of the Perjury by all the Lords in the Star-Chamber and it was Resolved by all That it was by the Common-Law punishable before any Statute Hayes Case in Cur-Wardorum By Inquisition in the County of Middlesex Anno 6 Jac. by vertue of a diem clausit extremum after the death of Humphry Willward it was found that the said Humphry died seized of a Messuage and 26 Acres of Land in Stepney and that John Willward was his Heir being 14 years and 9 days old and that the Land was held of the King in capite by Knights Service John Willward died within age and by Inquisition in Middlesex 8 Jun. Anno Jac. by vertue of a Writ of Deveneront after the said John's death it was found that John dyed seized in Ward to the King and that the said Messuage and Lands at the time of the said John's death were holden of the Dean of Pauls as of his Mannor of Shadwel All the mean Rates incurred in John's life-time are paid to the King 1. The Questions are 1. Whether by John's death and finding of the mean Tenure in the Deveneront the fiâ—st Office granted to Points be determined 2. Whether the Tenure found by the first Office may be traversed And as to these Questions it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and chief Baron That where the said John dyed the Office found by force of the Diem clausit extremum after Humphries death whereby the King was entituled to the Guardianship of John hath taken its effect and is executed and does remain as Evidence for the King after Johns death but yet is not traversable for it is traversable during the time it remains in force onely and the Jurors upon the Deveneront after the death of the said John are at liberty to find the certainty of the Tenure and they are not concluded by the first Inquisition and with this agrees 1 H. 4. 68. And this appears by the diversity between the Writ of Diem clausit extremum and the Deveneront which is but in one Point to wit the Diem clausit extremum is general And the Deveneront is not general but does restrain onely the Lands and Tenements quod deveneront c. And thus it was Resolved nono Jacobi in the Court of Wards in the Case of Dune Lewis Award of Capias Uâ—lagatum by Justices of the Peace In this same Term the Opinion of all the Court of Common-Pleus was That if one be out-lawed before Justices of Assize or Justices of Peace upon an Indictment of Felony that they may award a Capias Utlagatum and so was the Opinion of Pâ—riam Chief Baron and all the Court of Exchequer as to Justices of Peace for they that have power to award process of Outlawry have also power to award a Capias utlagatum See 34 H. 8. c. 14. See Lamb. Justice of Peace fol. 503. contra But see 1 Ed. 6. cap. 1. Justices of Peace in case of Profanation of the Sacrament shall award a Capias Utlagatum throughout all England Hersey's Case Star-Chamber John Hersey Gent exhibited his Bill in the Star-chamber against Anthony Barker Knight Thomas Barker Councellor at Law Robert Wright Doctor of Divinity Ravenscroft Clerk and John Hai is and thereby charged the Defendants with forging the Will of one Margery Pain and the Cause came to Hearing ad requisitionem defendentium and upon hearing the Plaintiffs Councel there appeared no Presumption against any of the Defendants but that the Testament was duly proved in the Ecclesiastical Court and upon an Appeal was also affirmed before Commissioners Delegates and Decreed also in Chancery So that it appeared to the Court that the said Bill was preferred of meer malice to slander the Defendants Now because the Defendants had no Remedy at Law for the said Slander and if it should pass unpunished it may encourage men It was Resolved by the Court That by the course of the Court and according to former Presidents the Court may give Damages to the Defendants and so it was done viz. 200 l. to the Doctor of Divinity 200 Marks to the Knight 40 l. to the Clerk 120 l. to the Woman And it was said that Creare ex ihilo quando bonum est est divinum sed creare aliquid ex nihilo quando est malum est diabolicum et plus Maledicite nocâ—nt quam Benedicite docent Hill 2 Jac. Regis Theodore Tomlinson brought an Action of account for Goods against one Philips in the Common Pleas and thereupon Philips sued Tomlinson in the Admiralty supposing the Goods to have been received in Forraign Parts beyond Sea and Tomlinson being committed for refusing to answer upon his Oath to some Interrogatories brought his Habeas Corpus Upon which it was resolved by the Court of Common plea in thrâ—e Points viz. 1. That the Court of Admiralty hath no Cognizance of things done beyond Sea and this appears plainly by the Statute 13 R. 2. cap. 5. and the 19 H 6. fol. 7. 2. That the Proceedings in the Court of Admiralty are according to the Civil Law and therefore the Court is not of Record and so cannot assess a Fine as the Judges of a Court of Record may 3. It doth appear that the Interrogatories were of such things as were within their Jurisdiction and the Parry ought by Law to answer This Case was intended by my Lord Coke to be inserted into his 7th Report but that the King commanded it should not be Printed but the Judges resolved ut supra Corven's Case Right to Sâ—ats in the Church Corven did Libel against Pym for a Seat in a Church in Dâ—vonshire And Pym by Sergeant Hutton moved for a Prohibition upon this Reason that himself is seized of a House in the said Parish and that he and all whose Estates he hath in the House have had a Seat in an Isle of the Church And it was Resolved by the Court that if a Lord of a Mannor or other Person who hath his House and Land in the Parish time out of mind and had a Seat in an Isle of the same Church so that the Isle is proper to his Family and have maintained it at their Charges that if the Bishop would dispossess him he shall have a Prohibition But for a Seat in the Body of the Church iâ— a Question ariseth it is to be decided by the Ordinary because the Freehold is to the Parson and is common to all the Inhabitants And it is to be presumed that the Ordinary who hath Cure of Soules will take Order in such Cases according to right and conveniency and with this agrees 8 H. 7. 12. And the Chief Justice Dame Wick her Case 9 H. 4. 14. which was The Lady brought a Bill in the Kings-Bench against a Parson Quare Tunicam unam vocatam A Coat Armor and Pennons with her Husband Sir Hugh Wick his Arms and a Sword in a Chappel where he was buried and the Parson claimed them as Oblations And it is there
Justices That forasmuch as no Corruption and Circumvention was proved in any of the Parties of which they may be Indicted at the Suit of the King or punished in this Court that the Fine shall stand And it was not apparent to the Commissioners he was within Age seeing he wanted but six Weeks but if they had known it it had been a Misdemeanour in them And for this in this Court Mich. 24. 25 Elliz. 15. Between William Cavendish and Anne his Wife one of the Co-Heirs of Henry Knightly against Robert Worsley and Katharine another Co-Heir and Trafford and others Defendants The Case was That Robert Worsely and Katharine his Wife being within Age acknowledged a Note of a Fine before Trafford and another of the Defendants by Dedimus Potestatem And by the Decree the Commissioners knew Katharine was within Age and therefore every one of them was Fined but the Fine stands Mich. 38 and 39 Eliz. In this Court one Alexander Gilderbrand seized of Lands in Windham in the County of Norfolk in Fee one Hubbard procured one Roger to take upon him the Name of Alexander Gilderbrand who was then beyond Sea to acknowledge a Fine to the said Hubbard of the said Lands and they were Fined in this Court and the Lands ordered to be re-assured to Alexander on pain of a greater Fine But the Fine was not drawn off the File nor Damages awarded to the party grieved Mich. 12 Jac. Regis Mansfield's Case 23 Eliz. In the Court of Wards the Case was this Henry Bushly seized in Fee of Lands in Northmims in the County of Hartford by his Will in writing demised the said Lands to Henry Bushly his Son in Tail the remainder to William Bushly And because his Son was within Age he demised the Education of him to Thomas Harrison whom he made his Executor Afterward it hapned that Henry the Son became a deformed Cripple and proved an Ideot a Nativitate which Ideot by the practice of Nichols and others was ravished from his Guardian and carryed upon mens shoulders to an unknown place and there kept in secret till he had acknowledged a Fine of his Lands to one Bothome before Justice Southcot 9 Eliz. and by Indenture the use of the Fine was declared to be to the use of the Cognizee and his Heirs which Bothome 12 Eliz. conveyd the said Land to one Henry Mansfield And 22 Eliz. the said Henry Bushly the Son was by Inquisition found an Ideot a Nativitate And upon this 33 Eliz. the Court of Wards took order for possession of the Lands And it was moved That though the Fine binds the Ideot yet the Indentures are not sufficient to direct the Uses But it war Resolved That forasmuch as he was enabled by the Fine as to the Principle he shall not be disabled to limit the Uses which are but as accessory The same is the Law of an Infant and a Feme-Court And the said Mansfield brought an Action of Trespass in the Common-Pleas against one Trott Farmer of the said Lands and the Issue was tryed at the Bar and the Deformed Ideot brought out of the Court of Wards to be shewn to the Judges of the Common-Pleas and to the Jurors And the Judges hearing that Mansfields Title was under the Fine levyed by that Ideot the Lord Dyâ—r and Court caused a Juror by consent to be withdrawn and the Lord Dyer said That the Judge who took the Fine was never worthy to take another yet notwithstanding all the Fine stood good Mich. 12 Jac. Regis Warcombe and Carrel's Case 20 Octob. 6 Eliz. In the Star Chamber the Case was Edward Carrel an Apprentice of the Laws for a great sum of money bought the Wardship of Joan the Daughter and Heir of Warcomb in the County of Hereford and marryed her to Edw. Carâ—el his youngest Son And after Hill 5 Eliz. the said Joan fell sick and being of the Age of 19 years and having no Issue Edward her Husband perswaded her to acknowledge a Fine of her Inheritance by which should be conveyed an Estate to the Husband and Wife in Tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Wife and Cognizance was taken by Ded. Potest directed to Sir Thomas Sanders and one Châ—snel of Grays-Inne before Easter divers Judges being here who might have examined her and on Friday in Easter Week she dyed but the Fine l'argent du Reigne was entred as of the last Term viz. Hâ—llary Term 4 days before the Wives death The Original Writ of Covenant bore Test 15 Jan. ret Crastin Pur. and the Ded. Potest 18 Jan. And James Warcombe Cosin and Heir of Joan complained by Bill against Edw. Carrel for getting the said Fine by indirect Practâ—ces and thereupon the Sentence of the Court was as followeth This day a right honourable Assembly being in this Court the matter depending in the same between James Warcombe Esque Plaintiff and Edw. Carrel of London Gent. Defendanâ— as well concerning the validity of a Fine levyed by the said Edward and Joan his wife which â—oan as the Plaintiff alleâ—dges was under age at the time of the Fâ—â—â— levyed and also for certain undue means committed by the said Edw. Carrel in the suing out and getting the said Fine and upon hearing all that could be alleadged on both parts the said Fine was by the Opinion of the whole Conrt adjudged good and effectual in Law And also no fault judged to be in the said Edward Carrel in suing out the said Fine but that the sâ—me was sued out in duâ— form and order of the Laws of this Realmâ— and this is within the Rule Facta tenent multa quae fieri prohibentur And as Carrel was not punished though he knew his Wife within Age so nor Hungate shall be punished though she knew her Son so and the rather by reason of that antient Verse Iâ—ges Communes sinescit Faemina iles M Clericus â—t Cultor Judix sibi parcet et ultor And by Sentence all were dismissed c. Among the Records in â—he Treasury Inter placita c. de Term. Sanct. Mich. 42 Ed. 3. Rot. 27. â— Cornubiâ— Helena filia Hugonis Alloâ— brought an Appeal of Robbery against I awâ—ence Boskosleak Rich. Câ—horta Jo. Gilmin and Joan his Wife and others and the Defendants plead not guilty and were found not guilty Nec unquamse subtraxerunte Iden praedictus Laurentius omnes alii c. cant inde quieti El praedicta Elena pro falso appello suo committitur c. et super hoc praed Laurentius alii petunt juxta forman Stat. quod Juâ—atores inquirant quae damna c. Et super hoc quaesitum est à praefatis Juratoribus c. Quidicunt quod praed Laurentius sustinuit ad valentiam 10 l. c. et sic singulatim de caeteris c. dicunt etiam quod Helena praed non est sufficient c. et quod Johannes Riddel sen Jo. Riddel jun. c. abettaverunt praed
this was done upon the Motion of Haughton Sergeant Mich. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards Samme's Case John Samme's being seized of Grany Mead by Copy of Court-Roll of the Mannor of Tellesham the Great of which Sir Thomas Beckingham c. and held the same of the King by Knights Service in capite Sir Thomas by Deed indented dated 22 Decemb. 1 Jacobi between him of the one part and John Sammes and George Sammes Son and Heir of John on the other part did bargain sell enfeoffe c. to John Sammes the said Mead callâ—d Grany Mead to hold to the said John Sammes and George Sams and their Heirs and Assigns to the onely use of the said John and George and their Heirs and Assigns for ever and Sir Thomas by the same Indenture covenants to make further Assurance to the said John and George c. and Livery and Seizin was deliver'd accordingly John Sammes the Father dyeth George Sammes his Son and Heir within Age the Question was Whether Geo. Sammes should be in Ward to the King or no And in this Case three Points were Resolved 1. Forasmuch as George was not named in the Premisses he cannot take by the Habendum and the Livery according to the Indenture gives nothing to George it being to him as void but though the Feoffment be good onely to John and his Heirs yet the use limited to John and George and their Heirs is good 2. If the Estate had been conveyed to John and his Heirs by the Release c. as it may well be to a Tenant by Copy of Court Roll the use limited to them is good 3. But the third was of greater doubt If in this Case the Father and Son were Joint-Tenants or Tenants in common And it was Resolved That they were Joint-Tenants and that the Son in the Case at Bar should have the said Grange by the Survivor for if at the Common-Law A. had been enfeoffed to the use of him B. and their Heirs though that he was onely seized of the Land the use was jointly to A. and B. for a use shall not be suspended or extinct by a sole Seizin or joint Seizin of the Land and therefore if A. and B. be enfeoffed to the use of A. and his Heirs And A. dyeth the entire use shall descend to his Heirs as appears 13 H. 7. 6. in Stoner's Case and by the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 10. Of Uses And when it was said that the Estate of the Land which the Father hath in it as to the moiety of the use which he himself hath shall not be devested out of him To that it was Answered and Resolved That that shall well be for if a man make a Feoffment in Fee to one to the use of him and the Heirs of his body in this Case for the benefit of the Issue the Statute of Uses devests the Estate vested in him by Common-Law and executes the same in himself by force of the Statute And it is to be known that an Use of Land which is but a pernency of Profits is no new thing but part of that which the Owner of the Land had and therefore if Tenant in Borough-English or a man seized on the part of his Mother make a Feoffment to another without consideration the younger Son in the one case and the Heir on the part of the Mother on the other shall have the use as they should have the Land it self if no Feoffment had been made as it is holden 5 E. 4. 7. See 4 and 5 P. and M. Dyer 163. See Fenwick and Milford's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. So in 28 H. 8. Dyer 11. the Lord Rosses Case 13 H. 7. 6. by Butler So in the Case at Bar the Use limited to the Feoffee and another is not any new thing but the pernancy of the old profits of the Land which may well be limited to the Feoffee and another jointly But if the use had been onely limited to the Feoffee and his Heirs there because there is not any Limitation to anothers person nec in praesenti nec in futuro he shall be in by force of the Feoffment And it was Resolved That Joint-Tenants might be seized to an use though they come to it at several times as if a man make a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and to such a Woman which he shall after marry for term of their lives or in tail or in fee in this Case if he marry a Wife after she shall take jointly with him though they take the use at several times See 17 Eliz. Dyer 340. but otherwise it is of Estates which pass by the Common-Law as 24 Ed. 3. Joynder in Action 10. If a Grant be made by Deed to one man for life the remainder to the right Heirs of A. and B. in Fee and A. hath Issue and dyeth and afterwards B. hath Issue and dyeth and then Tenant for Life dyeth in that case the Heirs of A. and B. are not Joynt-Tenants because by the death of A. the remainder as to one moiety vested in his Heir and by the death of B. the other moiety vested in his Heir at several times And upon the whole matter it was Resolved That because in the principal Use the Father and Son were Joint-Tenants by the Original Purchase that the Sonne having the Land by Survivor should not be in Ward and accordingly it was so Decreed Pasch 39 Eliz. Rot. 233. In the Kings-Bench Collins and Harding's Case The Case was A man seized of Lands in Fee and also of Lands by Copy of Court-Roll in Fee according to the Custom of the Mannor made one intire Demise of the Lands in Fee and of the Lands holden by Copy according to the Custom to Harding for years rendring one intire Rent and afterwards the Lessor surrendred the Copy-hold Land to the use of Collins and his Heirs and at another time granted by Deed the Reversion of the Free-hold Lands to Collins in Fee and Harding attorned and afterwards for the Rent behind Collins brought an Action of Debt for the whole Rent And it was objected That the reservation of the Rent was an entire Contract and by the Act of the Lessee the same cannot be apportionâ—d and therefore if one dâ—mise 3 Acres rendring 3 s. Rent and afterwards bargains and sells the reversion 〈◊〉 one Acre the whole Rent is gone because the Contract is entire c. Also the Lessee by that shall be subject to two Fealâ—â—es where he was subject but to one before To these Points it was answered and Resolved That the Contract was not entire but that the same by Act of the Lessor and Consent of the Lessee might be divided and severed for the Rent is incident to the Reversion and the Reversion is severable and by consequence the Rent also for accessorium sequitur naturam suâ— principâ—lis And as to the two Fealties to that the Lessee shall be subject though the Rent
Service Tenant Richard Hulme dyed after whose death 31 H. 8. it was found that he dyed seized of the said Mesnalty and that the same descended to Edward his Son and Heir within Age and found the Tenure aforesaid c. And during nonagâ— Robert Male dyed seized of the said Tenancy peravail and that the same descended to Richard his Son and Meir as was found by Office 25 H. 2. within age and that the said Tenancy was holden of the King as of his said Dutchy by Knights Service whereas in truth the same was holden of Edward Hulme then in Ward of the King as of his Mesnalty for which the King seized the Ward of the Heir of the Tenant And afterwards Anno quarto Jacobi Rogis nunc after the death of Richard Male the lineal Heir of Robert Male by another Office it was found that Richard dyed seized of the Tenancy and held the same of the King as of his Dutchy c. his Heir within age Whereupon Richard Hulme Cozen and Heir of the said Richard Hulme preferred a Bill to be admitted to traverse the Office found 4 Jac. Regis And the Question was Whether the Office found 35 H. 8. be any Estoppel to the said Hulme or if that the said Hulme should be first driven to Traverse that And it was objected That he ought first to traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. as in the Case 26 E. 65. And that the first Office shall stand as long as the same remaines in force To which it was Answered and Resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron and Court of Wards That the finding of an Office is not any Estoppel for that is but an Inquest of Office and the party grieved shall have a Traverse to it But when an Office is found falsly that Land is holden of the King by Knights Service in capite or of the King himself in Socage if the Heir fueâ—h a general Livery it is holden 46 Ed. 3. 12. by Mowbray and Persey that he shall not after adde that the Land is not holden of the King But that is not any Estoppel to the Heir himself and shall not conclude his Heir for so saith Mowbray himself expresly 44 Ass pl. 35. See 1 H. 4. 6. b. So 33 H. 6. 7. And there is no Book that saith that the Estoppel shall endure longer than his life but that is to be intended of a general Livery but a special Livery shall not conclude one And if a Jury find falsly in a Tenure of the King the Lord of whom the Land is holden may traverse that Office Or if Land be holden of the King in Socage c. the Heir may traverse the last Office for by that he is grieved and he shall not be driven to traverse the first Office And when the Father sues Livery and dyes the Conclusion is executed and past as is aforesaid And note there is a special Livery but that proceeds of the King's Grace and is not the Suit of the Heir and the King may grant it either at full age before aetate probanda or to the Heir within age as appears 21 E. 3. 40. And then is general and shall not comprehend any Tenure as the several Livery doth and therefore it is not any Estoppel without question See the 33 H. 8. cap. 22. 23 Eliz. Dyer 177. It was also Resolved in this Case that the Office of 35 H. 8. was not traversable for his own Traverse shall prove that the King had cause to have Wardship by reason of Ward And when the King comes to the Possession by a false Office or otherwise if it appears the King have any other Right to have the Land there none shall traverse the Office or Title of the King because the Judgment in the Traverse is Ideo consideratum est quod manus Domini Râ—gis amoveantur c. See 4 H. 4. fol. 33. in the Earl of Kents Case c. Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis Note The Priviledge Order or Custom of Parliament either of the Upper-House or House of Commons belongs to the Determination of the Court of Parliament and this appeareth by two notable Presidents 1. The one at the Parliament holden in the 27 H. 6. There was a Controversie moved in the Upper-House between the Earles of Aâ—undel and Devonshire for their Seats Places and Pre-eminences of the same to be had in the King's Presence as well in Parliament as in Councels and elsewhere The King by the Advice of Lords Spiritual and Temporal committed the same to certain Lords of Parliament who not having leisure to examine the same by the said Lords Advice referred it to the Judges of the Land to hear see and examine the Title c. and to report what they conceive herein The Judges reported as followeth That this matter viz. of Honour and Pre-eminency between the two Earles Lords of Parliament was a matter of Parliament and belonged to the King and his Lords in Parliament to be decided Yet being so commanded they shewed what they found upon Examination and their Opinions thereon Another Parliament 31 H. 6. 6th of March begun and after some continuance was prorogued to the 14 of February and afterwards in Michaelmas Term the same 31 H. 6. Thomas Thorpe Speaker of the Commons House was condemned in the Exchequer in 1000 l. Damages at the Duke of Buckingham's Suit for a Trespass done to him The 14th of Feb. the Commons mâ—ved in the Upper-House that their Speaker might be set at liberty to exercise his Place c. The Lords refer it to the Judges and Fortâ—scue and Prisoit the two Chief Justices in the Name of all the Judges answer'd That they ought not to consider this Question c. but it belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Justices But as to their Proceedings in the Lower-Courts in such Cases they deliver'd their Opinions See 12 E. 4. 2. Hill 7 Jac. Regis In Cam. Stâ—ll Heyward and Sir John Whitbrook's Case In the Case between Hyward and Sir John Whitbrook in the Star-Chamber the Defendant was convicted of divers Misdemeanours and Fine and Imprisonment imposed on him and Damages to the Plaintiff And it was moved that a special Process might be made out of that Court to levy the said Damages upon the Lands and Goods of the said Defendant And it was referred to the two Chief Justices whether any such Process might be made who this Term moved the Case to the Chief Baron and the rest of the Judges and Barons and it was unanimously by them all Resolved That no such Process could or ought to be made neither for the Damages nor for the Costs given to the Plaintiff the Court having no such power but onely to keep the Defendant in Prison till he pay them For for a Fine due to the King they can make no Process to levy it but they estreat it into the Exchequer which hath power by Law to write forth Process
lawfully endowed and paid his first Fruits and Tenths Resolved by all the Court that it shall be presumed that the Vicaridge was lawfully endowed And that it is a dangerous President to examine Originalls of Impropriations and Endowments of Vicaridges for that they may perish And so it was decreed for the Plaintiff Hill 4. Jac. Regis Bedle and Beard Anno 31. Ed. 1. The King being seized of the Mannor of Kâ—mbolton to which the Advowson of the said Church was appendant by Letters Patents granted the said Mannor wish the Appâ—â—tenances to Humphry de Bohun Earl of Hereford in tayl generall Humphry de Bohun the Issue in tayl by his Deed. 4 Ed. 3. granted the said Advowson then full of an Incumbent to the Prior of Stonely and his Successors And at next avoydance they held In proprios usus Upon this Appropriation Concurrentibus his quae in jure requiruntur the Prior and his Successors held the same till the dissolution of the Monastery 27. H. 8. The said Mannor descended to Edward Duke of Buckingham as Issue to the Estate Tayl. And the Reversion descended to H. 8. The Duke 13 H. 8. was attaint of High Treason 14 H. 8. The King granted the said Mannor c. with all Advousons appendant c. to Richard Wingfield and his Heirs Males 16 H. 8. It was Enacted that the said Duke forfeit all Mannors c. Advousons c. which he had c. in 4 H. 8. The King 37 H. 8. granted and sold the said Rectory of Kimbolton as impropriate in Fee which by mean conveyance came to the Plaintiff for 1200 li. 37 Eliz. Beard the Defendant got a Presentation of the Queen by Lapse pretending the said Church was not lawfully impropriate to the Prior. 1. For that Humphry who granted to the Prior had nothing in it nothing passing to his Ancestor by these words Manâ—rium cum pertinentiis 2. Or for that having no more but an Estate Tayl by his death his Grant was void But Resolved by the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere with the principal Judges and upon consideration of Presidents that the Plaintiff shall enjoy the Rectory for though by any thing which can now be shewn the Impropriation is defective yet it shall be now intended in regard of the antient and continual possession that there was a lawfull grant of the King to the said Humphry who granted in Fee so that he might lawfully grant it to the said Priory Omnia pâ—â—sumitur Solâ—mniter esse acta And all shall be presumed to be done which might make the antient Impropriation good And antient Grants and Acts shall not be drawn in question though they cannot be shewn for Tempus edâ—x rerum Letters Patents and Writings may consume be lost or imbezilled And therefore the Church was allowed to be rightfully impropriate and the rather in regard of the antient and long possession of the Owners of the said Rectory Mich. 4. Jac. Regis Case of Forfeiture by Treason Hill 43 Eliz. A Case was moved to all the Justices Tenant in Tayl before the Statute of 27 H. 8. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife in Tayl. And after the said Statute the Husband was attaint of High Treason 31 H. 8. and dyed The Wife continued in possession and dyed their Issue enter and die and this descends to his Issue and all this found by Office The Question was if the Issue in Tayl or the King shall have the Land 1. And it was objected that the antient Estate Tayl cannot be forfeited because it was discontinued and such right of Action cannot be forfeited As was agreed in the Marquess of Winchesters Case 2. The Feoffor himself in this Case had not any right to the antient Estate Tayl it being extinguished by his Feoffment and therefore by his Attaint could not forfeit what he had not 3. The Issue in Tayl in remitted to that antient right which cannot be forfeited And the new Estate Tayl derived under the discontinuance which may be forfeited by the Statute 26 H. 8. cap. 13. is continued and by Act in Law viz. the discent and remitter avoided And the Kings Estate may be divested out of the King by remitter As if Tenant in Tail grant Land to the King c. and the King grant the Land to the Tenant in Tail for life the remainder to his Son and Heirs for life Tenant for life dies the Issue by and in Law is remitted and the Kings Estate is divested out of him This accords with Plow Com. 489. Nicols Case 1. Resolved that in this Case the Issue in Tail is barred for though right of Action cannot be given to the King by the 26 H. 8. yet when Tenant in Tail discontinues his Estate to the use of himself in Tail and after is attaint of Treason now by that Statute he doth not onely forfeit the new Estate in Tail but by this the right of the antient Estate is barred for ever And so note out of the said Statute a diversity between a naked right of Action not forfeitable and an Estate of Inheritance forfeiâ—able coupled with an antient right for which the Forfeiture of the possession is barred by the said Act And iâ— is not like the Case in Plow Com. of Remitter for this is no barre of an antient right Pasch 4 Jac. Regis Case at a Committee aoncerning Bishops At this Parliament held Pasch 4 Jac. Regis It was strongly urged at a Grand Committee of Lords and Commons in the Painted-Chamber that such Bishops as were made after the first day of the Session were not lawful Bishops 1. Admitting them Bishops yet the manner and form of their Seals Stiles Process and Proceeding in their Ecclesiastical Courts were not consonant to Law Because by the Statute 1 Ed. 6. cap. 2. it is provided That thenceforth Bishops should not be Elective but Donative by Letters-Patents of the King And for that at this day all Bishops were made by Election not Donation of the King therefore the saâ—d Bishops are not lawful 2. By the same Act it is provided That all Summons c. and Process in Ecclesiastical Courts shall be made in the King's Name and Stile and their Seals Engraven with the Kings Arms and Certificates made in the Kings Name It was therefore concluded Thâ—t the said Statute being still in force by Consequence all Bishops made after the Act 1 Jac. were not lawful Bishops And the Proceedings being in the Name of the Bishop makes them unlawful Quia non obserâ—ata forma infertur adâ—ullatio actus Upon Consideration had of these Objections by the Kings Commandment it was Resolved by Popham Chief Justice of England â—nd Coke Attorney of the King and after affirmed bâ— the Chief Baron and the other Justices Attendant to â—he Parliament that the said Act of the 1 Ed. 6. cap. 2. is not now in force being repealed annulled and annihlated by three several Acts of Parliament Any whereof being
2. Parl. accord 1 R. 3. against Benevolence Vide Claus 4 Ed. 3. n. 22. bis Case of Libells between Edwards and Wooton In Cam. Stellat The Case was That Doctor Wooton writ to Edmunds an infamous malicious scandalous and obscene Letter with his Name subscribed And this he Sealed and directed to his Loving Friend Mr. Edward Speed this and after the said Doctor dispersed to others a great number of Copies of the said Letter And it was Resolved by the Lord Chancellor Egerton the two chief Justices et per totam curiam That this was a subtle and a dangerous kind of Libell For though the writing of a private Letter without other Publicatior the Party to whom it is directed cannot have an Action Sur le Case but where it is published to others ' to the Plaintiffs Scandal Action lyeth The Doctor thought this could not in any manner have been punish't but 't was Resolved That the infamous Letter which in Law is a Libell shall be punished in the Star-Chamber being an Offence to the King and a motive to breach of the Peace And in the Case at Bar the dispersing of Copies of it aggravates the Offence for which also the Party may have an Action Sur le Case Note By the Civil Law a Person disabling himself to bear Office or making a Libell against himself shall be punished And though the Doctor subscribed his Name to the said Letter yet it importing matter Scandalous is in the Law a Libell The Law of the Lydians is That who slanders another shall be let Blood in the Tongue who hears it and ascents to it in the Ear c. Mich. 5 Jac. Regis Wooton and Edwins Case In Replevin the Defendant avowed and the Plaintiff demurred and the Case was thus William Hawes was seized in Fee of a Messuage and 55 Acres of Land five Acres of Meadow and six Acres of Pasture in Formanton in Com. Hereford and 27. Junii 28 H. 8. by Indenture demised the Tenement aforesaid to N. Traheron for 79 years Reddendo inde annuatim praefat Gulielm Hawes et assign suis 26 s. 8 d. at the Feasts of the Annunciation and St. Michael by equal portions And after the Lessor dyed and the Reversion descended to William his Son under whom the said John Edwin Claimed And the sole Point was If the Rent reserved in this Case shall go to the Heir or be determined by the death of the Lessor If the Lessor had reserved the Rent to him without more this shall determine by the death of the Lessor And the addition of the word Assignes shall not enlarge the reservation for the Assignes cannot have the Rent longer than the Lessor himself should have it Vide 18 Ed. 3. tit Ass 86. 10 Ed. 4. 18. 27 H. 8. 19. per Audlâ—y et vide Hâ—ll 33 Eliz. Rot. 1341. In a Replevin enter Richmond and Butcher Butcher avowed for Rent as Heir to his Father upon a Demise made by his Father of certain Lands for 21 years by these words Reddendo proinde durant termin 21 annos praefat Patri executor et assignat suis 10 l. legalis c. ad festa c. And it was adjudged That by this Reservation the Heir should not have the Rent because the Reservation was to the Father and his Executors c. not to his Heirs Mich. 5 Jac. Regis Case concerning Buggary The Letter of the Statute 25 H. 8. cap. 6. If any Person shall commit the detestable sin of Buggary with Mankind or Beast c. it is Felony which Act being Repealed 1 Mar. is revived and made perpetual 5 Eliz. cap. 17. and he lose his Clergy It appears by antient Authorities of the Law That this was Felony but they vary in the punishment For Britton who writ 5 Ed. 1. cap. 17. saith That Sorcerers Sodomers and Hereticks shall be burned F. N. B. 269. agrees with it But Fleta lib. 1. cap. 35. Christiani Apostati c. debent cumburi this agrees with Britton but Pecorantes et Sodomitae terra vivisâ—ffodiantur But in the Mirror of Justice vouched in Plow Com. in Fogosses Case the Crime is more high for there it is called Crimen laesae majestatis a horrible Sin against the King either Celestial or Terrestial in three manners 1. By Heresy 2. By Buggary 3. By Sodomy Note Sodomy is with mankind and is Felony and to make that Offence Opertet rem penetrate et semen naturae emittere et effundere for the Indictment is Contra ordinationem Creatoris et naturae ordinem rem habuit veneream dictumque puerum carnaliter cognovit and so it was held in the Case of Stafford Paederastes â—mator puerorum Vide Rot. Parl. 50 Ed. 3. 58. So in a Rape there must be penetration and emission of Seed Vide Stamf. fol. 44. which Statute makes the Accessary Guilty of Felony West 1. cap. 34. If a Man ravish a Woman 11 H. 4. 18. If one Ayd another in a Rape or be present he is principle in the Buggary Vide Levit. 18. 22. et cap. 10. 13. 1 Cor. 6. Case of Premunire In Doctor Cosines Book intituled An Answer c. and publisht 1584. And a Pamphlet lately publisht by Doctor Ridley they would obtrude upon the World That in regard by the Act 10 Eliz. cap. 1. all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Power within the Realm is annexed to the Crown and the Law thereof is the Kings Ecclesiastical Law That therefore no Premunire lyes against any Spiritual Judge for any cause whatsoever And the Reasons some of their Profession give to confirm it are 1. That when the Statute of Premunire was made the Pope usurped Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction though de jure it belonged to the King But now since the King as well de facto as de jure is Supream Head of all The cause being changed the Law is changed also 2. â—T conclusion of the Writ of Premunire is in Domini Regis contemptum et prejudicium et dictae Coronae et dignitatum suarum Laesionem et exhaeredationem manifestam et contra forman statuti c. which proves the Jurisdictions united to the Crown and what is united to and derived from the Crown cannot be said contra Coronam et dignitatem Regis 3. The High Commission Court is the Kings Court and therefore though it may be said The Consistory Courts are Curiae Episcoporum yet that Court by force of the High Commission is the Kings and so their Proceedingâ— shall not be lyable to the Premunire 4. This new Court is erected by Act of Parliament c. And because the Sâ—atute of R. 2. speaks de curia Romana seu alibi c. This alibi cannot extend to a Court erected by Act of Parliament 10 Eliz. But to these Objections it was answered and resolved by divers Justices in this Term That without Question theâ— Statutes of 27 Ed. 3. 16 R. 2. c. de Premunire are yet in force And all proceedings before any
holden That if one were to sit in the Chancel and hath there a place his Carpet Livery and Cushion the Parson cannot claim them as Oblations for that they were hanged there in honour of the Deceased the same Reason of a Coat-Armour c. And the Chief Justice said the Lady might have a good Action during her Life in the Case aforesaid because she caused the things to he set up there and after her death the Heir shall have his Action they being in the nature of Hire-looms which belong to the Heir And with this agrees the Laws of other Nations Bartho Cassanâ—us sol 13. Coâ—cl 29. Actioâ— dat si aliquis arma in aliquo loco posita deleat aut abrasit c. and in 21 Ed. 3. 48. in the Bishop of Carlisle's Case Note That in Easter Term 10 Jacob. it was Resolved in the Star-Chamber in the Case between Hussâ—y and Katharine Leyton that if a man have a house in any Parish and that he and all those whose Estate he hath have used to have a certain Pew in the Church that if the Ordinary will displace him he shall have a Prohibition but where there is no such Prescription the Ordinary shall dispose of common and vulgar Seats Earl of Shrewes buryes Case Sir Humphry Winch Sir James Ley Sir Anthony St. Leger and Sir James Hullesâ—on certified the Lords of the Councel by Command from them by Letters dated 28. Martii 1612. of the Claim of Gilbert Earl of Shrewesbury to the Earldome of Waterford and Barony of Dungarvan in Ireland as followeth King Henry the Sixth by Letters-Patents in the 20th year of his Reign did Grant to his Cosin John Earl of Shrewsbury in consideration of his Loyal Services in the City and County of Waterford pro se c. ipsum in Comitem Waterford una cum stilo et titulo ac nomine ac honore eisdem debitis ordinamus creamus habendum to the said Earl and his Heirs-males of his Body and further did Grant the Castles Lordships c. of Dungarvan to the said Earl and the Heirs-males of his Body To hold c. of the King and his Heirs by Homage and Fealty and by the Service of being his Majesties Seneschal in Ireland After in the Parliament called Des Absentees holden at Dublin in Ireland 10. Maii 28 H. 8. It was enacted by reason of the long absence of George Earl of Shrewesbury out of the said Realm That the King his Heirs c. shall enjoy in right of his Crown of England all Honors Mannors Castles c. and all and singular possessions c. as well Spiritual as Temporal which the said George Earl of Shrewesbury and VVaterford or any other Persons had to his Use c. King Henry the 8th by his Letters Patents dated 29th of his Reign reciting the said Statute Nos praemissa Considerantes c. did Grant to the said Earl and his Heirs the Abbey of Rufford with the Lands thereunto c. in the County of Nottingham and the Lordship of Rotheram in the County of York the Abbeys of Chestersteld Shirbrook and Glossaâ—dale in Derbyshire with divers other Lands c. to be holden in Capite And the Questions were as followeth 1. Whether by the long absence of the Earl of Shrewsbury out of Ireland the Title of the Honor be lost and forfeited he being a Peer of both Realms and refiding here in England 2. Whether by the Act Des absentâ—es 28 H. 8. the Title of Dignity of Earl of VVaterford be taken from the said Earl as well as the Land c. Afterwards by other Letters Patents dated 27th of Sept. 1612. the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron were required to consider of the Case and to certifie their Opinions which Case being argued by Councel learned in the Law in behalf the said Earl and they having taken great advisement It was unanimously Resolved by them all as followeth 1. As to the fiâ—st Resolved That since it does not appear what defence was requisite and that the Consideration Executory was not found by Office to be broken in that Point the said Earl of Shrewsbury notwithstanding does remain Earl of Waterford 2. As to the second It was Resolved That the said Act 28 H. 8. Des Absenteâ—s does not onely take away the Possessions given him at his Creation but also the Dignity it self for though one may have a Dignity without Possession yet is it very inconvenient that Dignity should be cloathed with Poverty and so it was resolved in the Lord Ogles Case in Edw. 6. Reign as the Baron of Burleigh 35 Elâ—z did report The cause of Degradation of George Nevil Duke of Bedford is worth observation which was done by Act of Parliament 16 June 17 Ed. 4. which Act reciting the making the said George Duke sets forth the cause of his Degradation in these words And for so much as it is openly known that the said George hath not or by Inheritance may have any livelyhood to support the said Name Estate and Dignity c. Therefore the King by Advice of his Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons c. Enacteth c. That from henceforth the same Creation of the said Duke and all Names of Dignity given to the said George or to John Nevil his Father be void and of none effect Wherein are to be observed 1. That though the Duke had not Possessions to maintain his Dignity yet it could not be taken from him but by Act of Parliament 2. Great Inconveniencies follow where there is great State and Dignity and no means to maintain it 3. It is good reason to take away such Dignity by Act of Parliament and then the Act shall be expounded to take away such Inconvenience And though the Earl of Shrewsbury be of great Honour Vertue and Possessions in England yet it was not the Intention of the Act to continue him Earl in Ireland when his Possessions there were taken away And where it was objected that the general words Honours and Hereditaments are explained and qualified by the said Relative subsequent which the said George or any to his use hath Now in regard no man can be seized of the said Digniâ—y therefore the Act doth not extend to it 'T is answered that is to be understood Reddendo singula singulis and these words which the said G. E. hath are sufficient to pass the Dignity and with this agrees all the Judges Opinions in England in Nevils Case upon the like in the Statute 28 H. 8. in 7th Part of my Reports sol 33 and 34. Hill 2 Jacob. Regis Jurisdiction of the Court of Common-Pleas In the last Term by the King's Commands the Justices of the Kings Bench and Barons of the Exchequer were assembled before the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere at York-house to deliver their Opinion Whether there was any Authority in our Books that the Justices of the Common-Bench may grant Prohibitions or whether every Plea ought to be pending
c. But if a man be convict in the Star-Chamber for Forgery upon the Stat. 5 Eliz. In that Case for the double Costs and Damages an English Writ shall be made directed to the Sheriff c. reciting the Conviction and Statute for levying the said Costs and Damages c. and to bring the money into Star-Chamber and the Writ shall be sealed with the Great Seal and the Teste of the King The like Resolution was in Langdale's Case in that Court Hill 7 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas Morse and Webb's Case In a Replevin brought by John Morse against Robert Webb of the taking of two Oxen the last day of Novemb. 3 Jac. regis nunc in a place called the Downfield in Luddington in the County of Worcester The Defendant as Bayliff to William Sherington Gent. made Conuzance because the place where is an Acre of Land which is the Freehold of the said William Sherrington and for Damage feasants c. In Bar of which Avowry the Plaintiff said That the said Acre of Land is parcel of Downfield and that he himself at the time and before the taking c. was and is yet seized of two Yard-Land with the Appurtenances in Luddington and that he and all those whose Estate he hath in the said 2 Yard-Land time out of mind c. have used to have Common of Pasture per totam contentam of the said Place called the Downfield whereof c. for 4 Beasts called Rother-Beasts and two Beâ—sts called Horse-Beasts and for 60 Sheep at certain times in the Year c. And that he put in the said two Oxen to use his Common c. And the Defendant maintained his Avowry and traversed the Prescription upon which the Parties were at Issue and the Jury found a special Verdict That before the taking one Richard Morse Father of the said John Morse now Plaintiff whose Heir he is was seized of the said two yard-Yard-Land and had Common of Pasture c. as is before alleadged and so seized the said Richard Morse 20 Eliz. demised to William Thomas and John Fisher divers parcels of the said two Yard-Land to which c. viz. the four Butts of Arable with the Common and Inter-Common to the same belonging for 400 years By force whereof the said William Thomas and John Fisher entred c. so seized dyed whereby the Possession and Reversion of the said two Yard-Land descended to John Morse now Plaintiff And if upon the whole Matter John Morse now hath and at the time of the taking c. had Common of Pasture c. for c. as to the said two Acres of Land with the Appurtenances in Law or not the Jury pray the Advice of the Court. Note This Plea began Trin. 5 Jac. Rot. 1405. and upon Argument at the Bar and Bench 1. It was Resolved by the whole Court That it ought to be found against the Defendant who had traversed the Prescription For though all the two Yard-Lands had been demised for years yet the Prescription made by the Plaintiff is true But if he would take advantage of the matter in Law he ought confessing the Common to have pleaded the said Lease but when he traverseth the Prescription he cannot give the same in Evidence 2. Resolved That if the said Lease had been pleaded that the Common during the Lease for years is not suspended or discharged for each of them shâ—ll have Common rateable and in such manner that the Land in which c. shall not be surcharged 3. Resolved That Common appendant to Land is as much as to say for Cattel leuant and couchant upon the Land in which c. 4. There is no difference when the Prescription is for Cattel leuant and couchant and for a certain numbâ—r of Cattel leuant and couchant But when the Prescription is for Common appurtenant to Land there a certain number of the Cattel ought to be expressed which are intended by the Law to be leuant and couchant Hill 7 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas Hughes and Crowther's Case In a Replevin between Robert Hughes Plaintiff and Richard Crowther Defendant which began Trin. 6. Jac. Rot 2220. The Case was Charles Fox was seized of 6 Acres of Meadow in Bedston in the County of Salop in Fâ—â— and 10 Octob. 9 Eliz. leased the same to Charles Hibbens and Arthur Hibbens for 60 years if the said Charles and Arthur should so long live and afterwards Charles dyed and if the Lease determine by his death was the Question And it was adjudged That by his death the Lease was determined For the life of a man is meer collaterall unto the Estate for years otherwise if a Lease be made to for the Lives of J. S. and J. N. See Brudnel's Case in the 5th Part of my Reports which Case was affirmed for good Law by the whole Court Pasch 8 Jac. Regis In Communi Banco Heydon and Smith's Case Richard Heydon brought an Action of Trespass against Michael Smith and others of breaking his Close called the Moor in Ugley in the County of Essex the 25 day of June 5 Jac. Et quandam arborem suam ad valentiam 40 s. nuper crescen succiderunt The Defendants said that the Close and at the time of the Trespass was the Freehold of Siâ— John Leventhrop Knight c. and that the said Oak was a Timber-Tree of 30 years growth and more and justifies the cutting down of the Tree by his Command The Plaintiff replyes and saith That the said Close and a House and 28 Acres of Land in ugley are Copy-hold and parcel of the Mannor of Ugley c. Of which Mannor Edward Leventhrop Esq Father of Sir John Leventhrop was seized in Fee and granted the said House Lands and Close to the said Richard Heydon and his Heirs by the Rod at the Will of the Lord according to the Custome of the said Mannor and that within the Mannor there is such a Custome Quod quilibet teneres Customar ejusdem Manerii sibi haeredibus suis ad voluntat Dom. c. a toto tempore supradicto usus fuit ad ejus libitum amputare ramos â—mnimodum arborum called Pollingers or Husbords super terris tenement suis Customar crescen pro ligno combustibili c. and also to cut down and take all manner of Trees called Pollingers and Husbords and all other Timber Trees c. for reparation of their Houses and also for Plough-boot and Cart-boot and that all the Trees c. hitherto growing upon c. were not sufficient for the necessary uses aforesaid And that the said Richard Heydon from the time of the said Grant had preserved c. all Treas c. growiâ—g upon the said Lands to him granted and that after the said Edward Leventhrops death the Mannor descended to the said Sir John and that at the time of the Trespass the aforesaid Messuage of the said Richard Heydon was in decay c. upon which the Defendant demurred in