alias Heriots with the appurtenances whereof the said Close called Pipers Down was parcell which tenement and Close were parcell of the said manour and was then and had been time out of mind demised and demiseable in Fee by Copy of Court roll of the said manour did build a new messuage upon the said Tenement and did afterwards by his Letters patents under the great seal grant the office of Keeper and keeping of the said messuage to Iohn Gate for term of his life with all the Lands Tenements c. thereto belonging or adjacent and did also by the same Letters patents give and grant unto the said Iohn Gate amongst other things the Lands belonging to the said new built messuage whereof the said Close called Pipers down was part for Term of his life for the exercising of the said office with an averment in the plea that before that time there was no such office of the keeping of the said house and that the King did not know nor was at the time of the grant enformed that the said Tenement and Lands whereof the said Close was parcell were Copyhold of the said manour After the grant made to Iohn Gate as aforesaid H. the 8. dyed seised of the said manour of the reversion of the said Messuage and Close after the death of Iohn Gate and thereby Ed. the 6. became sofâ—ed of them in like manner and from Ed. the 6. they came to Quéen Mary Then Iohn Gate dyes and after his death Quéen Mary enters upon the said manour and Messuage whereof the said Close was a parcell and afterwards by her Letters Patents under her broad Seal doth grant the Manour and Messuage and Premises unto Susan Tong and her heirs for ever From Susan Tong by mean conveyance the said Manour Messuage and Premises came to Humphry White and his heirs and afterterwards Humphrey White being seized thereof in Fée did by his indenture of lease demise the said Manour Messuage and Premises to Leigh for 60. years to begin from Mich. before the making of the indenture afterward Humphrey White grants away the reversion of the said Manour Messuage Premises to Sir John Branch afterwards Sir Iohn Branch grants this reversion to Vdall Vdall grants it to Bathurst and Bathurst grants it to Thomas Boothby the Ancestor of Thomas Boothby whose Baily doth here make the avowry Afterwards Robert Leigh who had the lease of the said Manour and Premises as aforesaid for 60 years deviseth the residue of this lease then unexpired by his last Will and Testament unto Robert Leigh his Son and dyes Robert Lee the son being possessed of the residue or remainder of this Term for 60. years by virtue of the said Will did at his court held for the said Manour of Chingford grant the said Messuage with the appurtenances and Lands thereunto belonging whereof the said Close was parcell unto Edmund Lee his brother to hold of the same Manour in Fée at the will of the Lord by Copy of Court Roll of that Manour Edmund Lee was thereupon admitted accordingly Afterwards the said lease for 60. years made by Humphrey White unto Robert Leigh the Father expires Afterwards Thomas Boothby who had the reversion of the said Manour and Premises as abovesaid entred as in his reversion upon the said Manour and Premises and dyed seised thereof leaving issue Thomas Boothby his Son Thomas Boothby the Son enters into the said Manour and Premises and claims the said Messuage with the apurtenances with the lands thereunto belonging whereof the Close called Pipers down was parcell and was granted by Robert Leigh unto Edmund Leigh by Copy of Court Roll as aforesaid as parcell of the demaines of the said Manour of Chingford and doth deny it to be Copyhold and to the intent to try the title thereof did by the Avowant his Bailiff distrein the Cattel in the said Close as damage feasant in his soil and Freehold This Case was argued first by Arthur Harris of Lincolnes Inn who argued for the Plaintiff viz. he that brought the replevin and in his argument he made the generall question in the Case to be whether the close called Pipers Down in which the distress was taken were at the time of the distress taken demiseable by Copy of Court Roll or whether the Custom was not destroyed and he held it was demiseable and that the custom was not destroyed and hereupon he made four questions 1. Whether the grant of the new house to Sr. Iohn Gate per nomen officii of keeper thereof were a good grant 2ly Whether the King not being enformed at the time of the grant that the house was Copyhold tenure he was not deceived in his grant 3ly Whether by this grant the Custom was not destroyed 4ly Whether the Kings Patentee hath not the same privilege to grant this house c. again by Copy of Court Roll after the death of Sr. Iohn Gate And as to the 1. of these 4. questions he cited 8 E. 4. by Chock and 21 E. 4.79 and Mich 5 Car. Banc. Reg. Monsons case and Pasc 14 Car. Banc. Reg. Messand and Butterfields Case and 5 E. 4. f. 8. and Dyer 269. Savages Case To the 2d question he held that the King was not here enformed of his right and consequently he was deceived and therefore ought not to be prejudiced by his grant which he should be if he had not liberty to demise this house again by Copy of Court Roll after the death of Sr. Iohn Gate and he said that there are two rights in the King 1. At the Common Law and 2ly a customary right and of this Customary right or his jus concedendi he was not enformed and he cited these books 3 H. 7.10 rep 49.8 H. 625 Br. Ayd 45 4. H. 6.1 2 R. 3. Hunsons Case and he said that the book of 5 H. 7. f. 1. which is objected is not to purpose for the protestation is not well taken 19 H. 6. a protestation is to supply a matter which is not so here 41 E. 3. Fitzh protest 9.22 H. 6.37 Br. protestation 6. Plowd Coment Gresbrooks and Foxes Case and 20 Eliz. Burrell and Holcrofts Case 2ly The King is not enformed here in his grant in matter in Law as he ought to be and therefore his grant shall not turn to his prejudice 1 rep 52.18 H. 8. Lovels Case Pasc 2 Eliz. Sr. Thomas Mores Case 1. rep â—3 16 Jac. Needlers case and whereas it is said that the words ex certa scientia in the patent do declare that the King was enformed I answer that those words do intend no more but that the King was enformed of matters of fact and not of matters in Law and the Kings grant shall only be taken secundum intentionem and whereas it may be objected that by the granting of the Estate for life unto Sr. Iohn Gate the custom is destroyed I answer that this being in the Case of the King it is an extraordinary Case and not
Hales on the other side Argued that the King shall have the trust and laid these two grounds 1. That there may be a trust raised upon the surrender of a Copyhold and 2ly that the surrender settles the trust in the Alien and cited 11 H. 4.26 and he said these things were considerable 1. Whether the King shall have any thing and what he shall have 2. Whether he shall have a use for an Alien at the Common law or a trust 3. Whether he shall have a trust raised out of a use And for the first he said that the trust was not a thing meerly in Action but an hereditament and partly in possession and cited Cooks Institutes 469. and said the reason why an Alien may not purchase lands is because that this Kingdom might not be impoverished thereby by transporting the revenues of the land into a forein Country and putting a part of it under the subjection of a forein Prince and the same reason comes to the case in question and therefore is not to be suffered and every Alien that purchaseth is said to purchase to the use of the King and so shall it be in this case and although a thing meerly in Action is not transferable to a Common person yet is it transferrable to the King but this case is stronger for the King for here is not a thing meerly in Action but mixed with an interest and it is no reason but that the law which was made to meet with the subtility of such Alien purchasors should take place here and it cannot be said that that law was made to give remedy to the King for that he had before and a Feoffment now made in trust for an Alien is all one with a use at the Common law and he cited 19. Jac. that trusts made to St. Iohn Daccombe of Annuityes for the Lord Summersett attainted of Treason were adjudged to be forfeited and he held Daccombe that there is no difference between a trust raised out of a Copyhold and other lands and if he hath an interest here in the profits the seisure is good though he have no interest in the land for the land may be seised by the profits 5 H. 5. fol. 9. Title But Rolle Iustice demanded of Hales how the King shall be intitled to the profits of the land where he is not intitled to the land it self and said that the Chancery cannot compell one to Execute a trust for an Alien Chancery and that a trust was invented only to avoid the Statute of uses and said that a trust is not a thing in Action Trust but may be an inheritance or a Chatell as the case falls out Adjourned postea White and Pynder Pasc 23 Car. Banc. reg Mich. 22 Car. rot 440. IN an Action of Trover and Conversion Demurrer upon an evidence there was a demurrer joyned upon the evidence and thereupon the Court directed the Iury to find damages for the Plaintiff if upon the argument of the demurrer the law should be adjudged for him and then the parties desired the Iury might be discharged and referred the matter to the Iudges to determine the law upon the evidence In this case Rolle Iustice took this difference to wit between pleading of a Record Record and giving a Record in evidence to a Iury. Plea If it be pleaded it must be sub pede sigilli or else the Iudges cannot judge of it But if it be given in evidence though it be not sub pede sigilli the Iury may find it Evidence if they have other good matter of inducement to prove it And the partyes in this case were advised by the Court for their own expedition to let there to be issued a venire facias de novo and to waive the demurrer upon the evidence because it was not good nor could bring the matter in question before them that they might determine it for one party saith there is a writ and the other saith there is not a writ which is bare matter of fact and not for us to determine but for a Iury and the demurrer ought to have been whether the writ be good or whether it be bad and should have admitted that there was a writ tyel quel and then had the whole matter come legally before us to wit whether the evidence given to the Iury be sufficient for them to find a verdict for the Plaintiff upon the issue joyned or not But the Court will advise Hamond and Kingsmill Pasc 23 Car. Banc. Reg. HAmond brings an Action upon the case against Kingsmill for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Action of the Case for words spoken of him in relation as he is a Iustice of peace to wit Mr. Hamond did put in of his own head these words in an examination taken by him viz. I. S. did steal twenty sheep of such a mans and for speaking these other words of him Hamond was a debauched man and is not fit to be a Iustice of peace and hath a verdict against the defendant who moves in Arrest of Iudgement that neither the former nor the latter words were actionable for for the former words that he did of his own head put in words into the examination are words uncertain and dubious what is meant by them whether that he added any thing of his own invention to the examination which was not confessed by the examinant or that he only put the substance of the matter confessed into words of his own endicting and if he did no more that was justifiable and so it shall be taken here rather than in a worse and strained construction to ground an Action upon and for the second words to say that he was a debauched man and not worthy to be a Iustice of peace they cannot be scandalous for they are spoken of him in relation to what he was in time past before he was a Iustice of peace and not as he was at the time of the speaking and it is no scandall to say a man hath been debauched for it may be he is now otherwayes But for the first words it was answered by the Councel on the other side that they were actionable for they must be taken according to Common construction viz. that he had added not only words of his own invention to the examination but the matter it self expressed in those words which was not confessed by the examinant And as to the latter words it was answered they were also Actionable and a Case was cited where Iudgement was given against the Defendant for saying of one that he was a corrupt Iudge Rolle Iustice was of opinion Case that the first words were Actionable but not the second for words saith he ought to be taken according to usuall and Common construction though they are not to be strained for otherwise a man may be abused by subtility and shall have no remedy and Iudgement may be given
because of a mistryal for taking away divers parcels of Ribbin from him The Defendants pleaded by way of Iustification the Custom of London against Hawkers viz. to take away wares from any that sold them up and down the Streets The Plaintiff replyed that there was no such custom and issue was taken upon it thereupon the custom was certifyed by the mouth of the Recorder a tryal upon it in London a verdict for the Defendants The Plaintiff moved in arrest of Iudgement that it was a mis-tryal because it was before them that were interesâ—ed in the cause and therefore desired there might be another tryal Roll Iustice said it is against natural equity for one to be Iudge in his own cause Tryal although the other party admit it to be so and therefore it is a mistryall though it were at the request of the Plaintiff because it is against natural reason 8 E. 3. f. 69. 5 Ed. 3.8 9 H. 7. f. 21. Hil. 38 Eliz. in the Exchequer The prayer of the Plaintiff cannot help the tryal for the consent of both partyes cannot change the Law much lesse the prayer of one of the partyes Hales of Councel with the Defendants argued that it was not a mis-tryall and said this concerns them in point of privilege of the City and not meerly in point of interest before whom the Iudgement was gievn 2ly The consent of the party hath barred him of the advantage which otherwise he might have had But Roll Iustice answered here is point of interest as well as point of privilege for part of the goods taken come to the benefit of the City and therefore they ought not to be their own Iudges for this is against natural reason and so it is a mistryal But it doth not appear here whether the Maior and Aldermen be another Corporation or not and distinct from the Corporation alleged which certified this custom by the mouth of the Recorder and this is the sole doubt in the Case The Court ordered that there should be a new tryal except cause shewn to the contrary Q. whether there shall be a Repleader or a new venire VVhite and his wife against Harwood and his wife Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. WHite and his wife brought an Action upon the Case for standerous words Whether a writ abated by death of one of the defendants Abatement against Harwood and his wife the Defendant dyes the Feme takes another Husband pending the sute It was moved that the writ was abated The Court inclined that because the Defendant had by her mariage changed her name therefore the Writ was abated but took time to advise Slade Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for Iudgement formerly stayed upon a certificate made by Baron Atkins For Iudgement stayed upon a Iudges certificat that the verdict passed against his opinon Bacon Iustice said Iudgements have been arrested in the Common pleas upon such certificates Hales of Councell with the Defendant prayed that this Iudgement might be arrested and that there might be a new tryal for that it hath been done heretofore in like cases But Roll Iustice held it ought not to be stayed Attaint 9 though it have been done in the Common pleas for it was too Arbitrary for them to do it and you may have your attaint against the Iury and there is no other remedy in Law for you but it were good to advise the party to suffer a new tryal for better satisfaction And let the Defendant take four dayes from hence to speak in arrest of Iudgement if the postea be brought in if not then four dayes from the time it shall be brought in Andrews against Baily Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon a tryal at the Bar between Andrews and Baily Denisation by Letters parents do enable to purchase not to inherit lands Denization Inheritance upon an ejectment lease touching Sir Iohn Prowds title to Lands It was said that a man cannot be a subject to two several Princes And that denisation by letters patents do enable the party to purchase Lands but not to inherit the Lands of his Ancestor as Heir at Law But as a purchasor he may enjoy lands of his Ancestor Dunch against Smith and others Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Hil. 23 Car. rot 37. DUnch brought an Action of Debt as an Executor for arrerages of a rent charge due to the Testator Demurrer to a Declaration in Debt against Smith and others the occupyers of the Land The Defendants demur to the Declaration and for cause shew that it doth not set forth what estate the Defendants have in the lands charged with the rent and so it appears not that they are to pay the rent Hales of Councell with the plaintiff answered that it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to set it forth for he is a stranger to the Estate cannot know what Estate it is Roll Iustice said It doth not appear by the Declaration whether the Defendants claim under him that granted the rent or no. But move it again Saturday next Postea Smith against Hale Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. SMith brought an Action of Debt against Hale for rent Demurrer to privilege of Parliament The Defendant pleaded that he is Tenant and Servant to the Lord Moone a Lord of the Parliament and prayes his Writ of Privilege may be allowed The Plaintiff demurs It was argued by Barton of the middle Temple that the plea was ill for the very matter of it for the privilege is against the Common Law and also against the Statute Law and for proof cited 1 E. 1. f. 26. 2 E. 3. f. 3. 2 Ed. 6. C. 8. Roll Iustice answered Privilege you ought not to argue generally against the Privilege of Parliament for you know that every Court hath its privilege as this Court also hath therefore apply your self particularly to this question Admittance whether a Writ of privilege belongs to a Parliament man so far as to protect his Lands and Estate and I conceive he is so priviledged And you have admitted his privilege by your own Demurrer But we will advise Wright Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. AN Action of Debt was brought upon an Obligation to perform Articles Plaintiff after a verdict for him moves for a new tryal The Defendant pleaded Covenants performed The Plaintiff had a verdict and after verdict and before Iudgement he moved for a new tryal because it appeared that there was no issue joyned the Plaintiff moved it for his own expedition for he feared if he should enter Iudgement that the Defendant would bring a Writ of Error The Court answered that there was a perfect issue joyned but the pleading is not good and it was your own fault to joyn issue upon such a pleading when you might have demurred Tryall Yet let the Defendant shew cause why he should not consent to a new tryal and a Repleader Mich. 24 Car. Banc.
really a Copyholder and cited Shellyes case and prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Roll chief Iustice said This Case differs from surrendring into the hands of Tenants for it is into the hands of the Steward out of Court Surrend Admission which is good and the Lords acceptance of his rent is an admission But Bacon doubted and therefore the rule was for the Case to be argued again the next Term and then by reason of sicknesse I was absent But that Term held not by reason of the Kings death Dunch against Smith Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. DUnch brought an Action of Debt as Executor for arrerages of a rent charge due to the Testator against Dunch Arrest of Iudgement in Debt brought by an Executor an occupyer of the land out of which the rent was issuing and hath a verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement and for Cause shewed that the Plaintiff doth not shew any title that the Defendant hath in the Land but only sayes generally that he entred into the Lands and so it appears not that he is to pay the rent To this the Councel on the other side answered that the Plaintiff being but an Executor cannot know the title and therefore is not bound to shew it Roll chief Iustice said there can be no Iudgement for the Declaration is too generall But Bacon Iustice held the Declaration good enough Antea Brown against Poyns Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Case was this a man made his last Will and made two Executors For a prohibition to repeal an administration Prohibition Appeal the Executors dye in the life of the Testator the Testator dyes having two Sisters the eldest Sister procures Administration the younger Sister moves for a Prohibition to repeal the Administration because she being in equal degree of king ought to have equall share of the Administration But the Court answered that a prohibition lies not for you may appeal if the Administration be not rightly granted Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. A Processe issued out of this Court for a Cart and Horses that were cause of a mans death as a deodand 12. Iac. To stay processe for a deodand and it was moved that there hath been a generall pardon by Parliament since that time by which deodands were pardoned and therefore it was prayed the processe might be stayed General pardon The Court asked whether there be not an exception of deodands or the Almoners interest in the pardon The Councell answered there is not The Court demanded by what words in the pardon are deodands pardoned The Councel answered by the generall words The Court ordered thereupon it should be stayed till the Almoner be heard what he can say Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for a habeas Corpus for one that was taken in Execution by the Sheriff and was afterwards set at liberty For a habeas corpus for one taken upon one Execution Audita querela and after that retaken upon the same Execution The Court answered take it but you are in the wrong way for you ought to bring your audita querela The King against Bray Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment of forcible entry made upon a Lessee for years upon the Statute of 21 Iac. To quash an Endictment of forcible entry The exceptions taken to it were 1. It doth not appear by the Endictment that the Lessee had any title to the Land at the time of the force committed for the force is supposed to be done before the lease commenced 2ly The lease is supposed to be a lease for so many years if I. S. shall so long live and it is not averred that I. S. was alive at the time of the forcible entry made Averment Roll chief Iustice cited the Lady Morlyes case that there ought to be a direct allegation of the life Therefore let it be quashed Mich. 24. Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved to quash an Endictment of Assault and Battery of an overseer of the poor villae de A. in executing of his office The exceptions taken to it were To quash an Endictment for assaulting a Collector for the poor 1. That there is no such officer as an overseer of the poor villae but it ought to be parochiae but the Court said it was well enough as it was though it had been more proper the other way 2ly The Endictment is for the Assaulting and beating a Collector for the poor in executing his office whereas there is no such office appointed for any one particular man by the Law for the Statute is that there shall be two Collectors for the poor in every Parish and so the office is joynt and not several But the Court over-ruled this exception also 3ly It wants vi et Armis Vpon this exception the Court bid the Councel move it again Gill against Crosse Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt against two as Administrators upon fully administred pleaded issue was ioyned Speciall verdict in Debt against Executors and a speciall verdict was found to this effect viz. that one of the Administrators had fully administred and that the other Administrator had assets It was urged against the Verdict that the issue that was found is impertinent and impossible Verdict Iudgement and so there can be no judgement given upon it But the Court answered that the verdict is good yet if Iudgement should be given upon it the Iudgement would be ill and Nevills and Greenwoods case Hill 7. Car. in the Exchequer rot 1189. was cited and it was said that Iudgement may be against that Executor who hath assets and nil capiat per billam against the other that hath fully administred But take Iudgement at your peril Preston against Holmes Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. Trin. or Mich. 24 Car. rot 2052. VPon a special verdict found the Case in effect was this Arguments upon a special verdict upon a Will one in see having one Son by one venter and another Son by a second venter did by his last Will devise all his Lands to his wise for life and after her death to I. his eldest Son and to his Heirs and the question was whether the Son shall take these Lands by the devise or as Heir at Law and so the devise to be of no effect to make him come to the Lands by purchase Christopher Turner held that the devise is void because it sayes no more than the Law says for if there had been no such devise Iohn his Heirs should have had the Land and he cited Paramour and Yardlves Case in the Comentaries and Hob. rep Counden and Clarks case But it is objected that in this case the Law speaks one thing and the devise another thing and so the devise says not the same thing To this I answer there is no difference concerning the alteration of the Estate
between what the Law directs and what the devise directs all the difference is in the manner how his Son Iohn shall come to the Estate 3 4 Phil. Mar. Dyer 134. 37 Eliz. A man seised in fee had issue two Daughters and devised the Lands to them and to their Heirs and it was questioned whether they were Ioynt tenants and I conceive they are and where one omits a thing in a conveyance which the Law supplies this shall not hurt and he cited Iennings and Pollards Case 6 Car. Hales on the other side argued that the Son takes by purchase and not by descent for the devise is not to the Son in present but after the death of the Testators wife and if he had the Lands by descent he should have them presently VVaiver It is true the Son might have waived the taking by purchase and might have taken by descent but here prima facie he shall be intended to be in by purchase and not descent for here doth not appear to be any actual waiver of the purchase and the Son doth here as I conceive take by way of remainder and not by way of reversion And as to the verdict I conceive it is not good for it doth not shew how the lands are held whether in Chivalry or Socage and so it appears not whether the Testator had power to devise all of them or not for if they be held in Chivalry he can devise but two parts of them as the Statute directs 2ly It appears not that the Testator had but one Son by his first wife 3ly It is not shewed that the Lands are parcel of the Mannor 4ly It doth not appear in whose possession the Lands are Roll chief Iustice said Lands that are given by Will shall be intended to be socage tenure Intention if the contrary do not appear And he held that the devise is void and that it is not in the power of Iohn the Son to make the election to take by descent or by purchase at his pleasure but he must of necessity take the Land as the Law directs which is by descent Maxim and it is against a maxim in Law to give a thing to such a person to whom the Law gives it if it had not been so given 3 4 Phil. Ma. Dyer 134. and therefore the Plaintif ought to have Iudgement And as to the verdict he hath primer possession Verdict and therefore if the other make no title the verdict is for him and good enough Bacon Iustice to the same intent viz. that the Heir doth here take by descent and not by purchase for this the Law says and he cannot alter it and cited Foscues Case 4 Car. and a Case in 7 Iac. And so judgement was given for the Plaintif Franck against Burt and others Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Plaintif brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his House For costs for the Desendant upon non-sute of the Plaintif and carrying away his Goods at the Tryal the Plaintif was non-sute The Plaintif moved that there was error in the Declaration and therefore there could have béen no Iudgement and prays that he may be spared costs Roll chief Iustice answered that heretofore it hath been made a question whether the Plaintif being non-sute should pay costs Cests but since the Statute of 4 Iac. it is clear he ought to pay costs for the vexation of the Defendant and so it hath béen ruled here and you are out of Court now by being non-sute and therefore you must pay costs And therefore except better matter be shewed let them be paid Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. THe Court was moved for a Prohibition to the great Sessions of Carnarvan in Wales to stop a sute in an English Bill of Equity exhibited there For a prohibition to the great Sessions at Carnarvan in Wales whereas by the Bill it appears there is no matter of Equity in the Case but only matter tryable at the Law The Court answered if they proceed there against Equity we cannot hinder them There was wont to be an Agent here from the Commissioners there for us to confer with in such cases as these but it seems there is not any here now Therefore give notice Prohibition and let them shew cause the next Term why a Prohibition should not be granted Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. VPon reading of a retorn made by the Sherifs of the City of Norwitch upon a Habeas corpus directed unto them for one Chambers It was said by the Court How a Habeas corpus to an inferiour Court should be retorned Retorn that it hath been ruled That upon a Habeas Corpus to an inferiour Court to remove Corpus cum causa they ought to retorn all the causes that are depending there concerning the party that hath the Habeas Corpus if any of the causes depending be for above five pound of which they ought not to hold Plea and therefore because all the causes were not retorned here upon the retorn of this Habeas Corpus The Court held the retorn was not good and ordered that it should be amended upon pain of ten pounds by Monday next Raph against Davye Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. RAph brought an Action of the Case against Davy for speaking these words of her to the Plaintifs mother Arrest of judgement in an action for words viz. Your Daughter innuendo the Plaintif is a brazen faced Whore and deserves to be hanged and for speaking these other words to the Plaintif herself viz. you Huswife are a Thief and have stollen my Purse The Plaintif had a verdict The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement Averment that the Plaintif doth not aver that her Mother had not any other Daughter besides herself and so it is uncertain whether the words were spoken of her or no. But the Court held it was well enough without such averment because the Declaration is that the Defendant habens colloquium of the Plaintif did speak the words and that makes it certain enough And therefore bid the Plaintif take her Iudgement Jennings against Lee. Mich. 24 Car. Banc. Reg. IEnnings brought an Action of Assault and Battery against Lee. The Defendant pleads a special plea Arrest of Iudgement in an action of assault and battery and justifies The Plaintif replies de injuria sua propria and upon this an Issue is joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif The Defendant moved in arrest of Iudgement that the replication was not good because it answers not the special matter pleaded nor takes any traverse by an absque tali causa as it ought to do and so there is no issue joyned and consequently there can be no Iudgement Roll chief Iustice said that the replying de injuria sua propria Traverse Issue Ieofails and not traversing absque tali causa is not good for there is not an affirmative and a negative and so
words of a will which were these I give all my free lands wheresoever to my Brother Iohn Sanders and his heirs upon condition that he suffer my wife to enjoy all my Freelands in Holford for life the Testator having only a portion of tithes of inheritance in Holford and no lands The question here was whether this portion of tithes shall be accompted free lands within the intent of the will and so the wife be to have them during her life Twisden held the tithes were not devised by the will to the Feme for if I devise my fee-simple lands to Iohn a Stile and his heirs tithes do not pass by this devise for tithes are a collateral thing arising out of land and not part of the land it self 42 Ed. 3. f. 13. 10 Iac. Moyle and Ewers case 31 Eliz. Perkins and Hyndes case In the will here they pass not for there are no words in the will to devise them nor can the words he so expounded and here are other lands devised to satisfie the words of the will A term for years hath more relation to land than tithes and a term could not have passed by the words of the will Next the second Clause doth not pass the tithes for there is no such thing as is expressed in it but if it should pass to the wise by implication yet it cannot pass to Iohn Sanders the Brother for there are neither expresse words nor any implication to devise this portion of tithes to him but the contrary rather is to be collected from the Will Wadham Windham on the other side answered that the Testator calls the tithes in Holford his free lands It is true generally that by the devise of lands tithes do not pass but in a will by the intent of the Devisor they may pass and the word land includes all real things in common intention and legal construction as Lutrels Case is 1 Mar. Bro. Tit. Elegit An Elegit may be of a rent and tithes have a nearer relation to land than rent have 2ly Here is an apparent intention to devise the tithes for he explains his meaning in his second clause of the Will that he intends tithes by the word lands 44 Eliz. Com. Banc. Gery against Gery the question there was what passed by the word rents whether lands passed The words were as to all my lands in Dale I devise my rents c. and here the matter comes in by a Proviso which enlarges the matter Trin. 3 Iac. Fitz. Williams case One devised all his goods Iewels and Plate excepting his lease in C There it was adjudged that all his other Leases passed 4 Ed. â— Br. grants 51. Another circumstance in the Will enforceth this construction viz. the word wheresoever which word expresseth the intent of the Devisor to be so otherwise that word will be idle and to no purpose Hob. rep Stukely and Butlers case It may also appear out of the body of the Will for it appears thereby that his Daughter was provided for in his will by his personal estateâ— and that the intention was to dispose of his lands to the Heir and his Copyhold lands which he had in Holford were surrendred at the time of the making of the Will and so the devise cannot refer to them and besides this is called free lands which distinguisheth them from Copyhold lands and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice There is a Condition annexed to the Devise Condition that his wife shall enjoy this land though the words in the Will are not very proper to erpress it but we must consider them as used in a Will not in a conveyance Nicholas Iustice said the Devisor himself calls them free-holds and this distinguisheth them from Copyhold lands Adjourned till Saturday following to be argued again Dowse against Masters Pasc 1651. Banc. sup DOwse brought an Action of Debt upon an Indebitatus Assumpsit against Masters for five pound Demurrer to a plea in Debt upon Indebitatus assumpsit in which the Defendant pleaded that he did deliver bils to the Plaintif to the value of 6 l. in which the Plaintif was indebted to him which bills the Plaintif did accept in full satisfaction the Plaintif replyed protestando that he was not indebted to the Defendant that he did not receive bills to the value of 6 l. in satisfaction Vpon this a Demurrer was joyned Roll chief Iustice said Plea the Plea of the Defendant is ill for he doth not say that he delivered the Bills in full satisfaction but that the Plaintif received them in full satisfaction which is not good for the Plaintifs receiving of the Bills must be as they were delivered and not other ways and that is not expressed Therefore let the Plaintif take his judgement nisi c. Ross against Lawrence Pasch 1651. Banc. sup ROss brought an Action of the Case against Lawrence for speaking these Welch words of him viz. Dedingues Will Rols in mudon Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case for Welch words Englished which are in English William Ross hath forsworn himself upon Issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable as they are rendred in English and so the Action lies not Roll chief Iustice If the words sound in Welch that the Plaintif was perjured yet if the Plaintif do English them in English which doth not amount to perjury it is ill Case and an action will not lie for them Therefore let judgement be stayed Peck against Ingram Pasch 1651. Banc. sup PEck brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit and declares Arrest of Judgement in an action upon the case upon an Assumpsit that the Defendant in consideration that she the Plaintif would leave her Fathers house and come to the House of the Defendant in such a place did assume and promise unto her that he would mary her and that thereupon she did leave her Fathers House and did come to the Defendants House et obtulit se in maritagium conjungi and because he had not performed his promise Actio accrevit Vpon issue joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and took Exceptions that the Plaintif did not shew in her Declaration when she left her Fathers House and came to the Defendants house nor that she gave him any notice thereof Wild moved for judgement notwithstanding the Exceptions for he said though it be not expresly said that she gave the Defendant notice when she came to his House yet it is said quod obtulit se in maritagium conjungi which implies the Defendant had notice and besides here is no need of notice for the Assumpsit is that if she will come to the Defendants house he will marry her and it is not said that when she comes he will marry her so that he is bound by
dis-inherited by doubtfull and ambiguous words as it must be here if these tithes should pass Next as to the verdict he said that it is not thereby found that the Testator died possessed of the tithes as it ought to have been as it hath been adjudged 43 Eliz. and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintif Maynard of Counsel with the Defendant argued That the tithes did pass by the Will otherwise part of the Will must be void which ought not to be if all parts may be so construed that they may stand together and he agreed that lands and tithes are distinct things but in Wills it is not to be so much considered whether the words of them be proper but what was the intent of the Testator in them and whether they do declare his meaning or not and here by construction of the words by freelands inheritance is meant in opposition to Copyhold lands or terms for years 2ly Here is a positive assertion of the Testator himself that in his understanding he had free lands in Holford for he had no other lands there 35 Eliz. Robinsons case rot 504. Banc. Reg. by a will things of one nature may pass by words which are proper to pass things of another nature 44 45 Eliz. rot 125. A devise of lands and tenements will pass leases for years if there be no other lands to pass by those words in the place expressed in the Will and so prayed Iudgement for the Defendant Verdict Roll chief Iustice asked what he said to the exception that it is not found that the Testator dyed seised of the tithes without doubt it had been ill upon a Demurrer therefore see if you cannot help it by the notes by which the Verdict was drawn up But for the matter in Law me thinks it is a strong case that the tithes do pass for we are in the case of a Will where the meaning of the party shall be observed if it may be found out by any means though it cannot be collected ex vi Terminis and should it not be so here part of the Will would be void which may not be if we can make it otherwise by a reasonable construction But I will consider of the Verdict and do you consult with your notes Ierman Iustice The Verdict ought to find the dying seised and till I am satisfied from the Notes I will deliver no opinion Nicholas Iustice held both the devise good and the Verdict also but said it had been otherwise upon a Demurrer Demurrer Ask Iustice to the same intent Ierman Iustice It is clear that the Testator intended to devise the lands in Holford and it is a good devise but if the Verdict be imperfect it is for the Plaintif but if otherwise it is for the Defendant The Court would advise touching the Verdict Hayward against VVilliams Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1649. rot 824. THe Case was this a Feme was sued as a Feme sole but by the Sirname of her Husband Who may bring a Writ of Error who not she being then Covert The Feme appears and pleads and Iudgement is given against her and the Baron and Feme joyn in a writ of Error to reverse this judgement The question was whether the Baron who was a Stranger to the Record might joyn in the writ to reverse the Iudgement It was moved divers times and the Court advised and at last they said that a Stranger to a Record may not bring a writ of Error to reverse it but that is only where he may have another remedy to avoid the prejudice he may receive by it but in this Case the Baron hath no other remedy for his Wife is taken in Execution and by this means he shall lose her society And therefore reversetur nisi Antea Shann against Bilby Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 1065. SHann brought an Action upon the Case upon a promise against Bilby Arrest 〈◊〉 Judgement in an Action upon the Case upon a promise and declares that in consideration that the Plaintif should surrender a Copyhold unto I. S. and his heirs according to the Custom of the Manor the Defendant did assume and promise to pay unto him 100 l. and that he did surrender the Copyhold into the hands of a Customary Tenant of the Manor according to the Custom of the Manor to the use of I. S. and his heirs and that the Defendant had not paid the hundred pound according to his promise and declares to his damage c. Vpon non Assumpsit pleaded and Issue thereupon joyned a Verdict was found for the Plaintif It was moved in Arrest of Iudgement by Latch of Councel with the Defendant that the Declaration is not good 1. Because it doth not set forth to whom the promise was made and if it do not appear to be made to the Plaintif it is nudum pactum for the promise here is the consideration 2ly The Consideration is Executory and the Plaintif doth not shew that he hath performed it and then he hath no cause of Action The Consideration was that the Plaintif should surrender a Copyhold to I. S. and his heirs according to the custom of the Manor and he only shews that he did surrender the Copyhold into the hands of a Customary Tenant according to the Custom of the Manor to the use of I. S. and his heirs and doth not shew that this surrender was presented at the next Court and so it appears not to be a good surrender Surrender for it is uncertain whether it shall be presented or no and till it be presented it is imperfect To which the Court assented and ruled against the Plaintif a Nil capiat per Billam nisi ◠c. In this case it was said that if a man covenant to convey lands Covenant it ought to be done at the charge of him that covenanteth to do it except the contrary be agreed Consideration And that if there be a double consideration alleaged for a promise if one of them be good and the other be not yet an action will lie upon the promise that is broken which was grounded upon these consisiderations Barcock against Tompson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Mich. 1650. rot 444. A Writ of Error was brought by the Bail to reverse a judgement given against him upon a scire facias the Error assigned was Error brought by the Bad. that there was no Capias taken out against the principal and therefore the scire facias against the Bail is not good Hale answered that it was too late to urge this now for Error for the judgement is upon two nichils returned and cited 21 E. 3. f 13. 6 Roll chief Iustice said that two nichils is as much as a scire feci returned and it is no Error to give judgement upon it but it had been a good plea upon the scire facias to say that there was no Capias against the principal but now there
the Arbitrators have all of it to agree in and till it is ended the Vmpire hath no power at all otherwise the submission would be repugnant in it self The rest of the Iudges concurred in all and so ruled That the Plaintif all capiat per billam nisi Theoballs against Newton Mich. 1651. Banc. sup ONe was sued upon the Statute of Inmates and the distringas jurata bare date on a Sunday and out of Term and so is erronious The question here was whether it be not helped by the Statutes of Ieofails of 18 Eliz. and 21 Iac. Roll chief Iustice held Ieofails that the Statutes extend not to penal Laws although it be ambiguously penned nor to any processes grounded upon them for the Proviso exempts the Original action and by consequence all processes depending upon it are excepted Venire de novo so that here is no good tryal but there shall be a venire de novo nisi Tayler and Webb Mich. 1651. Banc. sup THe Case of Tayler and Webb which arose upon a special verdict upon these words of Will Special Verdict upon the words of a Will viz. I make my Cosen Giles Bridges my soll ayere and yexecutor was again moved and argued by Hales and he made three questions 1. Whether any estate passeth by the words of the will 2ly If any what estate passeth 3ly Whether the false Orthography doth hurt the Will For the first he said that by making one his sole heir his land passeth to him The word heir is to be considered either in relation to an Ancestor and so one cannot make one his heir or it may be considered in relation to a thing to be inherited to wit lands or tenements and so one may make another his heir and thus a Custom may make one a mans heir as it is in Borough English and an accident may thus also make one a mans heir as it is in the Case of possessio fratris Coundens case Hob. Rep. Case 947. And here it is all one to make one his heir and to make hint heir of hislands and the reasons are First the word heir here cannot have any other relation than to the Testators lands for he cannot make him his heir otherwise and the words may be more reasonably intended so 2ly The words carry in them the plain intention of the Devisor that the party should have his lands although the words are not very proper â— H. 7. A devise of lands to his son after the death of his wife passed an Estate for life to the wife although no such Estate was expressed in the Will so here although no expresse Estate of land be devised yet the Devisee shall have the lands by the intent of the Devisor 3ly In ordinary speech if one make such an one his Heir it is intended that he gives him his lands 8 Car. in the C. B. in Spurt and Bents case A devise of his inheritance was held a devise of his lands and Trin. 3. Iac. in Terryes case A devise of all his rents in tayl passed his lands because in vulgar acceptance it is the rents of lands and in Pits and Sands case in this Court A devise of all his free lands in Holford did passe a portion of Tithes and in the case of one Iohnson a devise of all his estate passed all his lands And the words cannot bear the fence to make him Executor according to the Civill Law as hath been objected for the Will shall be intended as it is to be an English mans Will and so the word Heir in it shall he interpreted according to out Law and not the Civill Law and even in the Civill law to make one his Heir doth convey unto him all his lands for he is haeres testamentarius although not haeres legitimus And in this Will here are two expressions for the party is made Heir and Executor which two words cannot signifie one thing for that would be an idle expression 4ly There are some clauses in the Will which shew the intent of the Testator was to convey his lands if it were needful to make use of them 1. There are several annuities for the Devisee to pay 2ly He directs him where the conveyances and assurances of his lands were laid up which plainly shew he meant he should have his land 3ly The words Heir and Executor are joyned together to shew that he gives him all his lands and goods else one of the words must be imperfect and ineffectual which shall not be intended For Authority 7 E. 6. Br. devise 38. by devising that one Son shall be Heir to the other it shall be intended of lands so in construction of law it shall be here intended that the Devisor made him Heir of his lands Hob. Reports in Sparkes and Burnells case William and Anthony shall be each others Heir and it is not said of land yet adjudged that it shall be so meant and so is it in our case and if I have lands in see simple and make one my heir it shall be intended that he shall have my lands in see simple although I say not that I make him Heir of my lands For the second question the reasons before expressed do also shew that the lands are passed in Fee as it is in Purnells and Hambletons case for the word Heir shall relate to the same Estate that the party had in the land who makes the other his Heir 8 Iac. Inkersals case For the 3d point whether here shall be any good devise at all by reason of the false English he said it was all one and to as good effect as if the words were all true English and neither the incongruity nor the insufficiency of the words shall hurt the Will as it is pretended For 1. This is not in case of pleading or of writs but in conveyance of lands It is true that in the former it doth hurt because writs and pleadings may be amended if they be naught but it is fatal in conveyances for they cannot be amended as in Trotman and Standards case Trin. 1651. in this Court it was held that impropriety of words shall not hurt it they can admit of a good construction Desinet in piscem mulier formosa superne 2ly This is in a Will which is such an instrument that is much favoured in Law and therefore to be favourably construed 3ly This is an English Will and admits of much variety of dialects and therefore is not to be critically interpreted Neither are there here any insignificant or missignificant words as hath been objected but significant for the sound of the word as it is written is the same as if it had been rightly spelled for Ayer and Heir sound both alike As in 3 H. 4. f. 4 Baxter and Baxster sounded alike 2ly If the word Heir might receive any other sence yet it cannot do so here because there are other words joyned to it to declare and signifie that the
Court Twisden on the other side confessed the Books were so but here the Battery is not apparent and the wound is internal and not to be viewed by the Court. Roll chief Iustice said 3 things are considerable 1. whether the Court can increase the damages 2ly Whether the wound be apparent and 3ly Whether the damages given be too small The Court upon view of the party and examination of Chirurgions and Witnesses on both sides upon Oath did conclude that they might increase the damages and that the wound was apparent and that the damages were too small and therefore they increased them to 400 l. and said they would not encrease them more because they could not inquire into all the circumstances of the fact as the jury might but they thought fitting to encrease them in some proportion because the offence was great and such outragious Acts are not to be slightly punished VVallis against Bucknal Hill 1651. Banc. sup VPon a special verdict found in an Ejectione firmae the case sell out to be this Special Verdict in an Ejectione firmse A Copyholder of inheritance made a Letter of Attorney to two joyntly and severally to surrender his Copyhold lands in Fee to certain uses after his death according to the Custom of the Manor The question made by Ellis of Councel with the Plaintif was whether the Custom was good or not he argued that it was not a good Custom In Sir Iohn Davis Reports it is said a Custom must be reasonable and a Custom may be reasonable when it is but against a particular Law and not a general Law but the Custom here thus to convey land is against a general Law Particular Customs may be against publique interest pro bono public but if they be not as in our case they are not they are not good Pro bono publico Next an authority given ought to be Countermandable and to determine at the death of the party but this is not so and therefore it is no good authority 19 E. 3. f. 5. 2ly None can give an authority to another to do a thing which he could not do himself but here it is otherwise and therefore it is not a good authority 3ly By the death of the Copyholder the lands are setled in the heir and this authority given shall not devest them and this is not like the surrendring of lands into the hands of the Lord for a surrender cannot be revoked but this authority is revokable Next the Verdict doth not find that the 2 Attorneys are Customary tenants but only by way of recital which is not good nor doth it appear they were customary tenants at the time of the admittance and here is not found any possession or title in the Defendant and so the Plaintif having primer possession the Defendant is guilty neither is it found that the customary Tenant had see-simple in the land And if he had but an estate for life he could not make such a letter of Attorney Also the authority given is not warranted by the Custom set forth Wilmot of Councel with the Defendant said That this authority here is supported with a special direction which may survive the party that gives it 1 H. 7.8 And an authority may survive the party that gives it else how can an Executor sell lands by the authority given unto him 21 E. 4. f. 8. 31. E. 1. Fitzherb 45. and as for the heir he hath neglected his advantage it he had any and cannot now take it But besides the authority here given is more than a bare authority for it is backed with circumstances of time and person and here is also a Custom to support it and this Custom is a reasonable Custom for it is but to enable a man to dispose of his own lands and there are far more unreasonable Customs than this allowed in our law as the Custom of Kent for one of the age of 15 years to be enabled to sell his lands and this Custom is not against any positive rule of Law for the custom is to create the authority to begin after his death and so it is not to determine by his death for till then it begins not and the Custom here is but to alien lands which is no strange thing and it is extended but within a small compass of land and so cannot be very prejudicial to the publique And Bambridge and Whaddons case 17 Car. in this Court cited on the other side doth differ from this case for tâ—ere was no Custom to support it And it doth appear here by the Record that Dalby the Attorney is a customary Tenant and the admission here is found to be secundum consuetudinem Manerii And one cannot gain a Copyhold estate by disseisin and so here can be no primer seisin intended and it is found the Copyholder is seised Roll chief Iustice said It will be hard to maintain the Custom Custom if it be not found that the party was seiâ—â—d in see of the Copyhold lands But 2ly it is not here found that the land is demisable according to the will of the Lord and so it may be free land then the custom doth not reach it Neither is it found that the 2 Attorneys were Copyhold Tenants and the primer possession here will make a disseisin by the Defendant if the Custom be not well found and then it is for the Plaintif and I cannot see how the Custom can be good it being against the rules of Law for a man cannot devise a Copyhold and here the case is worse Devise but he may surrender to the use of his last Will and Testament At another day Wilmot to the Exception taken That it is not found that the two Attorneys were Tenants of the Manor said there is so much found as shall make them be presumed to be Tenants of the Manor for it is found that the party is admitted secundum consuetudinem Manerii which cannot be a good admittance if they were not Tenants Roll chief Iustice answered to be admitted secundum consuetudinem goes â—o the Admittance not to the Letter of Attorney But we will advise At another day Twisden prayed judgement for the Plaintif and insisted upon the Exception that the two Attorneys were not found customary Tenants for one of them is not mentioned at all and the other is found so only by way of recital and so they have not entitled themselves to the Custom and then the Defendant hath no title The Court ruled to shew cause Saturday following why the Plaintif should not have judgement Antea Custodes against Tawny and Norwood Hill 1651. Banc. sup TAwny and Norwood were jointly endicted for blasphemous words severally spoken by them Endictment for speaking blasphemous words upon the late Statute made against blasphemy and were convicted the parties being removed hither by Habeas Corpus It was urged that the Endictment was not good because it was joynt whereas the words being
one as if the party had appeared for if he had appeared the Case would have béen otherwise So Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi c. Pasch 1652. Banc. sup MEmorandum One brought by Habeas Corpus from the Fleet remaâ—â—ed One was brought into the Court by the Mareschall of the Fléet by vertue of a habeas Corpus directed to him out of this Court and because it did appear upon Record that the party was charged with divers debts when he was turned over to the Fleet he was not suffered to put in Bail here but was remanded Gossage against Tayler Pasch 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 117. IN an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease for years of a Messuage Special verdict in Trespass and Ejectrueâ—â— and certain lands in Hatfield Broad-Oak in the County of Essex upon a special verdict found the case fell out to be this Rich. Frank seised amongst other lands and Tenements of the Messuage and lands in question upon the mariage of his Son Leventhorp Frank with Susan Cotele levies a fine of the lands to the use of himself during his own life and the life of Leventhorp his Son and after during the life of Susanna Cotele the wife of Leventhorp the remainder to the use of the heirs to be begotten upon the body of Susanna by Leventhorp her Husband The question here was whether the word heirs shall be intended the heirs of Leventhorp and Susanna his wife or whether the estate shall be intended to be limited to the heirs of Susanna only and that Leventhorp shall have barely an estate for life in the lands Serjeant Glyn of Councel with the Plaintif held That Susanna Cotele hath an estate tayl executed in the lands and that the word heirs shall relate only to the heirs of Susanna and not to the heirs of Leventhorp 1. Because that here is an estate limited for life unto Susanna by an express limitation and her heirs shall take immediately after the estate for life ended and they shall not come in as purchasors By express Terms the word heirs is not limited to any person but it is left to the construction of the Law and that doth apply it to Susanna as to a person to whom Richard that setled the lands hath expressed most affection as appears by the Deed Lit. f. 6. Sect. 28. There is an expression of the party to whom the word heirs shall relate but so is not here and therefore the cases differ In 3 Ed. 3. f. 31 32. It is ruled that both parties have an estate tayl because the estate is limited to both but so it is not in our case so those books are not against me In our case it doth not appear that Richard did intend to advance the Husband of Susanna and therefore it is not reason that the word heirs should relate to him but to Susanna his wife only for in case of limitation of estates the intention of the party is to be considered and doth direct the matter and the preceding limiting of the estate to Susanna and not to Leventhorp doth shew that the party did mean to promote the heirs of Susanna Lit. Sect. 27. Dyer 27. A second reason is drawn from the penning of the déed which in the limitation of it doth encline more that the word heirs should be applyed to Susanna than to Leventhorp for the words upon her is as much as to say of her and then it is the same case with Littletons case 3ly The Intention of the Donor appears to be such by the circumstances of the entire limitations which do shew that he did intend that Leventhorp should not have such an estate whereby it should be in his power to deprive his issue and therefore the word heirs are to be applyed to Susanna and not to Leventhorp for if it should be applyed to both then Leventhorp might destroy the estate of the issue contrary to the Donors intent And whereas Dyer 99 is objected against me I answer that case is not against me for there the word heirs is expresly limited to a certain person viz. to the heirs of the body of both of them but so it is not in our case and whereas Hill 13 Iac. Lane and Panels case in this Court is also objected against me I answer that that case is in effect the same case with Dyer and the question in our case came not in dispute And the will of the Donor in deeds is to be ohserved Lit. 22. C. Tayl. 1. rep Shelleys case 103. 〈◊〉 Notwithstanding in gifts in tayl this rule holds not so that a gift in tayl may be limsted contrary to the rule of the Common Law And I know not of any authority in print or writing against me but in 13 Ed. 3. Fitz. tit variance 81 there is an expresse authority for me and 4 H. 4. Fitz. br 448. in my experience I have known many estates limited as this is in the Southern parts held good estates tayl if it should be otherwise many estates would be shaken Roll chief Iustice We have delivered our opinions before against you viz. that it was not the meaning of the donour to apply the word Heirs to the body of Susanna only for this construction would offer violence unto the words as appears by Littleton who interprets that they are to be applyed to the Heirs of both the partyes and your reason is founded upon a wrong ground and expresly against Litletons case and for your second reason it is of no waight for the words are all one as if he had said to the Heirs of the Husband and wife begotten upon the wife 3ly We are not to frame a meaning against plain words which shew the Donors intent to be against you And the Baron cannot Bar the Estate tayl as you suppose Tayl. for the Feme hath an Estate for life and if she survive she may revive the remaining Estate and we must not consider of inconveniences which possibly may happen against the expresse words of the deed and the multitude of conveyances made in this manner are of no force to alter the Law Ierman Iustice as Roll. That the word Heirs shall be applyed to the Heirs of both partyes because voluntas donatoris secundum formam chartae expressa est observanda Nicholas and Ask Iustices of the same opinion Garland against Yarrow Pasc 1652. Banc. sup THis case being in arrest of Iudgement formerly spoken unto in an Action upon the case for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Act on for words you are a knave and keep a Bawdy house was again moved by Christ Turner who held that the words are not actionable 1. Because they are of spiritual cognisance 2ly It is not said that he kept a common Bawdy house 3ly here is no special damage laid 10 Car. These words he is a pimp adjudged not actionable in Lewis and Whittons case 4ly It is not alleged that he