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
such a Custom in non Decimando for all Lay-people within the said Weild were lawful or not was the Question And to have a Prohibition it was said That though one particular man shall not prescribe in non Decimando yet such a general Custom within a great Countrey might well be as in 43 Ed. 3. 32. And the 45 Ed. 3. Custome 15. where an Abbot purchased Tenements after the Statute c. and saith That being Lord of the Town c. there was a Custom in the said Town that when Tenant cesseth for 2 years the Lord may enter c. And that his Tenant cessed for 2 years and he entred And the Rule of the Court is Because it was an usage only in that Town he was put to answer by which appears that a Custom was not good in a particular Town that perhaps might be good in a Countrey c. See 40 Ass 21. 27. 39 Ed. 3. 2. See also 7 H 6. 26. b. 16 Ed. 2. Prescription 53. Dyer 363. 22 H. 6. 14. 21 Ed. 4. 15. and 45 Ass 8. Doct. Stud. lib. 2. cap. 55 A particular Country may prescribe to pay no Tythes for Corn c. but with this Caution that the Minister hath sufficient portion besides to maintain him to celebrate Divine Service And fol. 172. it is holden That where Tythes have not been paid to Under-â—oods under 20 years growth that no Tythes shall be paid for the same And fol. 174. that such a Custome of a whole Country that no Tythes of a Lordship shall be paid is good But the Court would advise Whether such a Custom of a Town or Country be good But in anâ—ient times the Parishioners have given or procured to the Parson a Wood or other Lands c. To hold to him and his Successors in satisfaction of all Tythes of Wood in the same Parish the Parson so seized of the same that without question is a good discharge of his Tythes and if he sue for the same a Prohibition lyes I will cite an antient Judgment many years past Mic. 25 H. 3. Wilts Rot. 5. before the King at Westminster Samson Folyet brought an Attaint upon a Prohibition against Thomas Parson of Swindon because he sued him in the Spiritual Court for a Layâ—ee of the said Samson in Draycot contrary to the Kings Prohibition c. and the Parson was condemned in 20 Marks c. which agrees with the Rule and Reason of the Law continued unto this day For Presidents in Ed. 2. Ed. 1. H. 3. and King John and more antient are not to be now followed unless they agree with the Law and practice at this day Statutes having changed some and Desuetudo antiquated others There are two Points adjudged by the said Record 1. That satisfaction may be given in discharge of payment of Tythes And if the Successor of the Parson enjoy the thing given in satisfaction of the Tythes and yet sueth for Tythes in kind he shall have a Prohibition because that he chargeth his Layfee with Tythes which is discharged of them By which it doth appear that Tythes cannot be discharged and altogether taken away and extinâ— And herewith agrees the Register which is the most ancient Law-Book fol. 38. By which also it appears That Tythes may be discharged and that the matter of discharge ought to be determined by the Common-Law and not in the Spiritual Court Also by the Act of Circumspecte agatis made 13 Ed. 1. It is said S. Rector petat versus Paroâ—hianos oblationes decimas debitaâ— consuetas c. Which proves there are Tythes in kind and other Tythes due by Custom as a Modus Decimandi c. And yet it is Resolved 19 Ed. 3. Jurisdiction 28. the Ordinance of Circumspecte agatis is not a Statute and that the Prelates made the same and yet then the Prelates acknowledged That there were Tythes due by Custome which â—is a Modus Decimandi By which it appears also that Tythes by Custom may be altered to another thing See 8 Ed. 4. 14. F. N. B. 41. g. vide 3 Ed. 3. 17. 16 Ed. 3. Annuity 24. 40 Ed. 3. 3. b. and F. N. B. 152. And if the Lord of a Mannor hath alwayes holden his Mannor discharged of Tythes and the Parson had before time of memory divers Lands in the same Parish of the Gift of the Lord of which the Parson is seized at this in Fee in respect of which the Parson nor any of his Predâ—cessors ever had received any Tythes of the said Mannor If the Parson now sue for Tythes of the said Mannor the Owner of the Mannor may shew that special Matter c. And the Proof that the Lord of the Mannor gave the Lands that Tythes should never be paid at this day is good Evidence to prove the surmise of the Prohibition 19 Ed. 3. Tit. Jurisdiction 28. It is adjudged That Title of Prescription shall be 〈◊〉 in the Kings Court And therefore a Medus Lecimandi which accrues by Custam and Prescription likewise It appears 6 H. 4. cap. 6. that the Pope by his Bulls discharged divers from payment of Tythes against which the Act was made 31 H. 8. cap. 13. Possessions of Religious Persons given to the King were discharged of payment of Tythes in certain Cases 32 H. 8. cap. 7. provides all Tythes to be set as formerly except such as are discharged So 2 Ed. 6. c. 13. by which appears one may be discharged of Tythes five wayes 1. By the Law of the Realm viz. the Common-Law as Tythes shall not be paid of Coales Quarries Bricks Tyles c. F. N. B. 53. and Reg. 54. nor of the after-Pasture of a Meadow c. nor of Rakings nor of Wood to make Pales or Mounds or Hedges c. 2. By the Statutes of the Realm as 31 H. 8. 13. 45 Ed. 3. c. 3. By Priviledge as those of St. Johns of Jerusalem in England the Cistertians Temptors c. as appears 10 H. 7. 277 Dyer 4. By Prescription as by Modus Decimandi annuall recompence in satisfaction as aforesaid 5. By reall Composition as appears by the Writ cited out of the Register By all which appears That a man may be discharged of payment of Tythes as aforesaid So as now it is apparent by the Law of England both Antient and Modern that a Lay-man ought to prescribe in Modo Decimandi not in non Decimando and that in effeâ—â— agrees with Thomas Aquinas in his secunda secundae Quaest 86. ar ultimo See Doct. Stud. Lib. 2. cap. 55. fol. 164. That the Tenth Part is not due by the Law of God nor by the Law of Nature which he calls the Law of Reason And he cites John Gerson a Doctor of Divinity in a Treatise which he calleth Regulae morales viz. Solutio Decimarum Sacerdotibus est de Jure Divino quatenus inde sustenteâ—tur sed quoad tam hanc vei illam assignare aut in alios reditus commutarâ—
The words whereof are Saving c. to the King c. all his Right c. of primer seizin and relief c. for Tenure in Socage or of the nature of Tenure in Socage in chief as heretofore hath bin used But there was no Custom before the Act for the King to have primer seizin c. Another President was in Pasch 37 Eliz. in the Book of Orders fol. 444. where the Case was That William Allet was seized of certain Lands in Pitsey called Lundsey holden of the Queen in Socage Tenure in chief and by Deed covenanted to stand seized to the use of his wife for life and afterwards to the use of Richard his younger Son in Fee and dyed and all was found by Office and it was Resolved ut supra But the Doubt oâ— the Case at Bar was because Henry the Feoffor had a Reversion in Fee which descended to the said William his eldest Son Trin. 7 Jacobi Regis The Case of the Admiralty A Bâ—ll was preferred in the Star-Chamber against Sir Richard Hawkins Vice-Admiral of the County of Devon and was charged that one William Hull and others were notorious Pyrates upon the High Seas and shewed in certain what Pyracy they had committed That the said Sir Richard Hawkins knowing the same did receive them and abet comfort them and for Bribes suffered them to be discharged And what Offence that was the Court referred to the consideration of the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron who heard Councel of both sides divers days at Sergeants Inne And it was Resolved by them 1. That the Admirals by the Common-Law ought not to meddle with any thing done within the Realm but onely with things done upon the Sea and that appeareth fully by the 13 R. 2. cap. 5. and therewith agrees 2 H. 4. c. 11. and 15 H. 2. c. 3. So also 2 H. 5. c. 6. 5 Eliz. c. 5. and this agrees with Stamf. fol. 51. 8 Ed. 2. Coron 399. See Plo. Com. 37 b. 2 R. 3. 12. 30 H. 6. 6. by Prisoit 2. It was Resolved That the Statutes are to be intended of a Power to hold Plea not of a Power to award Execution for notwithstanding the said Statutes the Judge of the Admiralty may do Execution within the Body of the County And therefore 19 H. 6. 7. the Case was W. T. at Southwark affirmed a Plaint of Trespass in the Admiralty against J. B. of a Trespass done upon the High-Sea Whereupon J. B. was cited to appear at the common day next ensuing at which day the said J. B. made default And according to the usage of the Court the said J. B. was amerced to 20 Marks Whereupon Command was made to P. as Minister of the said Court to take the Goods of the said J. B. to make agreement with the aforesaid W. T. by force of which he for the said 20 Marks took 5 Cowes and 100 Sheep in Execution for the said Money in the County of Ieicester And there it is holden by Newton and the whole Court That the Statutes restrain the power of the Court of Admiralty to hold Plea of a thing done within the body of the County but they do not restrain the Execution of the same Court to be served upon the Lands In which Case these Points were Resolved 1. Though the Court of Admiralty is not a Court of Record see Brooks Error 77. acc yet by Custom of the Court they may amerce the Defendant for his default by their discretion 2. That they may make Execution for the same of the Goods of the Defendant in corpore Comitatus and if he have not Goods may arrest his Body But the great question between them was If a man commit Pyracy upon the Sea and one knowing thereof receive and comfort the Defendant in the Body of the County if the Admiral and other the Commissioners by the Act 28 H. 8. cap. 16. may proceed by Indictment and Conviction against the Receiver and Abetter the Offence of the Accessary having his beginning within the Body of the County And it was Resolved by them That such a Receiver and an Abetter by the Common-Law could not be indicted and convicted because the Common-Law cannot take Cognizance of the Original Offence being done out of the Jurisdiction of the Common-Law and where it cannot punish the Principal it cannot punish the Accessary And therefore Coke Chief Justice reported to them a Case which was in Suffolk 28 Eliz. where Butler and others upon the Sea next to the Town of Iaystoff robbed divers of the Queens Subjects of their Goods which they brought into Norfolk and there were apprehended and brought before Me then a Justice of Peace in the same County and upon Examination they confessed a cruel and barbarous Pyracy and that the Goods then in their Custody were part of the Goods which they had so robbed And I was of Opinion that in that Case it could not be Felony punishable by the Common-Law because the Original Act was not offence whereof the Common-Law taketh knowledge and then the bringing them into the County could not make the same Felony punishable by our Law Yet I committed them to the Gaol untill the coming of the Justices of the Assizes And at the next Assizes the Opinion of Wray Chief Justice and Perian Justices of Assize was agreeing with Me ut supra and thereupon they were committed to Sir Robert Southwel then Vice-Admiral for those Countieâ— and this in effect agrees with Lacies Case which see in my Reports cited in Bingham's Case 2 Rep. 93. and in Constables Case C. 5. Rep. 107. See Pyracy was Fâ—lony 40 Ass 25. by Schard where a Captain of a Ship with some English-men robb'd the Kings Subjects upon the High Seas and the saith 't was Felony in the Norman Captain and Treason in the English-men which is to be understood of Petit-Treason and therefore in that Case the Pyrates being taken the Norman Captain was hang'd and the English drawn c. hang'd as appears by the same Book See Stamford 10. Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas Pettus and Godsalve's Case In a Fine levyed Trinity Term Anno quinto of this King between John Pettus Esq Plaintiff and Richard Godsalve and others Deforceants of the Mannor of Castre c. in Norfolk where in the â—hird Proclamation upon the Foot of the Fine the said Proclamation is said to be made in the sixth year of the King that now is which ought to have been Anno quinto And the fourth Proclamation is altogether left out because upon view of the Proclamations upon Dorsis upon Record not Finis ejusdem Termini per Justiciarios remaining with the Chirographer c. it appeareth the said Proclamations were duly made therefore it was adjudged that the Errours aforesaid should be amended and made to agree as well with the Prâ—clamation upon Record of the Fine and Entry of the Book as with the other Proclamations in Dorsis c. And
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
shall be extinct for Fealâ—y is by necessity of Law incident to the Reversion but the Rent shall be divided pro rata portionis and so it was adjudged And it was also adjudged That though Collins come to the Reversion by several Conveyances and at severall times yet he might bâ—ing an Action of Debt for the whole Rent Hill 43 Eliz. Rot. 243. West and Lassels Case So Hill 42 Eliz. Rot. 108. in the Common Pleas Ewer and Moylâ—s Case Note It was adjudged 19 Eliz. in the Kings-Bench that where one obtained a Prohibition upon Prescription de modo Decimandi by payment of a sum of money at a certain day upon which Issue was takeâ— and the Jury found the modus Decimandi by payment of the said sum but at another day the Case being well debated at last it was Resolved That no Consultation should be granted for though the day of payment may bâ— mistaken yet a Consultation shall not be granted where the Soitâ—tual Court hath not Jurisdiction of the Cause Taafi ld Chief Baron hath the Report of this Cause Mich. 7 Jac. Regis In an Ejectione Firmae he Writ and Declaration were of two parts of certain Lands in Hetherset and Windham in the County of Norfolk and saith not in two parts in three parts to be divided and yet it was good as well in the Declaration as the Writ for without question the Writ is good de duabus partibus generally and so is the Register See the 4 E. 3. 162. 2 E. 3. 31. 2 Ass 1. 10 Ass 12. 10 E. 3. 511. 11 Ass 21. 11 E. 3. Bre. 478. 9 H. 6. 36. 17 E. 4. 46. 19 E. 3. Bre. 244. And upon all the said Books it appears that by the Intendment and Construction of the Law when any parts are demanded without shewing in how many parts the whole is divided that there remains but one part undivided But when any Demand is of other parts in other form there he ought to shew the same specially And according to this difference it was resolved in Jordan's Case in the Kings-Bench and accordingly Judgment was given this Term in the Caseat Bar. Mich. 7 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas Muttoa's Case An Action upon the Case was brought against Mutton for calling the Plaintiff Sorce and Inchanter who pleaded Not Guilty and it was found against to the Damage of six pence And it was holden by the whole Court in the Common-Pleas that no Action lyes for the laid words for Sortilegus est qui per sortes futura praenunciat Inchantry is vordis aut rebus adjunctis aliquid praeter naturam moliri See 45 Ed. 3. 17. One was taken in Southwark with the Head and Visage of a dead man and with a Book of Sorcery in his Mayl and he was brought into the Kings-Bench before Knevet Justice but no Indictment was framed against him for which the Clerks made him swear never after to commit Sorcery and he was sent to Prison and the Head and Book were burn'd at Tuthil at the Prisoners charges The antient Law was as by Britton appears that who were attainted of Sorcery were burned but the Law at this day is they shall onely be fined and imprisoned So if one call another Witch an Action will not lye But if one say She is a Witch and hath bewitched such a one to death an Action upon the Case lyes if in truth the party be dead Conjuration in the Stat. 5 Eliz. cap. 16. is taken for Invocation of any evil and wicked Spirits and the same by that Act is made Felony But Witchcraft Inchantment Charms or Sorcery is not Felony if not by them any person be killed or dyeth The first Statute made against Conjuration Witchcraft c. was the Act 33 H. 8. c. 8. and by it they were Felony in certain Cases special but that was repealed by the 1 Ed. 6. c. 12. Mich. 7 Jae Regis In the Court of Wards Sir Allen Percy 's Case Sir John Fitz and Bridget his Wife being Tenants for life of a Tenement called Ramshams the remainder to Sir John Fitz in Tail the remainder to Bridget in Tail the reversion to Sir John and his Heirs Sir John and Bridget his Wife by Indenture demised the said Tenement to William Sprey for divers years yet to come except all Trees of Timber Oakes and Ashes and liberty to carry them away rendring Rent And afterwards Sir John dyed having Issue Mary his Daughter now Wife of Sir Allen Percy Knight and afterwards the said William Sprey demised the same Tenement to Sir Allen for 7 years The Question was Whether Sir Allen having the immediate Inheritance in right of his Wife expectant upon the Estate for the life of Bridget and also having the Possession of the said Demise might cut down the Timber Trees Oakes and Ashes And it was objected he might well do it for it was Resolved in Sanders Case in the 5th Part of my Reports That if Lessee for years or life assigns over his term or Estate to another excepting the Mines or the Trees c. that the Exception is void But it was answered and Resolved by the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron that in the Case at Bar the Exception was good without question because he who hath the Inheritance joyns in the Lease with the Lessee for life And it was further Resolved That if Tenant for life Leaseth for years excepting the Timber Trees the same is lawfully and wisely done for otherwise if the Lessee or Assignee cut down the Trees the Tenant for Life should be punished in Wast and should not have any remedy against the Lessee for years But when Tenant for life upon his Lease excepteth the Trees if they be cut down by the Lessor the Lessee or Assignee shall have an Action of Trespass Quare vi armis and shall recover Damages according to his loss And this Case is not like the Case of Sanders for there the Lessee assigned over his whole Interest and therefore could not except the Mines Trees c. But when Tenant for life leases for years except the Timber Trees the same remaineth yet annexed to his Free-hold and he may command the Lessee to take them for necessary Reparations of his Houses And in the said Case of Sanders a Judgment is cited between Foster and Miles Plaintiffs and Spencer and Bourd Defendants That where Lessee for years assigns over his Term except the Trees that Wast in such Case shall be brought against the Assignee But in this Case without question Wast lyeth against Tenant for life and so there is a difference Mich. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards Hulme's Case The King in Right of his Dutchy of Lancaster Lord Richard Hulms seized of the Mannor of Male in the County of Lancaster holden of the King as of his Dutchy by Knights Service Mesne and Robert Male seized of Lands in Male holden of the Mesne as of his said Mannor by Knights
Service Tenant Richard Hulme dyed after whose death 31 H. 8. it was found that he dyed seized of the said Mesnalty and that the same descended to Edward his Son and Heir within Age and found the Tenure aforesaid c. And during nonagâ— Robert Male dyed seized of the said Tenancy peravail and that the same descended to Richard his Son and Meir as was found by Office 25 H. 2. within age and that the said Tenancy was holden of the King as of his said Dutchy by Knights Service whereas in truth the same was holden of Edward Hulme then in Ward of the King as of his Mesnalty for which the King seized the Ward of the Heir of the Tenant And afterwards Anno quarto Jacobi Rogis nunc after the death of Richard Male the lineal Heir of Robert Male by another Office it was found that Richard dyed seized of the Tenancy and held the same of the King as of his Dutchy c. his Heir within age Whereupon Richard Hulme Cozen and Heir of the said Richard Hulme preferred a Bill to be admitted to traverse the Office found 4 Jac. Regis And the Question was Whether the Office found 35 H. 8. be any Estoppel to the said Hulme or if that the said Hulme should be first driven to Traverse that And it was objected That he ought first to traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. as in the Case 26 E. 65. And that the first Office shall stand as long as the same remaines in force To which it was Answered and Resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron and Court of Wards That the finding of an Office is not any Estoppel for that is but an Inquest of Office and the party grieved shall have a Traverse to it But when an Office is found falsly that Land is holden of the King by Knights Service in capite or of the King himself in Socage if the Heir fueâ—h a general Livery it is holden 46 Ed. 3. 12. by Mowbray and Persey that he shall not after adde that the Land is not holden of the King But that is not any Estoppel to the Heir himself and shall not conclude his Heir for so saith Mowbray himself expresly 44 Ass pl. 35. See 1 H. 4. 6. b. So 33 H. 6. 7. And there is no Book that saith that the Estoppel shall endure longer than his life but that is to be intended of a general Livery but a special Livery shall not conclude one And if a Jury find falsly in a Tenure of the King the Lord of whom the Land is holden may traverse that Office Or if Land be holden of the King in Socage c. the Heir may traverse the last Office for by that he is grieved and he shall not be driven to traverse the first Office And when the Father sues Livery and dyes the Conclusion is executed and past as is aforesaid And note there is a special Livery but that proceeds of the King's Grace and is not the Suit of the Heir and the King may grant it either at full age before aetate probanda or to the Heir within age as appears 21 E. 3. 40. And then is general and shall not comprehend any Tenure as the several Livery doth and therefore it is not any Estoppel without question See the 33 H. 8. cap. 22. 23 Eliz. Dyer 177. It was also Resolved in this Case that the Office of 35 H. 8. was not traversable for his own Traverse shall prove that the King had cause to have Wardship by reason of Ward And when the King comes to the Possession by a false Office or otherwise if it appears the King have any other Right to have the Land there none shall traverse the Office or Title of the King because the Judgment in the Traverse is Ideo consideratum est quod manus Domini Râ—gis amoveantur c. See 4 H. 4. fol. 33. in the Earl of Kents Case c. Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis Note The Priviledge Order or Custom of Parliament either of the Upper-House or House of Commons belongs to the Determination of the Court of Parliament and this appeareth by two notable Presidents 1. The one at the Parliament holden in the 27 H. 6. There was a Controversie moved in the Upper-House between the Earles of Aâ—undel and Devonshire for their Seats Places and Pre-eminences of the same to be had in the King's Presence as well in Parliament as in Councels and elsewhere The King by the Advice of Lords Spiritual and Temporal committed the same to certain Lords of Parliament who not having leisure to examine the same by the said Lords Advice referred it to the Judges of the Land to hear see and examine the Title c. and to report what they conceive herein The Judges reported as followeth That this matter viz. of Honour and Pre-eminency between the two Earles Lords of Parliament was a matter of Parliament and belonged to the King and his Lords in Parliament to be decided Yet being so commanded they shewed what they found upon Examination and their Opinions thereon Another Parliament 31 H. 6. 6th of March begun and after some continuance was prorogued to the 14 of February and afterwards in Michaelmas Term the same 31 H. 6. Thomas Thorpe Speaker of the Commons House was condemned in the Exchequer in 1000 l. Damages at the Duke of Buckingham's Suit for a Trespass done to him The 14th of Feb. the Commons mâ—ved in the Upper-House that their Speaker might be set at liberty to exercise his Place c. The Lords refer it to the Judges and Fortâ—scue and Prisoit the two Chief Justices in the Name of all the Judges answer'd That they ought not to consider this Question c. but it belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Justices But as to their Proceedings in the Lower-Courts in such Cases they deliver'd their Opinions See 12 E. 4. 2. Hill 7 Jac. Regis In Cam. Stâ—ll Heyward and Sir John Whitbrook's Case In the Case between Hyward and Sir John Whitbrook in the Star-Chamber the Defendant was convicted of divers Misdemeanours and Fine and Imprisonment imposed on him and Damages to the Plaintiff And it was moved that a special Process might be made out of that Court to levy the said Damages upon the Lands and Goods of the said Defendant And it was referred to the two Chief Justices whether any such Process might be made who this Term moved the Case to the Chief Baron and the rest of the Judges and Barons and it was unanimously by them all Resolved That no such Process could or ought to be made neither for the Damages nor for the Costs given to the Plaintiff the Court having no such power but onely to keep the Defendant in Prison till he pay them For for a Fine due to the King they can make no Process to levy it but they estreat it into the Exchequer which hath power by Law to write forth Process
in the Court for such cause And the King would know their Opinions The Judges took time till this Term and then Fleming Chief Justice Tanfield Chief Baron Saig Altham Crook Bromley and Dodderidge Yelverton and Williams Justices being dead since last Term did deliver their Opinions to the Lord Chancellor That the Presidents of each Court are sufficient Warrant for their Proceedings in the same Court and for a long time and in many Successions of Reverend Judges Prohibitions upon Information without any other Plea pending have been granted Issues tryed Verdicts and Judgments given upon Demurrer All which being in force they unanimously agreed to give no Opinion against the Jurisdiction of the Common-Bench in this Case See my Treatise of the Jurisdiction of the Common-Bench in this Point Hill 10 Jac. Regis Parliament in Ireland The Lords of the Councel did write to the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron to look into Poynings Act made 10 H. 7. in Ireland and to consider thereof and certifie what shall be fit to be held concerning the same their Letter bore date Ultimo Janii 1612. Upon which in this Term the said Chief Justices Chief Baron Attorney and Sollicitor General were assembled two days at Sergeants Inne And they considered not onely of the said Act 10 H. 7. c. 4. called Poynings Act but also of an Act made in Ireland 3 4 P. M. c. 4. Entituled An Act declaring how Poynings Act shall be expounded and taken for by the said Act 10 H. 7. it is provided That no Parliament be hereafter holden in Ireland but when the Kings Lieutenant and Councell there first certifie the King under the Great Seal of that Land the causes c. and such causes c. affirmed by the King and his Councel to be good and expedient for the Land and his Licence thereupon c. A Parliament to be holden after the former before c. And any Parliament holden contrary c. to be void in Law Upon which Act divers Doubts were conceived 1. And first Whether the said Act 10 H. 7. does extend to the Successors of H. 7. the Act speaking onely of the King generally and not his Successors 2. If the Queen Mary were within the word King and both were held affirmatively for the word King being spoke indefinitely does extend in Law to all his Successors And this is so expounded by the Act 3 and 4 P. and M. viz. That the said Act 10 H. 7. shall extend to the King and Queens Majesty her Heirs and Successors Secondly where Povnings Act sayes the Kings Lieutenant and Councel the said Act 3 and 4 P. and M. explains it to extend to all other Officers the King shall Depute by what Name soever 3. The greatest Doubt was upon these words of Poynings Act And such Causes Considerations and Acts affirmed by the King and his Councel to be good and expedient for the Land c. Whether the King may make any change or alteration of the Causes c. which shall be transmitted hither from the Lieutenant and Councel of Ireland for that it is not affirmative but correction and alteration of them and therefore it was necessary to explain that the Act 3 and 4 P. and M. was in these words Either for the passing of the said Acts and in such form and tenor as they should be sent into England or else for the change or alteration of them or any part of them 4. Another Doubt arose from these words That dâ—ne a Parliament to be had If at the same Parl. other Acts which have been affirmed or altered here may be Enacted there which is explained by the said last Act in these words viz. For passing and agreeing upon such Acts and no others as shall be returned c. 5. A fifth Doubt arose from the same words Whether the Lieutenant and Councel of Ireland after the Parliament begun and pendente Parliamento may upon debate there transmit any other Considerations c. the which said Act 3 and 4 P. and M. is by express words explained they may And it was unanimously Resolved That the Causes Considerations and Acts transmitted hither under the Great Seal of Ireland ought to be kept in the Chancery in England and not be remanded 2. Iâ— they be affirmed they must be transcribed under the Great Seâ—l and so returned into Ireland 3. If the Acts transmitted hither be in any part altered or changed here the Act so altered must forthwith be returned under the Great Seal of England for the Transcript under the Irish Great Seal to remain in Chancery here shall not be amended but the Amendment shall be under the English Great Seal See 10 H. 6. 8. which begins Mich. 18 H. 6. Rot. 46. coram Rege how a Parliament was holden there before Poynings Act. See also another Act made in Ireland the same 10 H. 7. c. 22. vide R. 3. 12. Hibernia habet Parliamenta faciunt leges nostra statuta non ligant â—os quia non mittunt milites ad Parliamentum sed personae coâ—um sunt subjecti Regis sicut inhabitantâ—s Calinae Gascogniae Guienae But question is made of this in some of our Books vid. 20 H. 6. 8. 32 H 6 25. 1 H. 7. 3. 8 H. 7. 10. 8 R. 2. Precess 204. 13 Ed. 2. Tit. Bastard 11 H. 47. 7 Ed. 4. 27. Plow Comment 368. 13 Eliz. Dyer 35. 2 Eliz. Dyer 366. Calvins Case 7th of my Reports 226. 14 Ed. 3. 184. A Prâ—bend in England made Bishop of Dublin in Ireland his Prebendary is voâ—d See the Sâ—atute of Ireland c. That the Acts of Parliament made in England since the 10 H. 7. do not hind them in Ireland but all made in England before the 10 H. 7. by the Act made in Ireland 10 H. 7. c. 22. do bind them in Ireland Note Cambden King at Arms told me that some held if a Baron dyes having Issue divers Daughters the King confer the Dignity to him who marryes any of them as hath been done in divers Cases viz. In the case of the Lord Cromwel who had Issue divers Daughters And the King did confer the Dignity upon Burchier who marryed the youngest Daughter and he was called Cromwel and so in other Cases Note by Linwood it appears by the Canons Ecclesiastick none may exercise Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction unless he be within the Orders of the Church because none may pronounce Excommunication but a Spiritual Person But now by the 37 H. 8. c. 17. a Doctor of Law or Register though a Lay-man may execute Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction No Ecclesiastical may cite a Church-Warden to the Court but so as he may return home the same day Also the Canons limit how many Courts Ex Officio they may have in a year Mich. 11 Jac. Regis Note If a man give to one of his Children a certain sum in his life and after dyes though this is not given as a Child 's full Portion yet it
positivi Juris est And he holds that a Portion is due by the Law of Nature which is the Law of God but it pertains to the Law of Man to assign Hane vâ—l illam portionem And saith further That Tythes may be exchanged into Lands Annuity or Rent c. And also that in Italy and other the East-Countries they pay not Tythes but a certain Portion according to the Custom And forasmuch as the Tenth Part is now due Ex Institutione Ecclâ—â—â—ae that is by their Canons and it appears by 25 H. 8. cap. 19. That all Canons c. made against the King's Prerogative c. are void and that Law was but Declaratory for no Statute or Custome of the Realm can be abrogated by any Cannon c. and that well appeareth by 10 H. 7. fol. 17. cap. 18. The second Point which agrees with the Law at this day which was adjudged in the said Record 25 H. 3. is That the Limits and Bounds of Towns and Parishes shall be trayed by the Common-Law and not by the Spirituall Court And in this the Law hath great Reason for thereupon depends the Title of Inheritance of the Layfee whereof the Tythes were demanded for Fines and Recoveries are the common Assurances of Lay-Inheritances and if the Spiritual Court should try the Bounds of Towns if they determine that my Land lyeth in another Town than is contained in my Fine Recovery or other Assurance I am in danger to lose my Inheritance and therewith agrees 39 Ed. 3. 29. 5 H. 5. 10. 32 Ed. 4. Consultation 3 Ed. 4. 14. 19 H. 6. 20. 50 Ed. 3. 20. and many other Presidents to this day And Note There is a Rule in Law that when the Right of Tythes shall be tryed in the Spiritual Court and the Spiritual Court hath Jurisdiction of the same that our Courts shall be oâ—sted of the Jurisdiction 35 H. 6. 47. 38 H. 6. 21. 2 Ed. 4. 15. 22 Ed. 4. 13. 38 Ed. 3. 36. 14 H. 7. 17. 13 H. 2. Jurisâ— 19 and when not ousted 12 H. 2. Jurisdiction 17. 13 â— 2. ibid. 19. 7 H. 4. 34. 14 H. 4. 17. 38 Ed. 3. 56. 42 Ed 3. 12. And the Causes why the Judges of the Common-Law would not permit the Ecclesiastical Judges to try Modum Decimandi being pleaded in their Court is because that if the Recompence which is to be given to the Parson in satisfaction of his Tythes doth not amount to the value of his Tythes in kind they would overthrow the same And that appears by Linwood among the Constitutions Simonis Mepham tit de Decimis cap. Quoniam propter fol. 139. b. verbo Consuetudines And that is the true Reason and therefore a Prohibition lyes and therewith agrees 8 Ed. 4. 14. and the other Books aforesaid and infinite Presidents See 7 Ed. 6. Dyer 79. and 18 Eliz. Dyer 349. the Opinion of all the Justices Mich. 6 Jacobi Regis In the Exchequer Baron and Boyse Case In the Case between Baron and Boys in Information upon the Stat. 5 Ed. 6. cap. 14. of Ingrossers after Verdict it was found for the Informer that the Defendant had ingrossed Apples against the said Act. The Barons held clearly that Apples were not within the Act and gave Judgment against the Informer upon the matter apparent to them and caused the same to be entred in the Margin of the Record where the Judgment was given The Informer brought a Writ of Errour in the Exchequer Chamber and the onely Question was Whether Apples were within the said Act. The Letter of which is viz. That whatsoever person c. shall ingross or get into his or her hands by buyiâ—â— c. any Corn growing or other Corn or Grain Butter Cheese Fish or other dead Victuall c. to sell the same again shall be accepted c. an unlawsul Ingrosser And though the Sâ—at 2 Ed. 6. 6. 15. numbreth Butchers Brewers Bakers Cooks Coster Mongers and Fruiterers as Victuallers yet Apples are not dead Victuals within the 5 Ed. 6. there being no Provisoe for Coster-mongers and Fruiterers in the said Act as there are for Buyers and Sellers of Corn and other Victualâ— Also ever since the Act they have bought Apples by Ingross and sold them again and yet no Information was ever before this for the same being for Delicacy more than necessary Food But the Stat. 5 Ed. 6. is intended of things necessary for sustenance of man where the Statute of 2 Edward the 6. 15. made against Conspiracies to enhance the Prices was done by express words to extend it to things which are more of pleasure than profit But this was not resolved by the Justices because the Information was conceived upon that Branch of the Statute concerning Ingrossers Hill 27 Eliz. in Chancery Hill 27 Eliz. In Chancery the Case was thus Ninian Menvil seized of certain Lands in Fee took a Wife and levyed a Fine of the said Lands with Proclamations and afterwards was indicted and outlawed of High-Treason and dyed The Conusees convey the Land to the Queen who is now seized The five years pass after the Husband's death the Daughters and Heirs of the said Ninian in a Writ of Errour in the Kings-Bench reverse the said Attainder M. 26 and 27 Eliz. and thereupon the Wife sues to the Queen by Petition containing all the special matter Which Petition being indorsed by the Queen Fait droit aux Parties c. the same was sent into Chancery as the manner is And in this Case divers Objections were made against the Demandant 1. That the Fine with Proclamations should bar the Wife of Dower and the Attainder of her Husband should not help her for as long as that remained in force the same was a Bar also of her Dower But admit the Attainder of the Husband shall avail the Wife the same being reversed by a Writ of Errour and so in Judgment of Law as if it had never been and against which a man might plead there is no such Record agreeing with the Book 4 H. 7. 11. and the Case in 4 H. 7. 10. b. is A. seized of Land in Fee was Attaint of Hâ—gh-Treason The King grants the Land to B. and afterwards A. committed Trespass upon the Land and after by Paâ—l A. was restored and the Attainder void This shall be as auciplable and ample to A. as if no Attainder had been Afterwards B. brinâ—s Trespass for the Trespass Mesne and it was adjudged 10 H. 7. f. 22. b. that the Action of Trespass was not maintainable because the Attainder was annulled ab initio 2. It was objected That the Wife could not have a Petition because there was not any Officâ— by which her Title of Dower was sound viz. her Marriage her Husbands Seizin and Death for it was said that though he was marryed yet if her Husband was not seized after the Age that she is Dowable she shall not have Dower And the Title of him that sueth by Petition ought to be
all the purview of the Statute which is penned so precisely concerning persons should be all in vain by that evasion of Transcribing it as well against the express Letter of the Act as the intention of it And the Act ought to be expounded to suppress Extortion which is a great affliction and impoverishing of the Subjects 4. As this Case is he annexes the Probate and Seal to the Transcript ingrossed which the Plaintiff brought him so as the Case at Bar was with question And afterwards the Jury found for the Plaintiff And of such Opinion was Walmesly Warberton Daniel and Foster Justices the next Term in all things But upon Exception in Arrest of Judgment for not pursuing of the Act in the Information Judgment is not yet given c. Hill 6 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas In this Term a Question was moved to the Court which was this If Tenant in Burgage should pay aid to the King to make his eldest Son Knight And the Point rests upon this If Tenure in Burgage be a Tenure in Socage for by the antient Common-Law every Tenant in Knights Service and in Socage was to give to his Lord a reasonable Ayd to make his eldest Son a Knight and to marry his eldest Daughter and that was uncertain at Common-Law and also incertain when the same should be paid And this appears by Glanvil lib. 9. cap. 8. fol. 70. who wrote in the time of Henry the second Nihil autem certum statutum de hujus modi auxilâ—is dandis vel exigendis c. And in the beginning of the Chapter it is called rationabile auxilium because then it was not certain but to be moderated by Reason in respect of Circumstances The like appears by the Preamble of the Statute West 1. 3 Ed. 1. cap. 35. The said Act put those incertainties to a certainty 1. That for a whole Knights Fee there be taken but 20 s. and of 20 l. Lands holden in Socage 20 s. and of more more and of less less whereby the Ayd it self became certain 2. That none might levy such Ayd to make his Son a Knight untill his Age of 15 years nor to marry his Daughter till her Age of 7 years And Fleta who wrote after that Act calls them rationabilia auxilia c. And by the Stat. 25 Ed. 1. where it is provided That Taxes shall be taken but by common consent of the Realm there is an Exception of the Antient Ayds which is to be intended of these Ayds But notwithstanding the said Act of West 1. it was doubted if the King were bound by it being not expresly named And therefore Ed. 3. in the 20 year of his Reign took â—n Ayd of 40 s. of every Knights Fee to make the Black Prince Knight and then nothing of Lands holden in Socage and to take away all question concerning the same it was confirmed by Parliament and after 25 Ed. 3 cap. 11. It is Enacted That reasonable Ayd to make the Kings eldest Son Knight and to marry his eldest Daughter shall be levyed after the form of the Stat. made thereof and not in other manner Now Littleton lib. 2. cap. 10. fol. 36. b. Burgage Tenure is where an antient Borough is whereof the King is Lord and those who have Tenements within the Borough hold of the King That every Tenant for his Tenement ought to pay to the King a certain Rent And such Tenure is but Tenure in Socage and all Socage Land is contributary to Ayd and therefore a Tenant in Burgage shall be contributary to Ayd It appeareth in the Register fol. 1 2. in a Writ of Right Lands held in Knights Service are said Quas clamat tenere perservitium unius Feâ—di militis And Socage Lands Quas clamat per liberum servitium unius cumini c. So F. N. B. 82. Rationabile auxilium de militibus et liberis tenentibus where Militibus distinguisheth Knights Service from Socage which is called libtris tenentibus But it appears by the Books of Avowry 26. and 10 H. 6. So Antient Demesne 11. It was Resolved by all the Justices in the Exchequor Chamber That no Tenure shall pay for a reasonable Ayd but Tenure by Knights Service and by Socage but not by Grand Sergeanty nor no other And 13 H. 4. 34. agrees to the Case o Grand Sâ—rgeanty And I conceive that Petit Sergeanty shall also pay Ayd for Littleton lib. 2. cap. 8. fol. 36. sayes That such a Tenure is but Socage in effect though Fitzh N. B. 83. a. avouch the contrary 13 H. 4. 34. And I conceive That he who holds a Rent of the King by Knights Service or in Socage shall pay Ayd according to the words in West 1. cap. 35. And though it was said that a Tenure in Socage in servitium Socae as Littleton saith and the same cannot be applyed to Houses To that it was answered That the Land upon which the Houses are buâ—l or if the House fall down may be made arable and plowed See Huntington Polydor Virgil and Hollinsheads Chron. fol. 35. 15 H. 4. Ayd was levyed by H. 1. 7. to marry Mawd his eldest Daughter to the Emperour viz. 3 l. of every Hide of Land c. See also The Grand Customary of Normandy cap. 35. there is a Chapter of Aydeâ— See also the Stat. made 19 H. 7. which beginneth thus Item Praefati Communes in Parliamento praed existent ex assensu c. concesserunt praefat Regi quand pecuâ—iae summam in loco duorum rationabilium auxilior suae Majestat de jure debit c. See Rot. 30 H. 3. Ex parte Reman Dom. Thâ—saur in scemino in auxilio nobis concess ad primogenitam filiam noâ—â—ram maritand And H. 3. had an Ayd granted by Parliament Ad Is abellam sororem suam Imperatori But that was of Benevolence Rot. 42 H. 3. ibid. 6. Monstrat R. Johanne le Francois Baro de Scaccario quod cum Dom. Rex non caperet nisi 20 s. de integro Feodo Mil. de auxilio c. Ibid. in Regno 2 Ed. 1 Rot. 3. de auxilio ad Militiam Which is meant of Knight of the Kings Son Note If one withâ—n Age be in Ward of the King he shall not be contributary to Ayd but his Tenants that hold of him shall as appears by that Record Ibid. 30 Ed. 1. Ibid. T. R. 34 E. 1. Ibid. Hill 4 H. 4. Rot. 19. de rationabili auxilio de Will. Dom. Roos The like M. Rot. 5 H. 4. Rot. 33. Lincoln Roâ— 34. Lincoln Rot. 35 Lincoln Tr. R. 5 H. 4. Rot. 2. Kanc. Rot. 3. Kanc. Rot. 5. Kanc. See ibid. R. 21 Ed. 3. Rot. Cantab. â—e auxilio adfilium Regis primogenitâ—m faciend per Episcopum EEliens See also ibid. 20 Ed. 3. Rot. 13 14. de auxiliendo ad primogenitum filium Râ—gis Militem faciend By all which before cited it appeareth that Tenure in Burgage is subject to the payment of
County of Hereford in his Denâ—esne as of Free and found the other Points of the Writ and it was holden by the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron 1. That Mâ—ssâ—agium vel Tenementum is uncertain for Tenementum is nomen collectivum and may contain Land or any thing that is holden 2. It was holden That it was void for the whole because no Town is mentioned in the Office where the Mâ—ssuage or Tenement c. lyeth and it was holden that no melius inquirendum shall issue forth because the whole Office is incertain and void Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards The Attorney of the Court of Wards moved the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron in this Case A man seized of Lands in Fee-simple covenants for the advancement of his Son and his Name Blood and Posterity that he will stand seized of them to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his eldest Son and to such Woman as he shall marry and the Heir-males of the body of the Son and afterwards the Father dyeth and after the Son takes a Wife and dyeth if the Wife shall take an Estate for Life And it was Resolved by the said two Chief Justices and Chief Baron That the Wife should take well enough being within the consideration which was for the advancement of his Posterity and without a Wife the Son cannot have Posterity Secondly It was Resolved that the Estate of the Son shall support the use to the Defendant and when the Contingent happeneth the Estate of the Son shall be changed according to the Limitation viz. to the Son and the Woman and the Heirs of the Body of the Son And so it was Resolved in the Kings-Bench by Popham Chief Justice and the whole Court in Sheffields Case in Q. Elizabeths time Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards Spary's Case John Spary seized in Fee in the Right of his Wife of Lands holden by Knight-service had Issue by her and 22 Dec. 9 Eliz. alienated to Edward Lord Stafford The Wife dyed the Issue of full age the Alienee holds the Lands And 10 years after the Fathers death and 12 years after the Mothers Office is found 7 Jac. finding all the special Matter after the Mothers death The Question was Whether the mean Profits are to be answer'd to the King And it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron that the King should have the mean Profits because the Alienee was in by Title and untill Entry the Heir has no Remedy for the mean Profits but that the King might seize and make Livery because the Entry of the Heir is lawful by the Stat. 32 H. 8. Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards It was found by force of a Mandamus at Kendal in Westmerland 21 Dec. 6 Jac. that George Earl of Cumberland long before his death was seized in Tail to him and to the Heirs-male of his body of the Castles and Mannors of Browham Applâ—by c. the remainder to Sir Ingram Clifford with divers Remainders in Tail the remainder to the right Heirs of Henry Earl of Cumberland Father of the said George and that the said George Earl so seized by Fine and Recovery conveyed them to the use of himself and Margaret his Wife for their Lives for the Joynture of Margaret and after to the Heir-males of the body of George Earl of Cumberland and for want of such Issue to the use of Francis now Earl of Cumberland and the Heir-males of his body and for want of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the said George And after by another Indenture conveyed the Fee-simple to Francis Earl By force of which and of the Statute of Uses they were seized accordingly and afterwards the 30 of Octob. 3 Jac. George Earl of Cumberland dies without Heirs male of his body c. And found further that Margaret Countess of Cumberland that now is was alive and took the profits of the Premisses from the death of the said George Earl till the taking the Inquisition and further found the other Points of the Writ 1. And first it was objected Here was no dying seized found by Office and therefore the Office shall be insufficient But to that it was Resolved That by this Office the King was not intitled by the Common-Law for then a dying seized was necessary But this Office is to be maintained upon the Stat. 32 and 34 H. 8. by force of which no dying seized is necessary and so it was Resolved in Vincents Case Anno 23 Eliz. 2. The second Objection was It doth not appear that the Wives Estate continued in her till the Earles death for the Husband and Wife had aliened the same to another and then no primer seizin shall be as is agreed in Binghams Case And to that it was Resolved That the Office was sufficient prima facie for the King because it is a thing collateral and no point of the Writ And if such Alienation be the same shall come in of the other part of the Alienee by a Monstrans de droit And the Case at Bar is a stronger Case because it is found the Councess took the Profits from the death of George the Earl till the finding the Office Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards Wills Case Henry Wills seized of the 4th Part of the Mannor of Wryland in the County of Dâ—von holden of Q. Eliz. iâ— Socage Tenure in capite of the said 4â—h part enfeoffed Zathary Irish and others and their Heirs to the use of the said Henry for his Life and after his Decâ—ase to Thomas Wills his second Son in Tail and after to the use of Richard Wills his youngest Son in Tail and after the said Henry so seized as aforesaid dyed All this Matter is found by Office And the Question was If the King ought to have primer seizin in this Case that Livery and Ouster le mayne should be sued by the Statutes of the 32 and 34 H. 8. And it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron that not if in this Case by the Common-Law no Livery or Ouster le main shall be sued and that was agreed by them all by the experience and couâ—se of the course See 21 Eliz. Dyer 362. and 4 Eliz. Dyer 213. And two Presidents were shâ—wed which were Decreed in the same Court by the Advice of the Justices Assistants to the Court. One in Trin. 16 Eliz. Thomas Stavely enfeoffed William Strelley and Thomas Law of the Mannor of Ryndly in Nottingh â—shire on condition that they re-enfeoffe the Feoffor and his Wife for their Lives the remainder to Thomas Stavely Sâ—n and Heir apparent of the Feoffer in Fee Which Mannor was holden of Q. Elizabeth in Socage Tenure in capite And it was Resolved That no Livery or Ouster le maine shall be sued in such Case because of the saving of the Stat. 32 H. 8.
Law The Case was often argued at Bar and now this Term it was argued at the Bench by the Justices and therein these Points were resolved 1. That the first part of the Custom was absurd and repugnant but it extends not to the Case for the last part of the Custom which concerns the cutting down of the Trees concerns the Point in question and so the first part of the Custom is not material And when it was objected that the pleading that the Messuage of the Plaintiff was in decay was too general as appears by the Book 10 Ed. 4. 3. To that it was answered by Cook Chief â—ustice That the said Book proved the pleading in the Case at Bar was certain enough and therewith agrees 7 H. 6. 38. 34 H. 6. 17. 2. It was Resolved That in this Case without question there needs not to alleadge more certainty for the Copyholder doth not here take it according to the Custom but the Lord of the Mannor cuts it down and preventeth the Copyholder of his benefit and therefore he needeth not to shew any decay at all but onely for increasing of Damages for the Lord does the wrong when he cuts down the Tree which should serve for Reparations 3. It was Resolved That of Common-Right as a thing incident to the Grant the Copyholder may take House-bote Hedge-bote and Plough-bote upon his Copy-hold Quia concesso uno conceduntur omnia sine quibus id consistere non potest And with this agrees 9 H. 4. Wast 59. But the same may be restrained by Custome 4. It was Resolved That the Lord cannot take all the Timber-Trees but he ought to have sufficient for Reparation of the Customary Houses and for Plough-bote c. for otherwise great Depopulation will follow And it is to be understood that Bote being on old Saxon Word hath two significations First compensatio criminis as Frithbote signifies to be discharged for giving amends for breach â—f the Peace Manhote to be discharged of amends for the death of a man And secondly for Reparation as Bridgebote Burghbote Castlebote Parkbote c. And it is to be known that Bote and Estovers are all one And Estover is derived of the French Word Estover i. e. fovere i. e. to keep warm cherish c. And there are four kinds of Estovers viz. First Arandi Secondly Ardendi Thirdly Construendi And fourthly Claudendi viz. Ploughbote Firebote Housebote and Hedgebote 5. It was Resolved That the Copyholder shall have a general Action of Trespass against his Lord Quare clausum fregit arborem suam succidit For Custome hath fixed it to his Estate against his Lord. And the Copy-holder in this Case hath as great an Interest in the Timber Trees as he hath in his Messuage which he holds by Copy And if the Lord break or destroy the House without question the Copyholder shall have an Action of Trespass against his Lord Quare domum fregit and by the same Reason for the Timber-Trees which are annexed to the Land and which he may for Reparation of his Messuage or else it cannot stand See Trin. 40 Eliz. Rot. 37. in B. R. between Stebbing and Grosenor See Taylor 's Case in the Fourth Part of my Reports and see 5 H. 4. 2. 2 H. 4. 12. 2 E. 4. 15. 1 H. 6. 4. 7 H. 4. 15. 19 H. 6. 34. 11 H. 4. 28. 11 H. 4. 23. 21 H. 7. 14. b. acc 35 H. 6. 24. 30 H. 6. Tresp 10. c. 21 H. 7. 15. 11 H. 4. 23. See Fitz. Trespass ultimo in the Abridgement And afterwards the same Term Judgment was given on the principal Case for the Plaintiff Pasch 8 Jacobi In Communi Ranco The Parishioners of St. Alphage in Canterbury by Custome ought to choose the Parish-Clerk whom they chose accordingly The Parson by colour of a new Canon made at the Convocation in the Year of the King that now is which is not of force to take away any Custome drew the Clark before Dr. Newman Officiall of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to deprive him upon the Point of right Election and for other Causes And upon that it was moved at the Bar to have a Prohibition And upon hearing of Dr. Newman and himself and his Councel a Prohibition was granted by the whole Court because the Party chosen is a meer Temporal Man And the means of choosing him viz. the Custome is also meerly Temporal So as the Official cannot deprive him but upon occasion the Parishioners may displace him And this Office is like that of a Church-Warden who though they be chosen for two years yet for cause they may displace them as is held in 26 H. 8. 5. And though the Execution of the Office concerneth Divine Service yet the Office it self is meer Temporal See 3 E. 3. Annuity 30. 18 E. 3. 27. And it is to be known that the deprivation of a man of a Temporal Office or Place is a Temporal Thing Upon which no Appeal lyes by the 25 H. 8. but an Assize as in 4 Eliz. Dyer 209. And therewith agrees the Book 8 Ass Sirases Case But if a Dean of a Cathedral Church be deprived before the Commissioners of the King he may appeal to the Delegates within the said Act 25 H. 8. For a Deanery is a Spiritual Promotion and not Temporal And before that Act in such Case the Appeal was to Rome immediately Mich. 5 Jacobi Regis In Banco Regis Prichard and Hawkin's Case John Prichard brought an Action upon the Case against Robert Hawkins for Slanderous Words publish'd the last Day of August 3. Jacob. Viz. That Prichard which serves Mistriss Shelley did murder John Adam's Child Quandam Isabellam Adams modo defunct filia cujusdam Johannis Adams de c. innuendo Upon which a Writ of Errour was brought in the Exchequer-Chamber upon a Judgment given for Prichard in the Kings-Bench and the Judgment was reversed in Easter Term 7 Jac. because it doth not appear that Isabel was dead at the time of speaking the words for tunc defunct ought to have bin in stead of modo defunct Pasch 8 Jac. In Banco Regis Dison and Bestney's Case Humphry Dyson said of Nicholas Bestney a Councellor at Law of Grays-Inne Thou a Barrester Thou art no Barrester Thou art a Barretor Thou wert put from the Bar and darest not shew thy self there Thou study the Law thou hast as much Wit as a Daw. Upon Not Guilty pleaded the Jury found for the Plaintiff and gave 23 l. Damages upon which Judgment was given and upon Writ of Errour in the Exchequer-Chamber the Judgment was affirmed Pasch 8 Jac. Regis In Banco Regis Smith and Hill's Case Noah Smith brought an Action of Assault and Battery against Walter Hill in the Kings-Bench which began Pasch 7 Jac. Rot. 175. Upon Not Guilty pleaded a Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff and 107 l. given for Damages and Costs In a Writ of Errour in the Exchequer Chamber the Errour was