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—
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
c. But if a man be convict in the Star-Chamber for Forgery upon the Stat. 5 Eliz. In that Case for the double Costs and Damages an English Writ shall be made directed to the Sheriff c. reciting the Conviction and Statute for levying the said Costs and Damages c. and to bring the money into Star-Chamber and the Writ shall be sealed with the Great Seal and the Teste of the King The like Resolution was in Langdale's Case in that Court Hill 7 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas Morse and Webb's Case In a Replevin brought by John Morse against Robert Webb of the taking of two Oxen the last day of Novemb. 3 Jac. regis nunc in a place called the Downfield in Luddington in the County of Worcester The Defendant as Bayliff to William Sherington Gent. made Conuzance because the place where is an Acre of Land which is the Freehold of the said William Sherrington and for Damage feasants c. In Bar of which Avowry the Plaintiff said That the said Acre of Land is parcel of Downfield and that he himself at the time and before the taking c. was and is yet seized of two Yard-Land with the Appurtenances in Luddington and that he and all those whose Estate he hath in the said 2 Yard-Land time out of mind c. have used to have Common of Pasture per totam contentam of the said Place called the Downfield whereof c. for 4 Beasts called Rother-Beasts and two Beâ—sts called Horse-Beasts and for 60 Sheep at certain times in the Year c. And that he put in the said two Oxen to use his Common c. And the Defendant maintained his Avowry and traversed the Prescription upon which the Parties were at Issue and the Jury found a special Verdict That before the taking one Richard Morse Father of the said John Morse now Plaintiff whose Heir he is was seized of the said two yard-Yard-Land and had Common of Pasture c. as is before alleadged and so seized the said Richard Morse 20 Eliz. demised to William Thomas and John Fisher divers parcels of the said two yard-Yard-Land to which c. viz. the four Butts of Arable with the Common and Inter-Common to the same belonging for 400 years By force whereof the said William Thomas and John Fisher entred c. so seized dyed whereby the Possession and Reversion of the said two Yard-Land descended to John Morse now Plaintiff And if upon the whole Matter John Morse now hath and at the time of the taking c. had Common of Pasture c. for c. as to the said two Acres of Land with the Appurtenances in Law or not the Jury pray the Advice of the Court. Note This Plea began Trin. 5 Jac. Rot. 1405. and upon Argument at the Bar and Bench 1. It was Resolved by the whole Court That it ought to be found against the Defendant who had traversed the Prescription For though all the two Yard-Lands had been demised for years yet the Prescription made by the Plaintiff is true But if he would take advantage of the matter in Law he ought confessing the Common to have pleaded the said Lease but when he traverseth the Prescription he cannot give the same in Evidence 2. Resolved That if the said Lease had been pleaded that the Common during the Lease for years is not suspended or discharged for each of them shâ—ll have Common rateable and in such manner that the Land in which c. shall not be surcharged 3. Resolved That Common appendant to Land is as much as to say for Cattel leuant and couchant upon the Land in which c. 4. There is no difference when the Prescription is for Cattel leuant and couchant and for a certain numbâ—r of Cattel leuant and couchant But when the Prescription is for Common appurtenant to Land there a certain number of the Cattel ought to be expressed which are intended by the Law to be leuant and couchant Hill 7 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas Hughes and Crowther's Case In a Replevin between Robert Hughes Plaintiff and Richard Crowther Defendant which began Trin. 6. Jac. Rot 2220. The Case was Charles Fox was seized of 6 Acres of Meadow in Bedston in the County of Salop in Fâ—â— and 10 Octob. 9 Eliz. leased the same to Charles Hibbens and Arthur Hibbens for 60 years if the said Charles and Arthur should so long live and afterwards Charles dyed and if the Lease determine by his death was the Question And it was adjudged That by his death the Lease was determined For the life of a man is meer collaterall unto the Estate for years otherwise if a Lease be made to for the Lives of J. S. and J. N. See Brudnel's Case in the 5th Part of my Reports which Case was affirmed for good Law by the whole Court Pasch 8 Jac. Regis In Communi Banco Heydon and Smith's Case Richard Heydon brought an Action of Trespass against Michael Smith and others of breaking his Close called the Moor in Ugley in the County of Essex the 25 day of June 5 Jac. Et quandam arborem suam ad valentiam 40 s. nuper crescen succiderunt The Defendants said that the Close and at the time of the Trespass was the Freehold of Siâ— John Leventhrop Knight c. and that the said Oak was a Timber-Tree of 30 years growth and more and justifies the cutting down of the Tree by his Command The Plaintiff replyes and saith That the said Close and a House and 28 Acres of Land in ugley are Copy-hold and parcel of the Mannor of Ugley c. Of which Mannor Edward Leventhrop Esq Father of Sir John Leventhrop was seized in Fee and granted the said House Lands and Close to the said Richard Heydon and his Heirs by the Rod at the Will of the Lord according to the Custome of the said Mannor and that within the Mannor there is such a Custome Quod quilibet teneres Customar ejusdem Manerii sibi haeredibus suis ad voluntat Dom. c. a toto tempore supradicto usus fuit ad ejus libitum amputare ramos â—mnimodum arborum called Pollingers or Husbords super terris tenement suis Customar crescen pro ligno combustibili c. and also to cut down and take all manner of Trees called Pollingers and Husbords and all other Timber Trees c. for reparation of their Houses and also for Plough-boot and Cart-boot and that all the Trees c. hitherto growing upon c. were not sufficient for the necessary uses aforesaid And that the said Richard Heydon from the time of the said Grant had preserved c. all Treas c. growiâ—g upon the said Lands to him granted and that after the said Edward Leventhrops death the Mannor descended to the said Sir John and that at the time of the Trespass the aforesaid Messuage of the said Richard Heydon was in decay c. upon which the Defendant demurred in
had Issue John his eldest Son and others viz. Christopher Richard c. and being seized of Land in Fee oâ— 100 Marks per annum value his eldest Son being dead and his Grandchild John withâ—n age he gave direction for a Lease to be made of a Faâ—m called Roushal to Christopher during the minority of his Grand-child rendring the antient Rent with power of Revocation and of Lands in Yatesbury to Richard in the same manner and the same time Chrâ—stopher and Richard by the Covin of one Woodruff a Serivener 25 Eliz. drew two Leases to Christopher and Richard for 51 years rendring 4 d. per annum and without any power of Revocation John Shulter the Grandfather being blind with age and Woodruff telling him they were according to his direction And thereupon John Shulter thâ— Grandfather sealed and delivered them And it was resolved by the Lord Ellesmere Chancellor and two Chief Justies That the said Indentures could not bind the said John Shulter because he was blind and the effect was declared to him other than in truth it was Iâ— fully agreed with Mansers Case in the second part of my Reports fol. 4. Mich. 9 Jacobi Regis Sir Anthony Ashley's Case The Case was this Sir James Creyton had bought a pretended Right of and in the Mannor of â—yddy and Millisent and divers oâ—her Lands of which Sir Anthony had long possession Upon which divers Motions were made concerning Fines acknowledged to be staid c. in the Common-Bench and Sir James not prevailing in it entred into a wicked Conspiracy with several other Defendants in the Cause to accuse the said Sir Anthony of some Capital Crimes whereby he should forfeit all his Lands Goods and Chattels which they should share amongst them and in the end Henry Smith formerly a Servant to Sir Anthony was suborned to accuse the said Sir Anthony of the Muâ—ther of William Rice late Husband of Mary Rice one of the Defendants which William was dead 18 years before and Smith was to have 500 l. for his pains to have a place procured him in the Kings Guard in Ordinary a Proteâ—tion also from the King against his Creditors and a General Pardon Of all which Smith would have assurance before he would make any Accusation of the said Sir Anthony Whereupon Articles in Writing were drawn ingrossed and sealed between Sir James Creyton of the one part and John Cantrel Servant to Hunnings by Smith's Consent and to his use on the other part By which Sir Jaâ—es Covenanted that the said Cantrel and his Heirs after the Conviction and Attainder of Sir Anthony shall have a sixth part of his Mannors c. In consideration whereof Cantrel Covenanted that he should procure Witnesses to Convict the Plaintiff of Murther or other Capital Crimes c. Which Articles were sealed 16 of Feb. 7 Jac. And for the performance of the said Articles Sir James gave Bond of 8000 l. to Cantrel Within two dayes after Smith counterfeits himself sick and then pretending to disburthen his Conscience reveales the said Murther and accused himself for poysoning the said William Rice by the said Sir Anthonies Command so that he himself was Principal Upon this Sir James procures Mary Rice the Widow of the said William Rice to prefer a Petition to the King importing the Accusation aforesaid Which Petition the King referred to the Chief Justice of the Kings-Bench who after full Examination certified the King that he found a false Conspiracy to indict Sir Anthony without any just ground and certified also the effect of the Articles Upon which the King by Advice of the Privy-Councel thought the matter fit to be sentenced in the Star-Chamber Which in the same Term upon ordinary proceeding was heard by six dayes And it was objected by the Defendants Councel That the Bill upon the said Conspiracy did not lye and that it would be dangerous to maintain it for it will deter men to prosecute against great Offenders whereby they will pass unpunished And by the Law Conspiracy lyes where a man is indicted and legitimo modo acquietus but here he was never indicted c. But to this it was Answered and Resolved by the Lord Chancellor the two Chief Justices and all the Court That in this Case the Bill was maintainable though the Party accused was not indicted and acquitted before as it was Resolved in this Court Hill 8. Jac. in Poulter's Case Besides be Sir Anthony guilty or no the Defendants are punishable for promising Bribes and Rewards to Smith to accuse the Plaintiff and the Articles to share Sir Aâ—thonies Estate after Attainder And there is a great Indignity offered to the King in assuming to Covenant that the King shall protect or pardon or that any man's Estate may be shared before Attainder And it appeared by many Witnesses that William Rice dyed not of any poysoning but of a horrible Disease got by his dissolute life which with Reverence cannot be spoken And in this Case it was Resolved That if Felony be done and one hath suspition upon probable matter that another is guilty of it he may arrest the party so suspected to bring him to Justice But in this Case three things are to be observed 1. That a Felony be done 2. That he that doth arrest hath suspition upon probable cause 3. That he himself who hath the suspition arrest the party Resolved also That if Felony be done and common fame and noise is that one hath committed it this is good cause for him that knowes of it to arrest the party and with this agrees the Book 2 H. 5. 15 16. 15 H. 7. 5. 20 H. 7. 12. 21 H. 7. 28. 7 Ed. 4. 20. 8 Ed. 4. 27. 11 Ed. 4. 4. 6. 17 Ed. 4. 5. 6. 20 Ed. 4 6. B. 7 H. 4. 25. 27 H. 8. 23. 26 H. 8 9. 7 Eliz. Dy. 226. Hill 9 Jac. Regis In this Term the Attorney and Sollicitor consulted with me if at this day upon Conviction of an Heretick before the Ordinary the Writ de Haeretico combunendo lyeth and it seems to be clear that it doth not for the Reasons and Authorities that I have reported Trin. 9 Jacob before But after they consulting with Fleming Chief Justice Tanfield Chief Baron and Williams and Crook And they upon the Report of Dr. Cosins mentioned in my said Report and some Prâ—sidents in Queen Elizabeth's time they certified the King that the said Writ lyeth but that the most sure way was to convict the Heretick before the High Commissioners Pasch 10 Jac. Regis The Lord Vaux his Case In this Term the Lord Vaux was indicted of a Premunire in the Kings-Bench upon the New Statute for refusing the Oath of Allegeance upon his Arraignment he prayed he might be tryed per Pares But iâ— was Resolved That he shall not for that Magna Charta cap. 29. Nec super cum ibimus nec super eum mittemus nisi per legale judicium parium suorum is onely to be
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
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
Benevolent Hearts By this means he collected great Sâ—ms of Money but with some grudge 11 H. 7. ca. 20. An Act was made for levying that Benevolence 20 H. 7. A Commission to levy what was granted 11 H. 7. 15 H 8. A Commission under the Great Seal called A Commission of Anticipation 16 H. 8. For Warre with Fraâ—ce a Benevolence levyed with great Curses against the Councel for it was for a sixth part of the value in Money or Plate against the Subjects good-will 26 H. 8. Another Benevolence levyed by Commission against the Subjects Will But if the Subjects will of their free Will give the King any Moneys this is not prohibited by any Stature This is proved by the 11 H. 7. c. 18. Feb. Anno 40 Eliz. Resolved by all the Justices and Barons That a free Grant to the Queen without coertion is lawful and accordingly they granted the Queen Quod not a hene Quia c. Pasch 12 Jac. Regis The Case of Dungannon in Ireland being a New Corporation was thus The King Constituted the Town of Dungannon to be a Free Borough Et ulterius volumus c. quod Inhabitantâ—s Villae praedictae sint unum corpus corporatum per nomen Praepositio 12 Burgensium Communiâ—atis Dungannon c. Et quod ipsi praedicti Praepositi Burgenses successores sui habeant potestaten eligendi duos Burgenses c. ad Parl. c. And the Doubt was If this Grant of Election of Burgesses of Parliament were good because it was granted but to parcel of the body viz. the Provost and Burgesses and not to the Commonalty And the Chief Baron thought this being but a Nomination it was sufficient to make the Provost and Burgesses onely to have it but this was denyed by all Justices and Barons For the power to Elect Burgesses is an Inheritance which the Provost and Burgesses are not capable of and ought to be vested in the entire Corporation And so it was Resolved by all That such a Grant made by the King should be void for the Inhabitants have not Capacity to take an Inheritance as in 15 Ed. 4. to have Common And Littleton saith in his Chapter of Burgage That the Burroughs which send Burgesses to Parliament were the most antient and chief Cities c. So that it shall be intended that at first they were incorporate Also Plus valet saepenumero vulgaris consuetudo quam regalis concessio But it was Resolved by Hâ—bbard Tanfield Altham Wiâ—th Nicols and Haughton that Quod Volumus was a good word of Grant as Pigot was of Opinion 21. Edw. 4. and this shall be implyed a Grant to all the Corporation that the Provost and Burgesses shall Elect c. And regularly when the Grant is indefinite viz. First Concedimus an incertain thing ulterius volumus quod Praepositus Burgenses Successores sui eligerint This shall be within the first Concedimus to all the Body But the Chief Justice of England and Dodderidge thought the contrary Note All the New Corporations were of the same Form and in none of them is any Clause to Elect New Burgesses so that when the modern Burgesses dye the power to Elect Burgesses is gone Mich. 12 Jacobi Regis A Question was moved to the Chief Baron and Justices of Sergeants Inn in Chancery-Lane That if a Felon be convict either by Verdict or Confession if immediatly by his Conviction his Goods and Chattels be forfoited And it was said That if the Felon after Conviction pray his Clergy he then shall clearly forfeit his Goods and Chattels for Quodam modo this is a Flight because refusing the Common-Law he flyes to Priviledge of Holy Church But it was Resolved by the chief Baron and Justices That immediatly by his Conviction his Goods and Chattels are forfeited and the praying of his Clergy is not any Forfeiture and with this agrees Stamf. sol 192. a. and also 1 R. 3. And of the same Opinion was the Chief Justice and Justices of Sergeants Inne in Fleetstreet Vid. Trin. 41 Eliz. 332. Mich. 12 Jacobi Regis Anne Hungate's Case in Cam. Stell In this Term a great Case was heard and determined in the Star-Chamber between Sir Henry Day who dyed pendent the Bill and Anne his Wife and Nicholas Bedingfield Esque and Elizabeth his Wife Plaintiffs And Anne Hungate Widow Sir Robert Winde Henry Branthwait Esque Thomas Townesend Esq Thomas Blomfield Gent. and George Min Gent Defendants The Case was thus Henry Hoogan Esq being seized of the Mannor of Hamonds and of divers Lands of East-Bradenham c. in Norfolk in Fee by Deed enfeoffed them in the use of the said Anne who took Hungate to Husband and had Issue by him a Son and a Daughter and he dyed Anne obtained the Wardship of the Son and after when the Son was of the Age of 21 years wanting onely 6 Weeks by Dedimus potestatem directed to Sir Robert Winâ—e Henry Branthwayt then Feoâ—ary and Thomas Townesend they took Cognizance of a Fine of the said Son being of the Age aforesaid and sick And the Bill charged them all with Practice in procuâ—ing the said Son to acknowledge the said Fine they knowing him under Age and in Wardship as aforesaid but there was no practice used by any of the Defendants but the Son of his own good-will levyed it And by Indâ—nture the use was limited to his Mother the said Anne and her Heirs with power of Revocation by the Son upon tender of 10 s. And this was in consideration that the Mother had paid the Debts of his Father which were very great and had obtained the Wardship of him and to confirm her Joynture And that his Mother if she pleased might give it to his Brother by Hungate who was but of half-bloud And it appeared the Mother knew the Son to be within Age but the Commissionars were ignorant of it nor did they send for the Church-Book in which his Age did appear being in the same Parish And the Plaintiffs Councel prayed that the Defendants should be punished for their Misdemeanour And that the Women Plaintiffs who were Cosins c. Heirs to the said Son of the entire bloud should be dis-inherited by the said Fine To which it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and chief Baron That there was not any Crime punishable by the Law in this Case for the Judges of the Law and of this Court may punish Offences c. but they cannot create Offences nor do as Hannibal did to make his Way over the Alps when he could find none for Judicandum enim legibus ubi non est lex ibi nec est transgressio And therefore if a Fine levyed by an Infant be not Reversed during his Minority 't is unavoidable in Law because the Infants Age is to be tryed Non testium testimonio non juratorum veredicto sed Judicis inspectione solummodo F. N. B. sol 21. And for this it was Resolved by the said
Justices That forasmuch as no Corruption and Circumvention was proved in any of the Parties of which they may be Indicted at the Suit of the King or punished in this Court that the Fine shall stand And it was not apparent to the Commissioners he was within Age seeing he wanted but six Weeks but if they had known it it had been a Misdemeanour in them And for this in this Court Mich. 24. 25 Elliz. 15. Between William Cavendish and Anne his Wife one of the Co-Heirs of Henry Knightly against Robert Worsley and Katharine another Co-Heir and Trafford and others Defendants The Case was That Robert Worsely and Katharine his Wife being within Age acknowledged a Note of a Fine before Trafford and another of the Defendants by Dedimus Potestatem And by the Decree the Commissioners knew Katharine was within Age and therefore every one of them was Fined but the Fine stands Mich. 38 and 39 Eliz. In this Court one Alexander Gilderbrand seized of Lands in Windham in the County of Norfolk in Fee one Hubbard procured one Roger to take upon him the Name of Alexander Gilderbrand who was then beyond Sea to acknowledge a Fine to the said Hubbard of the said Lands and they were Fined in this Court and the Lands ordered to be re-assured to Alexander on pain of a greater Fine But the Fine was not drawn off the File nor Damages awarded to the party grieved Mich. 12 Jac. Regis Mansfield's Case 23 Eliz. In the Court of Wards the Case was this Henry Bushly seized in Fee of Lands in Northmims in the County of Hartford by his Will in writing demised the said Lands to Henry Bushly his Son in Tail the remainder to William Bushly And because his Son was within Age he demised the Education of him to Thomas Harrison whom he made his Executor Afterward it hapned that Henry the Son became a deformed Cripple and proved an Ideot a Nativitate which Ideot by the practice of Nichols and others was ravished from his Guardian and carryed upon mens shoulders to an unknown place and there kept in secret till he had acknowledged a Fine of his Lands to one Bothome before Justice Southcot 9 Eliz. and by Indenture the use of the Fine was declared to be to the use of the Cognizee and his Heirs which Bothome 12 Eliz. conveyd the said Land to one Henry Mansfield And 22 Eliz. the said Henry Bushly the Son was by Inquisition found an Ideot a Nativitate And upon this 33 Eliz. the Court of Wards took order for possession of the Lands And it was moved That though the Fine binds the Ideot yet the Indentures are not sufficient to direct the Uses But it war Resolved That forasmuch as he was enabled by the Fine as to the Principle he shall not be disabled to limit the Uses which are but as accessory The same is the Law of an Infant and a Feme-Court And the said Mansfield brought an Action of Trespass in the Common-Pleas against one Trott Farmer of the said Lands and the Issue was tryed at the Bar and the Deformed Ideot brought out of the Court of Wards to be shewn to the Judges of the Common-Pleas and to the Jurors And the Judges hearing that Mansfields Title was under the Fine levyed by that Ideot the Lord Dyâ—r and Court caused a Juror by consent to be withdrawn and the Lord Dyer said That the Judge who took the Fine was never worthy to take another yet notwithstanding all the Fine stood good Mich. 12 Jac. Regis Warcombe and Carrel's Case 20 Octob. 6 Eliz. In the Star Chamber the Case was Edward Carrel an Apprentice of the Laws for a great sum of money bought the Wardship of Joan the Daughter and Heir of Warcomb in the County of Hereford and marryed her to Edw. Carâ—el his youngest Son And after Hill 5 Eliz. the said Joan fell sick and being of the Age of 19 years and having no Issue Edward her Husband perswaded her to acknowledge a Fine of her Inheritance by which should be conveyed an Estate to the Husband and Wife in Tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Wife and Cognizance was taken by Ded. Potest directed to Sir Thomas Sanders and one Châ—snel of Grays-Inne before Easter divers Judges being here who might have examined her and on Friday in Easter Week she dyed but the Fine l'argent du Reigne was entred as of the last Term viz. Hâ—llary Term 4 days before the Wives death The Original Writ of Covenant bore Test 15 Jan. ret Crastin Pur. and the Ded. Potest 18 Jan. And James Warcombe Cosin and Heir of Joan complained by Bill against Edw. Carrel for getting the said Fine by indirect Practâ—ces and thereupon the Sentence of the Court was as followeth This day a right honourable Assembly being in this Court the matter depending in the same between James Warcombe Esque Plaintiff and Edw. Carrel of London Gent. Defendanâ— as well concerning the validity of a Fine levyed by the said Edward and Joan his wife which â—oan as the Plaintiff alleâ—dges was under age at the time of the Fâ—â—â— levyed and also for certain undue means committed by the said Edw. Carrel in the suing out and getting the said Fine and upon hearing all that could be alleadged on both parts the said Fine was by the Opinion of the whole Conrt adjudged good and effectual in Law And also no fault judged to be in the said Edward Carrel in suing out the said Fine but that the sâ—me was sued out in duâ— form and order of the Laws of this Realmâ— and this is within the Rule Facta tenent multa quae fieri prohibentur And as Carrel was not punished though he knew his Wife within Age so nor Hungate shall be punished though she knew her Son so and the rather by reason of that antient Verse Iâ—ges Communes sinescit Faemina iles M Clericus â—t Cultor Judix sibi parcet et ultor And by Sentence all were dismissed c. Among the Records in â—he Treasury Inter placita c. de Term. Sanct. Mich. 42 Ed. 3. Rot. 27. â— Cornubiâ— Helena filia Hugonis Alloâ— brought an Appeal of Robbery against I awâ—ence Boskosleak Rich. Câ—horta Jo. Gilmin and Joan his Wife and others and the Defendants plead not guilty and were found not guilty Nec unquamse subtraxerunte Iden praedictus Laurentius omnes alii c. cant inde quieti El praedicta Elena pro falso appello suo committitur c. et super hoc praed Laurentius alii petunt juxta forman Stat. quod Juâ—atores inquirant quae damna c. Et super hoc quaesitum est à praefatis Juratoribus c. Quidicunt quod praed Laurentius sustinuit ad valentiam 10 l. c. et sic singulatim de caeteris c. dicunt etiam quod Helena praed non est sufficient c. et quod Johannes Riddel sen Jo. Riddel jun. c. abettaverunt praed
found by Office as appears by the Books 11 H. 4. 52. Ass 31. 30. Ass 28. 46 Ed. 3. bre 618. 9 H. 7. 24. c. 1 As to the first it was Resolved That the Wife should be endowed and that the Fine with Proclamations was not a Bar to her and yet it was Resolved That the Act 4 H. 7. c. 24. shall barre a Woman of her Dower by such a Fine if the Woman bring not her Writ of Dower within five years after the Husbands death as was adjudged Hill 4 H. 8. Rot. 344. in the Common-Pleas and 5 Eliz Dyer 224. For by the Act the Title of Feâ—e-Covert iâ— saved by taking Action in 5 years after she is uncovert c. But it was Râ—solved That the Wife was not to be aâ—dâ—d by that saving for in respect of her Husbands Attainder she had not any Right of Dower at his death nor could sue for the same after his death But it was Resolved That the Wife was to be aided by another former saving in the same Act viz. And saving to all other persons viz. who were not Parties to the Fine such Action Right c. as shall first grow or come c. to them after the Fine ingrossed and Proclamations made by force of any Gift in Tail or other Cause or Matter before the Fine levyed so that they take their Action and pursue their Title within 5 years after such Right come to them c. And in this Case the Action and Right of Dower accrewed to the Wife after the Reversal of the Attainder by reason of a Title of Record before the Fine by reason of the Seizin in Fee had and Marriage made before the Fine levyed according to the meaning of the said Act. And as to the Point of Relation it was Resolved That sometimes by construction of Law a thing shall relate ab initio to some intent and to some not for relatio est fictio Juris to do a thing which was and had essence to be adnulled ab initio betwixt the same Parties to advance a Right but not to advance a Wrong which the Law hates or to defeat Collateral Acts which are lawful and chiefly if they concern Strangers for true it is as hath been said that as to the mean profits the same shall have relation by construction of Law till the time of the first Judgment given and that is to favour Justice and advance his Right that hath Wrong by the Erroneous Judgment But if a Stranger hath done a Trespass upon the Land in the mean time he who recovereth after the Reversal shall have an Action of Trespass against the Trespassors and if the Defendant pleads there is to such Record the Plaintiff shall shew the Special Matter and maintain his Action And for the better apprehending the Law on this Point it is to know That when any man recovers any Possession or Seizin of Land in any Action by Erroneous Judgment and afterwards the Judgment is reversed as is said before and thereupon the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall have a Writ of Restitution and that Writ reciâ—es the first recovery and the Reversal of it in the Writ of Errour is That the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall be restored to his Possession and Seizin Una cum exitibus thereof from the time of the Judgment c. Tibi praecipimus quod cadem A. ad plenariam seizinam tenementor praed c. restitui facias per Sacramentum proborum c. diligâ—nter inquiras ad quantum exitus proficua tenementor illor c. a tempore falsi Judicii c. usque ad Oct. Sanct. Mich. anno c. quo die Judicium illu c. revocat fuit c. et quâ—liter hoc praecept c. in Octâ—b c. By which it appears that the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall have Restitution against him who recovereth of all the mean Profits without any regard by them taken for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Erâ—our cannot have Remedy against a Stranger and therefore the words of the said Writ command the Sheriff to inquire of the Issues and Profits generally c. And therefore the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour after the Reversal shall have any Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean and therewith agreeth Brian Chief Justice 4 H 7. 12. a. See Butler and Baker's Case in the third Part of my Reports good matter concerning Relations So as it was Resolved in the Case at Bar though to some intent the Reversal hath relation yet to bar the Wife of her Dower by fiction of Law by the Fâ—ne with Proclamations and five years past after the Husbands death when in truth she had not cause of Action nor any Title so long as the Attainder stood in force should be to do a Wrong by a fiction in Law and to bar the Wife who was a meer stranger and could have no Relief till the Attainder was reversed As to the other Objection That the Demandant on the Petition ought to have an Office found for hâ—r It was Resolved That it needed not in this Case because the Title of Dower stood with the Queens Title and affirmed it Also in this Case the Queen was not intitled by any Office that the Wife should be driven to traverse it for then she ought to have had an Office But in case of Dower though that Office had been found for the Queen which doth not disaffirm the Title of Dower in such Case the Wife shall have her Petition without Office See Sâ—dlers Case in the Fourth Part of my Reports And the Case put on the other side was utterly denied by the Court for it was Resolved That if a man seized of Lands in Fâ—e take a Wife of eight years of Age and alien his Lands and after the Wife attains to the Age of nine years and afterwards the Husband dyeth that she shall be endowed because the Title of Dower being not consummate till the death of the Husband and there being Marriage Seizin in Fee age of 9 years and the Husbands death for that cause she shall be endowed it being sufficient that the Marriage Seizin and Age happen during the Coverture So if a man seized of Lands in Fee take a Wife and after she elopes from her Husband now she is barrable of her Dower if during the elopement the Husband alien and after the Wife is reconciled she is Dowable So if a man hath Issue by his Wife and the Issue dyeth and afterwards Land discends to the Wife or she purchase Lands in Fee and dyes without other Issue the Husband for the Issue which he had before the Discent or Purchase shall be Tenant by the Courtesie But if a man taketh an Alien to Wife and afterwards he aliens his Lands and after that she is made a Denizen she shall not be endowed for she was not by her Birth capable of Dower but by her Denization it began But
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.
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
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