compel a man tractare uxoreâ— or Divorce them but not grant Alimony which doth appertain to the Judges of the Common Law 7 8 H. 3. there is a Writ directed to the Sheriff to set out reasonable Estoverâ— for the Alimony of the wife President since the Statute of 1 Eliz. where Prohibitions have been granted in this Case viz. Sir William Chenyes Case Mich ' 8 Iac. in Comm ' Banâ—â— who committed Adultery and was separated and the wiâ—e sued for Alimony and a Prohibition granted P. 8 Iac. A Prohibition granted And by the Statute of 1 Eliz. they have not power to hold Plea of Alimony The words of the Statute are Reform Redress c. And it is not apt to say that Alimony shall be Reformed or Redressed And besides Alimony is a Temporal thing and chargeth a mans Inheritance and therefore they shall not intermeddle with it Serjeant Rolls contrary She may sue for Alimony in the Ecclesiastical Court but if they proceed to Fine or Imprisonment then a Prohibition lieth They have power of Separation which is the principal and therefore of Alimony which is Incident And the High Commission have the same power given to them by the Statute of 1 Eliz. as the Spiritual Court hath and therefore they may meddle with Alimony And where it was before objected The great inconvenience to the party by the citing him out of his Diocess for by that he should lose the advantage of his Appeal Rolls said It was good for any within the Province and that is the Court of the Province Banks Chief Justice Although that there be Presidents that the High Commission have hoâ—den Plea of Alimony and granted the same yet it was not Law And although though that Alimony be expressed in their Commission that doth not make it Law if it be not within the Statute As to the citing out of the Diocess he conceived the Commission should be useless if they might not do it and therefore he granted a Prohibition Crawly Reeve and Foster Justices agreed But they doubted whether the citing out of the Diocess were good or not for the great prejudice which might ensue to the party in losing his Appeal And in answer to the Objection of Rolls the Chief Justice said That the Ecclesiastical Court had not Jurisdiction of Alimony but if they had yet all the Jurisdiction of the Spiritual Court is not given to the High Commission by the Statute of 1 Eliz. And they all agreed That they might as well charge my Land with a Rent-charge as grant Alimony out of it and a Prohibition was granted 130. No Sequestration can be granted by a Court of Equity until the Proces of contempt are run out And by Reeve and Foster Justices The granting of Sequestration of things â—â—llateral as of other Lands or Goods is utterly illegal 131. Whereas upon Suggestion of a Modus decimandi a Prohibition was granted now a Consultation was prayed as to Offerings and granted because the Modus c. doth not go to the personalty 132. Upon a Jury retorned a stranger who was not one of the Jury caused himself to be sworn in the name of one who was of the Jury And he against whom the Verdict passed moved the Court for a new Trial upon that matter But the Court would not give way to it because it appeareth to them that he is sworn upon Record But all the Court agreed that he might be Indicted for that Misdemeanour and by Reeve and Foster Justices the parties may have an Action upon the Case against him 133. It was taken for a Rule by the Court That no Amendment should be after a Verdict without a consent 134. Trover and Conversion against husband and wife and declared that they did convert ad usum corum The Jury found the wise not guilty And by the Court this naughty Plea is made good by the Verdict Sir Richard Greenfields Case in the Kings Bench. 135. THou innuendo Captain Greenfield hast received mony of the King to buy new Saddles and hast coâ—sened the King and bought old Saddles for the Troopers Tâ—ver It is not actionable 8 Car. The Mayor of Tivertoâ— case One said of him That the Mayer had cousened all hâ—â— Brethren c. not actionable 9 Iac. in the Kings Bench Thaâ— the Overseers of the Poor had cousened the poor of their Bread not actionable 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench Kerby and Wallers case Thou art a false Knave and hast cousened my twâ— Kinsmen not actionable K. is a cousening Knave not actionable 18 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. Serjeant Fenner hath cousened me and all my Kindred is not actionable Words are actionable either in respect of themselves or in relation to the person of whom they are spoken where Liberty is infringed the Estate impaired or Credit defamed there they aâ— actionable Mich. 29 H. 8. Rot. 11. Villain is not actionable Morgan and Philips case That he is a Scot actionable because he is an Alien born Hill 1. Car. in Com. Ban. Siâ— Miles Fleetwoods case Mr. Receiver hath cousened the King actionable in respect of his Office of Receivership And seâ— it was afterwards adjudged upon Error brought in the Kings Bench. If these words had been spoken of the Kings Saddler they had been actionable for thereby he might lose his Office but there is no such prejudice in our case and he is of another Imployment and is but for a time only But by Heath Justice and Bramston Chief Justice the words are actionable for it is not material what imployment he hath under the King if he may lose his imployment or trust thereby And it is not material whether the imployment be for life or years c. 136. A Lawyer who was of Counsel may be examined upon Oath as a Witness to the matter of Agreement not to the validity of an assurance or to matter of Counsel And in examining of a Witness Counsel
cannot question the whole life of the Witness as that he is a Whoremaster c. But if he hath done such a notorious fact which is a just exception against him then they may except against him That was Onbies case of Grays-Inn and by all the Judges it was agreed as before And by Reeve Justice If a Counsellor say to his Client that such a Contract is Simony and he saith he will make it Simony or not Simony And thereupon the Counsellor that a Simoniacal Contract it is no offence in the Counsellor Pasch. 17º Car. in the Kings Bench. 137. PRescription to have Common for all his cattle Commonable is not good for thereby he may put in as many beasts as he will But a Prescription to have Common for his cattle commonable levant and couchant is a good Prescription And it was said that that was Sayes case of the County of Lincoln adjudged in this Court 138. In Tompson and Hollingsworths case it was agreed That a Court of Equity cannot meddle with a cause after it hath received a lawful Trial and Judgment at the Common Law although that the Judgment be surreptitious 139. The Statute of 31 Eliz. enacts That if a man be presented admitted instituted and inducted upon a Simoniacal contract that they shall be utterly void c. Whether the Church shall be void without deprivation or sentence declaratory in the Spiritual Court or not was the Question in a Quare impedit brought by Sir Iohn Rowse against Ezechiel Wright Rolls and Bacon Serjeants That it is absolutely void without sentence declaratory c. Where the Statute makes a thing void it shall be void according to the words of the Statute unless there shall be inconvenience or prejudice to him for whom the Statute was made The Statute of 8 H. 6. cap. 10. That an utlagary shall be void if process do not issue to the place where the party is dwelling yet it is not void before Errour brought The Statutes of 1 Eliz. 31 Eliz. That all Leases by a Bishop not warranted c. shall be void They are not void but voidable only which agreeth with the reason of the Rule given before The Statute of 18 H. 6. 6. That if the King grant Lands by Patent not found in the Office that the Patent shall be void it is void presently M. 30 H 6. Grants 92. and Stamford 61. although they be matter of Record The Statute of 31 Eliz. is expresly that it shall be void frustrate and of none effect therefore by the Rule before given it shall be absolutely void M. 10 Iac. Stamford and Dr. Hutchinsons case Resolved that an Incumbent presented by Simony cannot sue for Tythes against his Parishioners a villain purchaseth an Advowson the Church becomes void the Lord presents by Simony and the Clark is admitted Institute and Inducted yet it is void and doth not gain the Advowson to the Lord. Institut 120 a. If an Incumbent take a second Benefice the first is meerly void 4 Rep. Hollands Case The difference is where it is of the value of 8 l. where not And there is difference betwixt avoidance by Statute and avoidance by the Ecclesiastical Law Avoydance is a thing of which the Common Law takes notice and shall be tried by Jury if it be avoydance in fact if an avoydance in Law by the Judges If a Parson doth not read the Articles according to the Statute of 13 Eliz. it is ipso facto void without sentence 6 Rep. 29. Greens case 30 Eliz. Eatons case Instit. 120. a. express in the point And the difference is that before the Statute of 31 Eliz. it was only voidable by deprivation but now by the Statute it is absolutely void Mich. 9 Iac. Cobbert and Hitchins case Mich. 42 Eliz. Baker and Rogers case 2 Iac. Goodwins case in Com' Banc. in all which cases it was not resolved but passed tacitely and without denial That a Presentation by Simony was void without declaratory Sentence It was objected that it is clear by the Ecclesiastical Law it is not void without a Sentence declaratory It is answered Of things of which our Law and the Ecclesiastical Law take conusance we are only to relie upon our Law and not upon the Ecclesiastical Law especially when the Ecclesiastical is repugnant or contrary to our Law as in this Case it is The Judges of the Common Law shall judge the Church void or not void Fitz. Annuity 45. 12 13 Iac. in the Kings Bench Hitchin and Glovers case in an Ejectione firme In this case it was resolved That if I. S. marry two wives the Judges of the Common Law may take conusance of it yet marriage is meerly an Ecclesiastical thing It was objected That the first branch of the Statute of 31 Eliz. that it shall be void c. Secondly that it shall be void as if he were naturally dead c. So that the adding of these words as if he were naturally dead in the later clause prove that it was the meaning of this Statute that it should not be void in the first case without Sentence declaratory It is answered There is a difference in words not in substance or the intent qui haeret in litera c. Iermin and Taylor Serjeants That it is not void before Sentence c. First Admission Institution and Induction are Judicial acts and done by the Bishop and therefore shall not be void before an act done to make them void which is Sentence declaratory or deprivation Secondly the Statute of 31 Eliz. saith it shall be void not that it is c. Thirdly the Ecclesiastical Lâ—w is That no Presentation c. shall be void before Sentence c. Fourthly the Ecclesiastical Law is Judge of it c. Plenarty shall be tried by the Bishop not by Jury 6 Rep. 49. a. Refusal shall not be tried by Jury but Death shall 5 Rep. 57. 9 H. 7. Profession shall be tried by the Spiritual Court 4 Rep. 71. b 4. vid. 4. Rep. 29. a. the credit which our Law gives to the Ecclesiastical Law It is there put That one was divorced without his knowledge which was said to be a strange case Fifthly the Presentee by Simony doth remain Incumbent de facto although not de jure and that by the words of the Statute which makes the Church void as to the King only not as to the Incumbent without declaratory Sentence and the Church is no more capable to have two Incumbents than a woman to have two husbands There is a difference where the Incumbent presented by Simony is alive the same is not void in facto without sentence declaratory but if he be dead there itis And this difference stands upon the two clauses in the Statute of 31 Eliz. And the Statute of 17 Car. of Election of Burgesses taken notice of Avoidance de facto de jure Trinit 16 Car. in Com. Banc. Ogelbics case One was Presented within the age oâ— twenty
was well brought for the reasons before given and that Error is a Supersedeas to the Writ of Enquiry And it was entred for a Rule That in all Writs of Enquiry of damages notice ought to be given aswel in Real as Personal Actions 143. If a Prisoner will remove himself by a Habeas Corpus he shall pay the Costs of the Removal but it the Plaintiff will remove the Prisoner he shall pay reasonable charges 144. Dickenson Libelled against Barnaby in the Spiritual Court for these words D. is a Beastly Quean Drunken Quean Copper-nose Quean and she was one cause wherefore Barnaby left his wife and hath mispended five hundred pounds and that she keeps company with Whores And a Prohibition was prayed and granted because that the words are not actionable 145. Hill 16. Car. in this Court A. a poor man sold his estate for twenty pound yearly to be paid during his life for the security of which the Vendee was bound to A. and another in a thousand pounds the other releaseth the Bond the mony not being paid A. is compelled to have Relief of the Parish for his maintenance The Churchwardens and A. exhibited a Bill in the Court of Requests and there had remedy 146. A. and B. his wife Present to a Church to which they have no Right Question Whether that doth grant any thing to the wife or no Resolved No. For the wife is at the will of her husband and Presentation is but Commendation or the Act of the husband c. And it is not like unto an Entry in Land by them Mich. 16 Car. betwixt Nesson and Hampton Otherwise it is when the wife hath Right Sir John Pits Case 147. IN the case of Sir Iohn Pits Philizor of London it was moved that his Executors might have the profits of the Writs which are to be subscribed with his name forasmuch as all Process of the same suit ought to have the same name subscribed to them for the attendance of them being necessary they ought to have the profits according to it Tooleys case Hobarts Reports The reason which was given to the contrary was because there was another Officer who is to answer any damages by reason whereof he is to have the benefit 148. Judges are the only Expositors of Acts of Parliaments although they concern Spiritual things Searles case Hobarts Rep. 437. 4. E. 4. 37 38. 149. If horses be traced together they are but one distress And note Fetters upon a horse leg may be distreined with the horse Hillary 16º Car. in the Kings Bench. 150. A Merchant goeth beyond Sea and marrieth an Alien It was resolved that the Issue is a Denizen for the husband being the Kings subject the wife is not respected because she is at the will of her husband and also because they are but one person in Law Bacon and Bacons case 151. If a Town hath a Chappel and bury at the Mother-church and therefore have time out of mind repaired part of the Wall of the Church it is good to excuse them of repairing the Church Inhabitants of such a place prescribe to repair a Chappel of Ease and in regard thereof that they have time out of mind been free from all Reparations of the Mother-church it is good But if such a Chappel hath been built within time of memory then they ought to have proof of some agreement by virtue of which they are discharged of Reparations of the Mother-church Pasch. 17 Car. in the Kings Bench. The Inhabitants within the Parish of H. having a Chappel of Ease and custom that those within such a Precinct ought to find a Rope for the third Bell and to repair part of the Mother-church in consideration of which they have been freed from payment of any Tithes to the Mother-church Whether it be a good Custome or not Quaere for it was Adjorn Hillary 16º Car in the Common Pleas. 152. WHere the Ecclesiastical Court hath conusance of the cause there proceedings although they be Erroneous are not examinable in this Court. And it was given for a Rule That it is no cause to grant a Prohibition 153. The Sheriff in the Retorn of a Rescous said that he was in Custodia Ballivi Itinerantis And that a Rescous was made to his Baily Itinerant and it was not good otherwise if he had been Baliff of a Liberty for the Law taketh notice of him And therefore the Court did award that the Rescousers should be dismissed and that the Sheriff should bring in the man by a certain day at his peril Otherwise it is in the Kings Bench. 154. One cannot be Attorney within age because he cannot be sworn 155. Commissioners have a Warrant and they execute it with another who is a stranger to the Warrant It is good and the other person is but surplusage 156. A Prohibition after Sentence shall not be granted but in some especial case 157. It was Ordered by the Lords House of Parliament That only Menial servants or one who attended upon the person of a Knight or Burgess of the Parliament should be free from Arrest 158. Administration is granted to the wife the husband having many children Whether it be in the power of the Ordinary to make distribution or not First if there be an Executor then not Secondly After distribution there may be a Debt which was not known at the time and then the Administrator should pay it of his own goods And therefore there can be no distribution On the other side it was said If the Ordinary shall not distribute then if a man dieth Intestate and hath goods of the value of an hundred pounds and Administration be committed to the wise she should have all and the children nothing which would be hard 159. A thing which may be tried by a Jury at the Common Law is not triable in Chancery for in the first Case if they give not their Verdict according to their Evidence an Attaint lieth but in the other there is no remedy 160. After a Writ of Error granted a Warrant of Atturney cannot be filed if the party be alive who made the Warrant but otherwise if he be dead 161. A Declaration cannot be amended in matter of Substance without a new Original otherwise of Amendments of matter of Form 162. The Statute of 5 6 E. 6. cap. 1. and 1 Eliz. c. p. 2. prohibite any man to be absent from Church having no â—awful or reasonable cause A man was sued in the Ecclesiâ—stical Court for being absent from Church and he pleaded â—mething by way of excuse Hyde Serjeant prayed a Prohibition because they ought not to hold Plea of the excuse but the Court did agree that they might hold Plea of the excuse otherwise upon a false suggestion you would defeat the Ecclesiastical Court of all Conusans in such cases And therefore they were all against the Prohibition and by the Court they ought to plead their excuse there and if they will not admit of
pay to the Plaintiff such costs as shall be delivered by note of the Attorneys hand and it was here adjudged that there needs no averment because it was to be done by a stranger but otherwise it had been if it had been to be done by the Plaintiff himself and by the Justices the only question here is Whether the Attorney shall be taken for a stranger or not Justice Foster that the Defendant ought first to make his election which is to pay either the eight pound which is certain or the costs which shall be delivered by a note of the Attorney Besides here the Attorney is a stranger because the suit is ended and to the Defendant he is totally a stranger and therefore he ought to seek him to have the note delivered to him But notwithstanding he did conceive that as this Case is Judgment ought to be stayed because the Plaintiff hath not well entitled himself to the Action because he hath not averred that there were costs expended in such a suit and in the Case ciâ—ed by Rolls the Plaintiff did aver the costs incertain Justice Crawley it is without question the Defendant hath Election in this case but as this Case is he ought to have notice and if the Case had been such that the Plaintiff himself had been to have delivered the note then without question there ought to be notice and here the Attorney is no stranger but is a servant to the Plaintiff as every Attorney is And I conceive that if the Case had been that the Plaintiffs servant had been to deliver such a note that there notice ought to be given And for want thereof in this Case I conceive that the Judgment ought to be stayed Bankes Chief Justice I doubt upon the different Opinions of my Brethren whether Judgment ought to be stayed or not I agree that the Defendant hath Election in this Case and further I agree that where a thing is to be done by the Plaintiff or Dâ—fendant himself there notice ought to be given but otherwise in Case of a stranger and upon this difference stands our Books as 10 H. 7. and all our Books but the Question here is Whether the Attorney be a stranger or not and I conceive that it is not in the power of the Plaintiff to compel him to bring the note and is all one as a stranger and therefore the Defendant ought to seek the Attorney to deliver this unto him but the Case was adjourned because Justice Reeve was not present in Court 187. A. said to B. Thou hast killed my Brother for which B. ought an Action upon the Case and by Serjeant Whitfield it will not lie because it is not averred that the Brother of the Defendant was dead at the time and if he were not dead then it is no slander because the Plaintiff is not in danger for it 4 Rep. 16. a. Snaggs Case Aâ—â— Serjeant Evers contrary because the words imply that he is dead and besides in the Innuendo it is also shewed that he was â—ead for that is the innuendo C. c. fratrem nuper mortuum But by the whole Court the words are not actionable without averment that he was dead and the Innuendo doth not help it Hobarts Rep. p. 8. Miles and Iacobs Case acc 188. A Frenchman had his Ship taken by a Dunkirk upon the Sea and before that it was brought infra praesidia of the King of Spain it was driven by a contrary wind to Waymouth and there the Dunkirk sold the Ship and Goods to a Lord in Waymouth whereupon the Frenchman having notice of his ship and goods to be there libelled in the Admiralty pro interesse suo against the Lord the Vendee of the Ship shewing that it was taken by Piracie and not by Letters of Mart as was pretended and thereupon a Prohibition was prayed and by Foster a Prohibition ought to be granted for whether the Dunkirk took it by Letters of Mart or as a Pirate it is not material the sale being upon the Land and infra corpus comitatus and so he said it was adjudged in such a case for whether the sale were good or not Non constat Justice Crawley conceived it should be hard that the sale being void if it were taken as a Pirate or by Letters of Mart not being brought infra prâ—sidia of the King of Spain that by this means you should take away the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty but he said he did conceive it more fit for the Frenchman to have brought a Replevin which he said lieth of a Ship or Trover and Conversion and so have had the matter found specially Bankes Chief Justice conceived that there should be a Prohibition otherwise upon such pretence that it was not lawful prize and by consequence the sale void you would utterly take away the Jurisdiction of the Common Law But because there was some misdemeanor in the Vendee the Court would not award a Prohibition but awarded that the buyer should have convenient time given him by the Court of Admiralty to find out the seller to maintain his Title and in the mean time that he give good caution in the Admiralty that if it be found against him that then he restore the ship with damages But note the Court did agree Justice Reeve only absent that if a ship be taken by Piracie or if by Letters of Mart and be not brought infra praesidia of that King by whose subject it was taken that it is no lawful prize and the property not altered and therefore the sale void and that was said by the Prâ—ctoâ— of the Frenchman to be the Law of the Admiralty Rudston and Yates Case 189. RVdston brought an Action of debt upon an Obligation against Yates for not performance of an Award according to the Condition of the Bond the Defendant pleaded that the Arbitrators Non fecerunt arbitrium upon which they were at issue and found for the Plaintiff and it was now moved in arrest of Judgment by Trevor that the Defendant was an Infant and therefore that the submission was void and by consequence the Bond which did depend upon it and he conceived the submission void First because it is a Contract and an Infant cannot contract and he took a difference betwixt acts done which are ex provisione legis and acts done ex provisione of the Infant an Infant may bind himself for his diet schooling and necessary apparel for that is the provision of the Law for his maintenance but a Bond for other matters or Contracts of other nature which are of his own provision those he cannot do Secondly an Arbitrator is a Judge and if an Infant should be permitted to make an Arbitrator he should make a Judge who by the Law is not permitted to make an Attorny which were against reason Thirdly it is against the nature of a Contract which must be reciprocally binding here the Infant should not be bound and the man of full
time or not The first hath been granted that there ought to be assent for the great inconvenience which might happen to Executors if Legatees might be their own carvers and so are all our Books except 2 H. 6. 16. and 27 H. 6 7. which seem to take a difference where the Legacie is given in certain and in specie there it may be taken without assent but where it is not given in certain there it cannot but he held clearly the Law to be otherwise that although it be given in certain yet the Legatee cannot take it without assent of the Executor for so the Executor should be subject to a Devastavit without any fault in him or any means to help himself which should be very inconvenient Then the second thing here to be considered is Whether there be an assent or not It is clear that if an Executor enter generally he shall be in as Executor and not as Legatee for that is best for him to prevent a Devastaviâ— and it is as clear that if he declare his intention to be in as Legatee that then he shall be so then the Question here is Whether the words in our Case be a sufficient declaration of the mind of the Executor to take the same as Legatee in the right of his wife or not and I hold that it is He agrees that the second words are not so weighty as the first but he held the first words are sufficient of themselves to make an assent and when he saith that then it remains to the Holloways that proves that he took notice thereof as a Legacie and that he would have it in that right although in truth the devise by Iohn Holloway was void so as it could not remain to them For the third he held that the assent came in due time otherwise it might be very prejudicial to Legatees for else by that means they may be many times defeated of their Legacies for put Case that an Executor will not assent and the Legatee dieth before he can compel him to assent or that the Legatee dieth in an instant after the devisor in the 5 Rep. Princes Case it is resolved that an Infant under 17 may not assent to a Legacie nor the administrator Durante minori aetate then put case that the Legatees die during the administration durante minori aetate in whose time there cannot be an assent It would be a vâ—ry great mischief if that in any of these Cases the Legatees should be defeated of their Legacies when by possibility they could not use any means to get them wherefore he held clearly that the assent of the Executor after the death of the Legatee came in good time and therefore he concluded for the Plaintiff Bramston Chief Justice also for the Plaintiff For the first point he held that there is a good assent and he said that Mannings Case hath the very words which our Case hath but my Lord Cooke did not speak of these words in the Report of the Case because he conceived that the payment of the money was a sufficient assent to the Legacie but further I conceive that it differs fully from Mannings Case for there it is found expresly that the Executor had not Assets and therefore it should be hard to make him assent by implication thereby to subject himself to a Devastavit for as I conceive an Executor shall never be made to assent by implication where it is found that he hath not Assets but there ought to be an express assent by reason of the great prejudice which might come unto him but in our Case it is not found that Lowe had not Assets an Infant cannot assent without Assets but if there be then it shall bind him and perhaps that was the reason that my Lord Coke did not report any thing of these words whether they were an assent or not and his passing over them without saying any thing of them seems partly to grant and agree that they did not amount to an assent A man deviseth unto his Executor paying so much and he payeth it it is a good assent to the Legacie so is Matthew Mannings case 8 Rep. and Plowden Comment Welâ—den and Elkingtons case and he said that an assent is a perfecting act which the Law favours and therefore he said that it was adjudged that where an Executor did contract with the devisee for an assignment of the Term to him devised that it was a good assent to the Legacie For the second point also he held clearly that the assent came in due time for otherwise it should be a great inconvenience for by that means it should be destructive to all Legacies for of necessity there ought to be an assent of the Executor and if he will not assent and the Legatee dieth before he can compel him to assent or if the Legatee dieth immediately after the Devisor before any assent to the Legacie in the first Case it should be in the power of the Executor who is a stranger to prejudice me and in the latter Case the Act of God should prejudice me which is against two Rules of Law that the Act of a stranger or the act of God shall not prejudice me wherefore without question the assent comes in due time Besides If a Legatee dieth before assent to a Legacie the same shall be assets in the hands of his Executors and the Legatee before assent hath an interest demandable in the Spiritual Court An Executor before probate shall not have an Action but he may release an Action because that the right of the Action is in him so in this Case although that the Legatee before assent hath not an interest grantable yet he hath an Interest releasable A man surrenders copyhold-Copyhold-Land to the use of another and the surrenderee dieth before admittance yet his heir may be admitted and this Case is not like those Cases put at the Bar where there is but a meer possibility and not the least Interest as where the grantee of a reversion dieth before Attornment or the devisee before the devisor in those Cases the parties have but a meer possibility and therefore countermandable by death but it is otherwise in our Case as I have shewed before and therefore I conclude that here is a good assent and that in due time and therefore that the Ejectione firme brought by the Plaintiff well lieth Dale and Worthyes Case 212. DAle brought a Writ of Error against Worthy to reverse a Judgment given in the County-Palatine of Chester and the Writ of Error bore Teste before the Plaint there entred and whether the Record were removed by it or not was the Question and the Court viz. Mallet Heath and Bramston were clear of opinion without any solemn debate that the Record was not removed by that Writ of Error because that if there be not any plaint entred at the Teste of the Writ how can the Processus according to the Writ be removed
not traversable because that the seism is not material 7 E. 4. 29. Com. 94. 8. Rep. 64. Fosters Case Secondly where the Seigniory is not in question there no traverse of seism so it is in Case of Writ of Escheat Cessavit Rescous c. and therewith agree the Books of 22 H. 6. 37. 37. H. 6. 25. 4. Rep. 11. a. Bevills Case Thirdly where the Lord and Tenant differ in the services there no traverse of the seism but of the tenure but where they agree in the services there the seism may be traversed and therewith agree the Books of 21 E. 4. 64. 84. 20 E. 4. 17. 22 Ass. p. 68. 9 Rep. 33. Bucknells Case and therefore the traverse here is not good First because it is a general traverse of the seism per manus the tenure not being admitted as it ought to be by the fourth rule in Bucknells Case and therewith agreeth 23 H. 6. Avowry 15. Besides it is a Rule in Law That a man shall never traverse the seism of services without admitting of a tenure and in this Case he took the tenure by protestation and therefore the traverse here is not good and therewith agreâ—â— 15 E. 2. Avowry 214. Further the traverse here is not good because he hath traversed a thing not in demand which is the rent for he ought to have traversed the seism of the fealty only for which the distress was taken and not the rent as here he hath done and therewith agreeth 9 Rep. 35. a. and 26 H. 8. 1. But as this Case is he could not traverse the fealâ—y only because that seism of rent is seism of fealty and therewith agreeth 13 E. 3. Avowry 103. 3 E. 2. Avowry 188. 4 Rep. 8. b. Bevills Case and therefore he ought to traverse the tenure True it is as it was objected by my Brother Foster that seism of Rent is not an actual seism of fealty as to have an assise but is a sufficient seism as to avow And we are here in Case of an avowry and therewith agreeth the 4 Rep. 9. a. Bevills Case wherefore I conclude that Judgment ought to be given for the avowant Here note that it was resolved by all the Judges of the Common Pleas that a traverse of seism per manus generally without admitting of a tenure is not good and therefore see 9 Rep. 34. b. 35. a. which seemeth to be contrary Hill 17º Car in the Kings Bench. Hayward against Duncombe and Foster 234. THe Case was thus The Plaintiff here being seised of a Mannor with an advowson appendant granted the next avoidance to I. S. and afterwards bargained and sold the Mannor with the advowson to the Defendants D. and F. and a third person and covenanted with them that the Land is free from all incumbrances Afterwards the third person released to the Defendants who brought a writ of Covenant in the Common Pleas and there Judgment was given that the Action would lie Whereupon Hayward brought a Writ of Error in this Court The point shortly is this Whether the Writ of covenant brought by the Defendants without the third person who released were good or not and that rests only upon this Whether this Action of covenant to which they were all intitled before the release might be transferred to the other Defendants only by the release or not And it was objected that it could not because it is a thing in Action and a thing vested which cannot be transferred over to the other two only by the release but that all ought to joyn in the Action of covenant notwithstanding Rolls contrary because that after this release it is now all one as if the bargain and sale had been made to those two only and now in an Action brought against them two they may plead a seoffment made to them only without naming of the third who released and so it is resolved in 33 H. 6. 4 5 6 Rep. fol. 79. a. Besides this covenant here is a real covenant and shall go to assignees as it is resolved in 5 Rep. Spencers Case and here is as violent relation as if the seoffment had been made to them two only It was objected by Justice Heath What if the other died It was answered perhaps it shall there survive because that it is an Act in Law and the Law may transfer that which the Act of the party cannot because that Fortior est dispositio legis quam hominis c. Booremans Case 235. BOoreman was a Barrister of one of the Temples and was expelled the house and his Chamber seised for non-payment of his Commons whereupon he by New digate prayed his writ of restitution and brought the writ in Court ready framed which was directed to the Benchers of the said Society but it was denied by the Court because there is none in the Inns of Court to whom the writ can be directed because it is no body corporate but only a voluntary Society and submission to Government and they were angry with him for it that he had waived the ancient and usual way of redress for any grievance in the Inns of Court which was by appealing to the Judges and would have him do so now Bambridge against VVhitton and his wife 236. IN an Ejâ—ctione firme upon Not Guilty pleaded a special Verdict was â—ound the case upon the special verdict this A Copyhold Tenant in fee doth surrender into the hands of two Tenants unto the use of I. W. immediately after his death and whether it be a good surrender or no was the question Harris that the surrender is void Estates of Copyholds ought to be directed by the rule of Law as is said in 4 Rep. 22. b. 9 Rep. 79. 4 Rep. 30. And as in a grant a grant to one in ventre sa mier is void so also in a will or devise and as it is resolved in Dyer 303. p. 50. so it hath been adjudged that the surrender to the use of an Infant in ventre sa mier is void and as at Common Law a Freehold cannot begin in futuro so neither a Copyhold for so the surrenderer should have a particular estate in him without a donor or lessor which by the rule of Law cannot be and he took a difference betwixt a Dâ—vise by Will a Grant executed in a devise it may be good but not in a grant executed and here he took a difference where the Grant is by one intire clause or sentence and where it is by several clauses 32 E. 1. taile 21. Dyer 272. p. 30. Com. 520. b. 3 Rep. 10. Dowties Case and 2 Rep. Doddingtons case For instance I will put only the Case in Dyer and the Comment A Termor grants his Term habendum after his death there the Habendum only is void and the grant good but if he grant his Term after his death there the whole grant is void because it is but one sentence So I say in our
do so it is void And for that he cited Clegat and Batchellers Case before that the obligation in such Case is void and he said that the reason which was given by one why the Bond should be void was grounded upon the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 29. which wills That no freeman should be ousted of his Liberties but per legem terrae and he said that the word Liberties did extend to Trades and Reeve said that by the same reason you may restrain a man from using his Trade for a time you may restrain him for ever And he said that he was confident that you shall never find one Report against the Opinion of Hull 2 H. 5. For the other part of the difference he cited Hill 17 Iac. in this Court Rot. 1265. and 19 Iac. in the Kings Bench Braggs case in which Cases he said it was adjudged against the Action upon a Bond but with the Action of the Case upon a promise that it would lie But note that all the Judges viz. Foster Reeve and Crawley Bankes being absent held clearly that if the condition be against the Law that all is void and not the condition only as was objected by Evers and it was adjorned Apsly against Boys in the Common Pleas in a Scire facias to execute a Fine upon a Grant and Render Intrat Trin. 16 Car. Rot. 112. 239. THe Case upon the Pleading was this A fine upon a Grant and Render was levied in the time of E. 4. upon which afterwards a Scire facias was brought and Judgment given and a Writ of seisin awarded but not executed Afterwards a fine Sur coâ—usans de droit come ceo c. with Proclamations was levied and five years passed and now another Scire facias is brought to execute the first fine to which the fine Sur conusance de droit come ceo is pleaded so as the only Question is Whether the fine with Proclamations shall bar the Scire facias or not Serjeant Gotbold for the Plaintiff it shall not bar and his first reason was because not executed 1 Rep. 96 97. and 8 Rep. 100. If a disseisor at the Common Law before the Statute of Non-claim had levied a fine or suffered Judgment in a Writ of Right until Execution sued they were no bars and a fine at Common Law was of the same force as it is now and if in those Cases no bar at Common Law until Execution that proves that this interest by the fine upon grant and render is not such an interest as can bar another fine before execution Besides this Judgment by the Scire facias is a Judgment by Statute and Judgment cannot be voided but by error or attaint Further a Scire facias is not an Action within the Statute of 4 H. 7. and therefore cannot be a bar 41 E. 3. 13. 43 E. 3. 13. Execution upon Scire feci retorned without another plea and it is not like to a Judgment for there the party may enter but not here Besides it shall be no bar because it is executory only and in custodia legis and that which is committed to the custody of the Law the Law doth preserve it as it is said in the 1 Rep. 134. b. and he compared it to the Cases there put and a fine cannot fix upon a thing executory and the estate ought to be turned to a right to be bound by a fine as it is resolved in the 10 Rep. 96. a. 9 Rep. 106. a. Com. 373. And the estate of him by the first fine upon grant and render is not turned to a right by the second fine Lastly the Statute of 4 H. 7. is a general Law and in the affirmative and therefore shall not take away the Statute of West 2. which gives the Scire facias and in proof of that he cited 39 H. 6. 3. 11 Rep. 63. 68. and 33 H. 8. Dyer 15. I agree the Case which hath been adjudged that a fine will bar a Writ of Error but that is to reverse a Judgment which is executed but here the Judgment is not executed and therefore cannot be barred by the fine wherefore he prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Note that it was said by the Judges that here is no avoiding of the finâ— but it shall stand in force but yet notwithstanding it may be barred and they all said that he who hath Judgment upon the Scire facias upon the first fine might have entred and they strongly inclined that the Scire facias is barred by the fine and doth not differ from the Case of a Writ of Error but they delivered no opinion Taylers Case 240. THe Case was thus The Issue in Tail brought a Formedon in Descend and the Defendant pleaded in Bar and confessed the Estate Tail but said that before the death of the Tenant in Tail I. S. was seised in fee of the lands in question and levied a fine to him and five years passed and then Tenant in Tail died whether this plea be a bar to the Plaintiff or not was the Question and it rested upon this Whether I. S. upon this general Plea shall be intended to be in by disseisin or by feoffment for if in by disseisin then he is barred if by feoffment not and the opinion of the whole Court was clear without any debate that he shall be intended in by disseisin and so the Plaintiff is Bar as the Books are 3 Rep. 87. a. Plow Com. Stowels Case and Bankes Chief Justice said that it shall not be intended that Tenant in Tail had made a feoffment to bar his issues unless it be shewed and it lies on the other part to shew it and a feoffment is as well an unlawful Act as a dissâ—isin for it is a discontinuance Commins against Massam in a Certiorare to remove the proceedings of the Commissioners of Sewers 241. THe Case upon the proceedings was thus Lessee for years of Lands within a level subject to be drowned by the Sea covenanted to pay all assessments charges and taxes towards or concerning the reparation of the premisses A wall which was in defence of this level and built straight by a sudden and inevitable Tempest was thrown down one within the level subject to be drowned did disburse all the mony for the building of a new wall and by the order of the Commissioners a new wall was built in the form of a Horshooe afterwards the Commissioners taxed every man within the level towards the repaying of the sum disbursed one of which was the lessee for years whom they also trusted for the collecting of all the mony and charge him totally for his land not levying any thing upon him in the reversion and also with all the damages viz. use for the mony Lessâ—e for years died the lease being within a short time of expiration his executor enters and they charge him with the whole and immediately after the years expired the executors brought this
same after by Copy that they agreed might be a Question Serjeant Rolls at another day argued that the Copyhold was destroyed by the Kings grant but he agreed that it is not reason that the Patent should be utterly void for that he said would overturn all the Kings grants for there is not any Patent that ever recited Copyhold and therefore the Question is whether the Copyhold be destroyed or not and he argued that it is because there needeth not auy recital of Copy-hold Br. Pat. 93. It is agreed that where the King grants Land which is in lease for term of years of one who was attainted or of an Abby or the like that the grant is good without recital of the lease of him who was attainted c. For he shall not recite any lease but leases of Record and therewith agreeth 1 Rep. 45. a. and Dyer fol. 233. pl. 10 11. Now he said there is no Record of these Copyholds and therefore there needs not any recital of them and therefore the King is not deceived Further he said that no man is bounden to inform the King in this Case and therefore the King ought to take notice and then the reason of the Case of a common person comes to the Kings Case because the Copyhold was not demiseable for time as before according to the nature of a Copyhold and therefore of necessity is destroyed and the Court as I said before did conceive the Case questionable Burwell against Harwell in a Replevin 247. THe Case was shortly thus A man acknowledged a Statute and afterwards granted a Rent-charge the land is extended the Statute is afterwards satisfied by â—ffluxion of time and the grantee of the rent did distrain and whether he might without bringing a Scire facias was the Question And the Case was several times debated at the Bar and now upon solemn debate by the Judges at the Bench resolved But first there was an exception taken to the pleading which was that the avowant saith that the Plaintiff took the profits from such a time to such a time by which he was satisfied that was said to be a plea only by argument and not an express averment and therefore was no good matter of issue and of this opinion was Justice Heath in his argument but Bramston Chief Justice that it is a good positive plea and the Plaintiff might have â—raversâ—d without that that he was satisfied modo forma and in Plowd Comment in Buckley and Rice Thomas 〈…〉 ut cum tam quam are good issues Now for the point in Law Justice Mallet was for the Avowant that the distress was lawful the grantee of the Rent cannot have a Scire facias because he is a stranger and a stranger cannot have a Scire facias either to account or have the land back again The Cases which were objected by my Brother Rolls viz. 32 E. 3. tit Scire facias 101. Br. Scire facias 84. Fitz. Scire facias 134. That the feoffee shall have a Scire facias do not come to our Case for here the grantee of the Rent is a stranger not only to the Record but to the Land which the feoffee is not Further it was objected that the Grantee of the Rent claims under the conusor and therefore shall not be in a better condition than the Conusor there are divers Cases where grantee of a rent shall be in better condition than the Conusor the Lord Mountjoyes Case a man makes a lease for years rendring rent and afterwards acknowledgeth a Statute and afterwards grants over the rent now it is not extendable Besides it was objected that if this should be suffered it would weaken the assurance of the Statute and disturb it I agree that may be but if there be not any fraud nor collusion it is not material and then he being a stranger if he cannot have a Scire facias he may distrain it is a Rule in Law Quod remedio distituitur ipsa re valet si culpa absit 21 H. 7. 33. Where there is no Action to avoid a Record there it may be avoided by averment c. 18 E. 4. 9. 5 Rep. 110. 32 Eliz. Syers Case a man indicted of felony done the first day of May where it was not done that day he cannot have an averment against it but his feoffee may 12 H. 7. 18. The King grants my land unto another by Patent I have no remedy by Scire facias 19 E. 3. Br. Fauxifer of recovery 57. F. N. B. 211. 20 E. 3. 6. 9 E. 4. 38. a. A man grants a rent and afterwards suffers a recovery the grantee shall not falsifie the recovery because he is a stranger to the recovery but he may distrain which is the same Case in effect with our Case for which cause I conceive that the distress is good and that the Replevin doth not lie Justice Heath the distress is unlawful for he ought to have a Scire facias clearly the conusor ought to bring a Scire facias See the Statute of 13 E. 1. Fulwoods Case 4 Rep. 2 R. 3. 15 H. 7. and the reason why a Scire facias is granted is because that when a possession is setled it ought to be legally evicted Besides it doth not appear in this Case when the time expired besides costs are to be allowed in a Statute as Fulwoods Case is and â—he same ought to be judged by the Court and not by a Jury which is a reason which sticks with me see the Statute of 11 H. 6. it is objected that the Grantee of the rent cannot have a Scire facias it will be agreed that the conusor himself cannot enter without a Scire facias and I conceive à fortiori not the Grantee of the Rent I do not say here there is fraud but great inconvenience and mischief if arrerages incurred for a great time as in this Case it was shall be all levied upon the conusee for any small disagreement as for a shilling without any notice given to him by Scire facias and he should be so ousted and could not hold over I hold that of necessity there ought to be a Scire facias and he ought to provide with the Grantor to have a Scire facias in some fit time but I hold that the Grantee here may well have a Scire facias I agree the Cases where it is to avoid a Record there ought to be privity as the Books are but here hâ— doth not avoid the Record but allows it for the Scire facias ought to be only to account 38 E. 3. The second conusee of a Statute shall have a Scire facias against the first conusee and I conceive that by the same reason the Grantee of the rent here shall have it and in that Case there is no privity betwixt the first conusee and the second conusee for which cause he did conclude that the distress was unlawful and that the Repleâ—in would
of peace are coram non judice 27. pl. 63. Presentments taken in an Hundred-Court are coram non judice 75 pl. 115. Corporation Churchwardens in London are a Corporation and may purchase Lands to the benefit of the Church but Churchwardens in the Country though a Corporation are capable onely to purchase Goods to the benefit of the Church 67. pl. 104. Covenant A man makes a Lease and that the Lessee shall have conveniens lignâ—m non succidend ' vendeâ—d ' arbores the Lessee cuts down Trees the Lessor may bring an Action of Covenant 9. pl. 22. Lessee of a house Covenants to repair it with convenient necessary and teneatable Râ—parations in Covenant the Lesser alleadgeth a breach in not repairing for want of Tyles and daubing with Morter and doth not shew that it was not tenentable therefore nought 17. pl. 39. A man by Deed conveys Land to his second Son by these words I do give and grant this Land to I. S. my second Son and his Heirs after my death and no livery made and dyes the Estate passeth not by Covenant and therefore the Son taketh nothing 50. pl. 78. Covenant with two severally and good 103. pl. 176. Counsel Counsellors Counsel saith to his Client that such a contract is Simony and he saith that Simony or not Simony he will do it and thereupon the Counseller maketh this Simoniacal contract this is no offence in him 83. pl 136. Custom and Perscription By the Custom of London a man may transfer over his Apprentices to another 3. pl. 6. By the Custom of London the Mayor may restrain any man from setting up his Trade within the City in a place unapt for it and for his disobedience may imprison him 15. pl. 34. Custom to cut Grass in the soyl of another to strow the Church good Custom 16. pl. 38. Custom or Prescription in non decinando by a Hundred is good but not by a Parish or particular Town 25. pl. 59. A Law or Ordinance where the Custom will warrant it that he that puts in his beasts in the Common beyond such a limit or bound shall pay 3 s. 6 d. is a good Law 28. pl. 64. Custom that if a man have see in Land that it shall descend to the youngest Son and if Tail that then to the Heir at Common Law is a good Custom 54. pl 82. Prescription to have Common for all beasts commonable is naught but for all beasts commonable levant and couchant is good 83 pl. 137. A Hille hath a Chappel and buries at the Mother-Church and for this have time cut of mind repaired parcel of the wall of the Church it is good for to excuse them from repairing the Church Inhabitants of a place prescribe to repair the Chappel of ease and in regard of this that they have been time out of minde freed from all reparations of the Mother-Church good prescription 91. pl. 151. Hille hath a Chappel of ease and a Custom that those with in such a precinct ought to find a Rope for the third Bell and repair part of the wall of the Mother-Church in consideration of which they have been freed of payment of any Tythes to the Mother-Church whether this be a good Custom or not quaere ubi supra Damage Cleer WHat Damage Cleer is and the prejudice that a man may have in this that he cannot have his Judgement before that he hath payed the Damage cleer 76. pl. 226. Damages and Cost Heir apparent ravished of full age his Fatâ—er shall not recover Damages 5 pl. 8. In Attaint the Verdict was affirmed and the Defendant in the Attaint prayed Costs but was denyed by the Court. 24 pl. 55. A man distraiâ—s for a Penalty asseâ—â—ed by Custom and distrainable by Custom and upon a Beplevin brought Judgement was given for the Avowant and Damage assessed and whether Damage ought to have been given or not quaere 38. pl. 64. Where Damages entire shall be nought and where not 47. pl. 76. 96. pl 166. 47. pl. 76. Where Costs and Damages shall be recovered upon a Penal Law where not 56. pl. 88. 61 pl. 95. Prisoner removing himself by Habeas corpus shall pay the costs of the removal otherwise where he is removed by the Plaintâ—ff 89. pl. 143. In an Accompt a man shall recover Damages upon the second Judgement 99. pl. 171. Debt A Sheriff levies money upon a Fieri fa cias Debt will lie against him and if he dyes against Executors 13. pl 33. In Debt upon an Accompt it sufficeth to say that the Defendant was indebted to the Plaintiff upon an Accompt pro diversis mercimoniâ—â— without reciting the particulars 102. pl. 175. 105. pl. 182. Defamation If a man Libel in Court Christian for calling of him Drunkard Prohibition lies See Tit. Prohibition 1. D. Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for these words She is a beaâ—â—ly quâ—an a 〈◊〉 qâ—ean a copper-â—os'd qâ—ean and 〈…〉 and hath 〈◊〉 500 l. and 〈…〉 with whorâ—s and Regâ—â—s upon which a Prohibition was prayed and granted 89. pl. 144. A woman Libelled in the Spiritual Court against one for calling her Jade upon which a Prohibition was prayed and granted but if it be Libelled for calling one whore or bawd no Prohibition lies 99. pl. 170. By the Custom of London an Action lies for calling a woman Whore and ruled a good Custom 107. pl. 184. Default Appearance Administrator of one Outlawed for murder brought Error to reverse the Outlawry and was allowed to appear by Attorney 113. pl. 190. Demands Demandable Grantee of a Rent to be paid at the house and if the Rent be behinde and lawfully demanded at the house that then it shall be lawful for the Grantee to distrain whether a distress upon the Land be a sufficient demand as this Case is or not quaere 147. pl. 218. Denizen Alien Merchant goes beyond Sea and marries an Alien who have Issue the Issue is a Denizen 91. pl. 150. Deprivation Where a Church shall be void without sentence of Deprivation See Title Void Voidable Devises Devise of Goods to one for life the Remainder to another the Remainder is void 106. pl. 183. Divorce A man divorced causâ adulterii is within the Proviso of the Statute of 1 of King Iames ca. 11. but not a man divorced causâ— saevitiae 101. pl. 175. Discontinuance A man may Nonsuit without the consent of the Court but not Discontinue without the Courts consent 24. pl. 54. Dispensations Whether the King by a Non obstante in his Charter of Pardon may dispense with the Statute of 13 R. 2. ca. 1. or noâ— quaere If you peruse this Case you shall finde much excellent learning upon that point in what Case the King may dispense with Statutes in what not 213. pl. 250. Distress Horses traced together are but one Distress Fetters upon a Horse-leg may be distrained with the Horse 91. pl. 149. Distribution Whether the Ordinary after Debts and Legacies
paid may inforce a Distribution or not quaere 65. pl. 102. 93. pl. 158. Double Plea Where two things are alleadged and the one of necessity onely or by way of inducement and the party relies onely upon the other that is no double Plea 55. pl. 84. 74. pl. 113. Ejectione Firme Ejectone Firme de uno repositorio nought for the incertainty 96 pl. 166. Ejectione Firme de tanto unius messuagii c. qâ—aâ—tum â—â—at super ripam is nought for the incertainty and so where the Tâ—over of the Jury is such it is nought 97. pl 168. Elegiâ— Upon an Elgit there needs no Liberate otherwise upon a Statute Note the Elegit excepts averia Caruâ—â— 117. pl. 194. Equity Certain special Cases where there shall be remedy in Eqâ—ity where not pa 83. pl. 1â—8 88. pl. 141 90. pl. 145. 93. pl. 159. 99. pl 1â—1 102 pl. 175. 105. pl. 182. 106. pl. 183. 129. pl. 207. Errors In Error to reverse a Judgement in Debt upon an Arbitrament Judgement was reversed first because that in the reference to the Arbitrament there was no word of the submission Secondly because that the entry of the Judgement was considâ—ratum est and per Curiam omitted 7. pl. 16. In an Actâ—on for words Judgement was reversed because that it was averred that the words were spoken inter diversos ligeos and doth not say Cives of the place where they have such an acceptation as also for that the Judgement was Consideratum est and per Curiam Omitted 15 pl 37. In Trespass the Defendant justifies by a special Custom by Vertue of which he did it and doth not say quae est eadem transgressio for which Judgment was reversed 16. pl. 38. Judgment was reversed for want of Pledges 17 pl. 40. Outlawry was reversed because it did not appear where the party outlawed was inhabitant as also for that it did not appear that Proclamations were made at the Parish-church where c. 20. pl. 46. Judgement reversed for the appearance of an Infant by Attorney 24. pl. 53. Oâ—tlawry reversed because the Exigent was Secund. exact ' ad Com' Meum â—bm ' c. 25. pl. 58. A. Wife of I. S. intestate promises to B. to whom Administration was committed that if he would relinquish Administration at the request of C. and permit A. to Administer that A. would c. in Assumpsit by B. he shewed that he renounced Administration and permitted A. to Administer but doth not shew that it was at the request of C. by Barkley Just. it is Error 55. pl. 86. Judgement ought not to be judged erroneous by implication 56. pl. 88. 61. pl. 95. A Writ of Error upon Dower well lies before the Retorn of the Writ of Enquiry of damages but whether a Writ of Error lies in an Ejectione firme before Judgment given upon the Writ of Enquiry quaere 88. pl. 142. Want of Warrant of Attorney for the Plaintiff after Judgment upon nihil dicit is Error and not amendable 121. pl. 201. 129. pl. 209. Writ of Error bearing Teste before the Plaint entered is nought otherwise where is bears Teste before Judgment 140. pl. 112. In an Ejectione firme the Writ was 〈◊〉 armis but it wanted in the Count and whether this is error or amendable or not quaere 140. pl. 213. Escape Upon mean Process if the Sheriff retorn a Cessi and Rescous no Action lies against him for the escape otherwise in case of Execution 1. pl. 1. Estoppel Morgager makes a Lease for years by Deed indented after performs the condition and makes a Feoffment in â—ee the Feoffee claiming undeâ— the Estoppel shall be bound by the Lease 64. pl. 99. If a man bind himself to deliver any thing he is estopped to say that he hath it not 74. pl. 113. Estoppel binds only parties 105. pl. 180. Evidence to an Inquest upon Issues joyned Depositions taken in the Ecclesiastical Court cannot be given in evidence at Law though the parties were dead 120. pl. 198. Executions prayer in execution A second Execution cannot be granted before the retorn of the former 47. pl. 73. Where a man is imprisoned for the Kings Fine and upon a Habeas coâ—pus it is retorned that he is in Execution also for the Damages of the party it ought to be intended at the prayer of the party 5a pl. 80. Executor Administrator An Executor or an Administrator may maintain an Action for any Coâ—tâ—â—ct made to the Testator or Inâ—estate or for any thing which riseth ex contractu 9. pl. 23. Administrator of an Executor shall not sue a Scire Faâ— ' upon a Judgement given for the Testator 9. pl. 24. A Sheriff levies moneys upon a Fâ—â—ri Fas ' and dies Debt will lie against his Executors 13. pl 33. Whether the Executor of a Phâ—llizer shall have the profits of the Writs which are to â—e subscribed with his name or his Successor quaere 90. pl. 147. Expositors of Statutes The Judges are the sole Expositors of Acts of Parliament though they concâ—rn Spiritual matters 90 pl. 148. Extinguishment and Suspension Three covenant joyntly with two severally after one of the covenantors marries one of the covenantâ—es whether the covenant be good or not 103. pl. 176. Fine to the King IF a Carrier spoil the High-ways by drawing a greater weight than is warrantable by the Custom of the Realm he is â—inable to the King 145. pl. 210. Fines of Lands Disseisee levies a Fine to a stranger this doth not give the right to the Disseisor 105 pl. 180. Tenant for life the Reversion to an Ideot an Uâ—cle Heir apparant to the Ideâ—â— levies a Fine and dies Tenant for life dâ—eth the Ideâ—t dies whether the Issue of Uncle who levied the Fire â—â—albe barred by this or not quaere 4. pl. 164. 146. pl. 216. Forcible Entry Restitution cannot be awarded to the Plaintiff if it doth appear that he hath seisin yet the King shall have his Fine and if the Indictment be adtunc adhuc the Defendant keeps the possession forcibly where the Plaintiff was in possession Re-restitution shall be awarded 6. pl. 12. Forgery To forge a Will in writing though without a Seal is forgery within the Statute of 5 Q. ca. 14. Freehold What shall be said a grant of a Freehold to commence at a day to come what not 31. pl. 66. Gardeins of a Church WHere the Custom is for the Parishoners to chuse the Churchwardens the Person by colour of the Cannon cannot chuse one and if the Minister of the Bishop refuse to swear one of them chosen by the Parish a Mandat lies to inforce him to it and if the Parson thereupon doth Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court a Prohibition lies 22. pl. 50. 67. pl. 104. The Gardeins of a Church in London are a Corporation and may purchase Lands to the use of the Church and in the Country they are a Corporation capable to purchase Goods to the