Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	remainder_n	son_n	tail_n	1,909	5	10.2568	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59706	Action upon the case for slander, or, A methodical collection under certain heads of thousands of cases dispersed in the many great volumns of the law, of what words are actionable and what not and of a conspiracy, and of a libel : being a treatise of very great use and consequence to all men, especially in these times, wherein actions for slander are more common than in times past : with an exact table annexed for the ready finding out of any thing therein / by W. Sheppard.	Sheppard, William, d. 1675?	1662 (1662)	Wing S3173A; ESTC R30143	259,716	226

Innuendo will not help for that actionable words must import in themselves precise slander without ambiguousnesse so that every one that hears them may intend of whom they be spoken For it was said that hée spake the words of the Plaintiff and the Iury found him guilty And this difference was taken where the words in themselves import apparent incertainty and when they may be ascertained by Intendment In the first Case no Averment will aid it But in the last Case by Averment an Averment and a Verdict it may be aided And therefore where the words be One of my Brothers is perjured this is so incertain that neither of them can bring an Action and if he be found guilty by Verdict it will not help But here it did not appear that hée had more Brothers than one and then it may be certain enough and here it is expressy averred to be spoken of him and the Iury hath found him guilty and therefore it is here certain enough And this Case was cited by the Court to be adjudged for the Plaintiff That murdrous Knave Stroughton lay in wait to murder mee And upon this one Thomas Stroughton brought the Action and said they were spoken of him And upon not guilty pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was adjudged after divers motions to arrest the Iudgement for the Plaintiff Croo. 2. 108. Case 225. Sir Thomas Gresham versus Grindsley Thy Brother was a fool and was never born to do himself any good for that he could not hold his hand from ratifying and subscribing to his Fathers Will notwithstanding I have that to shew in my house that if his heir Elizabeth Gresham do not any such Act as hee hath done it shall bring her to inherit Titsley Sir Tho. upon this sues the Defendant And shews how his Father was seized Slander of a Title to Land of the Mannor of Titsley and of other Lands and by his will devised to A. his wife for life the Remainder in Tail to the Plaintiff and how the Father had issue William the eldest which had issue Elizabeth his Daughter and Heir and this Plaintiff the youngest Son and that A. is dead and the Plaintiff entred and the Defendant to slander his Title spake these words before and shewed further how hée had an intention to make a Ioynture to his Wife and to passe divers parcels of the Land devised to him to his younger children for their advancements and that hée was hindred in his intent by these words ad damnum a hundred pound and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and twenty pound damages But Iudgement was given for the Defendant 1 For that it doth not appear by any thing in the Declaration that the Plaintiff is damnified viz. that hée was about to sell it or has entred into any Bond to make a Ioynture to his wife which by reason of these words would not be accepted and there ought to be some special matter shewed in which damage may be apparent Coo. 4. 18. For upon such general words no special slander may be imposed As if a Lease for life be with a condition to re-enter and J. S. shall say That hee can shew that which will bring him in Reversion to the possession this is no slander of the Title for the very Lease it self by the Indenture by which the Land was devised will bring him to it either by the condition or by the determination of the estate 2 For that it doth appear by the Plaintiffs own shewing that Elizabeth is Heir at Common Law and that the Plaintiff himself had but an estate tail and upon the determination of it Elizabeth will have Titsley as general Heir and the Defendant doth not shew any time certain when Elizabeth shall have it but indefinitely and this shall be taken in meliori sensu Yelverton Rep. 88. Coo. lib. Entries 35. Case 226. Mich. 4. Jac. B. R. Earl of Northumberland versus Birches In an Slander of a Title to Land Action for the slander of a Title The Plaintiff declared that Henry Earl of Arundel was seized in Fée of the Mannor of D. and gave it to the plaintiff in tail and that the Defendant was a Customary Tenant for life of a messuage parcel of the said Mannor And the Plaintiff was in Communication with J. S. to make a Lease for years to him to make a Lease for years of the Land to him to begin after the estate of the Defendant for life was determined for which J. S. agréed to give him five hundred pound that the Defendant intending to hinder that bargain and slander his Title spake these words The late Earl of Arundel Lord of the Mannor of D. did make a Lease of my Tenement to one J. D. for sixty years to begin after my customary estate ended and the same is a good Lease Whereas the said Earl did not make such a Lease by reason whereof neither J. S. nor any other person would give him ten pound for the Lease The Defendant justified that Henry Earl of Arundel before the Gift made to the Plaintiff made such a Lease to J. S. for sixty years and that J. S. conveyed the Lease to him It was objected that the words import not any slander nor is it alledged when the Earl made the Lease But the opinion of the Court was that the words shall be taken in the worse sense according to his intent which hée spake when hée said it to be a good Lease And the words themselves imply that hée spake them to countenance the Title of a stranger which is not lawful and now hée cannot excuse himself by intituling of himself when at the first the words did not import as much and now hée cometh too late to justifie Croo. 2. 163. Case 227. M. 3. Car. B. R. Law and Harwoods Case In this Action for a slander of a Title The Plaintiff declared that hée was seized in Fée as a Coppy-holder Slander of a Title to Land of Land in D. within the Iurisdiction of the Defendants Court and that the Defendant said Hee had not any title to those Lands It was found for the Plaintiff And upon a Writ of Errour brought the Iudgement was reversed because the plaintiff did not shew that by occasion of the words hée had any prejudice as by any bargain of Inheritance or Lease of the Land And this Action is not maintainable without shewing a special prejudice Croo. 1. part last publisht 99. Case 228. M. 6. Jac. B. R. Vaughan versus Ellis M. 6. Jac. B. R. Errour of a Iudgement in the Exchequer-Chamber in an Action of the Case for words for saying Hee is a Bastard The Errour assigned was that the Action lyes not for these words without special cause shewn that hee was damnified by them as to alledge that hée was inheritable to some Lands and that by reason of those words hée is to have losse And here it

words for calling of him Bastard And the cause of the Errour was laid to be that the Action lies not for these words without special cause shewn that hée was damnified by them as that hée was inheritable to some Lands and by reason thereof he Hindrance of preferment is to have losse And here it is shewn that such Land was given in tail to his Grandfather and that his Father had divers Sons whereof the Plaintiff is youngest Son and his Elder Brothers are living and that such a one was to buy the Land and offered him so much for his Title And by reason of those words refused to give him any thing In this case it was For saying of one Hee is a Bastard agréed that albeit hée had no present Title but a possibility and being offered mony for it and having lost this gain by the words and in futuro might receive prejudice in case hee were to claim any Land by descent And for these causes they held the words actionable and did affirm the Iudgement Croo. 2. 213. Case 132. An Action of the Case was brought for speaking of these words viz. J. S. For saying Thou hast had Bastards 34. years since had two Bastards and hath paid for the nursing of them and the Plaintiff shewed that by reason of these words contention grew betwirt him and his wife almost to a divorce and it was adjudged that an Action would not lye for the words and the Chief Iustice said that an Action upon the Case doth not lye for every ill word but for words by speaking of which the Plaintiff is damnified and that cannot be in this Case the time being so long past And the causes wherefore a man shall be punished for saying that a man hath a Bastard are two the one because by the Statute of 14. Elz. The offender is to be punished for the same And secondly because the party by such means is discredited or hindered in his preferment Godbolt Rep. Case 385. Pasche 16. Jac. B. R. Case 133. Sir Gilbert Gerrard brought an Action against Mary Dickinson and Slander of a Title declared that hée was seized of the Land in Fée and was in treaty to make a Lease of it for two and twenty years at a hundred pound a year Rent to R. Egerton and that the Defendant knowing of it said I have a Lease of the Mannor and Castle of H. which was the same Land for ninety years and published it c. by reason whereof R. Egerton did not procéed In this Case it was agréed that no Action would lye for the words although they were false because the Defendant did pretend an interest in the Land So if the Defendant had said that the Plaintiff had no right to the Land but that shee her self had right to it no Action would lye for this Coo. 4. 18. Case 134. An Action upon the Case was brought for these words viz. Thou art a For saying Thou art a Couzener and Bankerupt Couzener and Bankerupt and hast an occupation to deceive men by the words were spoken of a Gentleman who had a hundred pound Land per annum to live upon and therefore although hée used to buy and sell Iron yet because hée was not a Merchant nor did live by his Trade the better opinion of the Court was that the words were not actionable and so adjudged Godb. Rep. Case 45. Hill 28. Eliz. B. R. Case 135. Pasche 15. Car. 1. Smiths Case One said Thou art forsworn and hast Charge of Perjury taken a false Oath at Hereford Assizes against J. S. And the opinion of the Court was against the Action But it was said it would have lyen for this Thou art forsworn and hast taken a false Oath at the Assizes against J. S. with an Averment that hée was sworn in the cause March Rep. pl. 17. Smiths Case Pasche 15. Car. 1. Case 136. Easter 15. Car. 1. Molton versus Clapham The Defendant upon reading Perjury Affidavids in Court openly in the presence and hearing of the Iustices and Lawyers said There is not a word true in the Affidavids which I will prove by forty witnesses March Rep. pl. 45. Molton versus Clapham Easter 15. Car. 1. Case 137. Mich. 15. Car. 1. Johnson versus Dyer The Case was this The Defendant Incertain charge of Felony having spéech with the Father of the Plaintiff said to him I will take my Oath that your Son stole my Hens But did not averr that hée was his Son or that hee had but one Son and it was held not good March Rep. pl. 96. Mich. 15. Car. 1. Case 138. Mich. 15. Car. 1. Just Crooks Case It was agreed That if one had preferred Manner of divulging of a Slander a Bill in the Starr-Chamber against a Iudge for Corruption in his office and then shall go unto a Tavern or other place and tell the effect of it that this is actionable March Rep. pl. 119. Case 139. Pasche 17. Car. 1. B. R. Sir Richard Greenfields Case The Action agreed Charge of couzening to be maintainable for this Thou hast received mony of the King to buy new Saddles and hast couzened the King and bought old Saddles for the Troopers for hee may thereby lose his office or imployment So if hee had said these words of the Kings Sadler March Rep. pl. 135. Case 140. Trin. 17. Car. 1. Co. B. Action was brought for this Thou hast killed my Charge of Murder Lack of Averment Brother Innuendo C. c. fratrem nuper mortuum and it was held by the whole Court not actionable without averment that hee was dead and that the Innuendo will not do it March Rep. pl. 187. See Hobb Rep. pl. 11. Case 141. Trin. 17. Car. 1. Hawes Case The Action was brought for these words Charge of speaking against the book of Common-Prayer Averment Necessary My couzen Hawes hath spoken against the Book of Common-Prayer and said it is not fit to be read in the Church with an averment of a special losse by it that hée was called into the Spiritual Court and the Plaintiff had Iudgement in it March Rep. pl. 191. Case 142. Mich. 17. Car. 1. Co. B. Baine sued for these words That hee kept a Charge of cheating and couzening Averment false Bushel whereby hee did cheat and couzen the poor But hée set forth that hée was a Farmer did use to sow Land and sell the Corn and thereby maintained himself and his Family and that the words were spoken to one that did use to buy of him and that by reason of the words hée lost his custome And it was adjudged actionable March Rep. pl. 192. Case 143. Mich. 17. Car. 1. Co. B. A. sued for these words That hee kept false Couzening weights and hée set forth that hée got his living by buying and selling but did not shew of what Trade or Profession he was and agréed that the Action

6. 5. But where the sense is double and indifferent that it may be taken the one or the other way But one of the senses is worse and the other is better there the words shall bée taken in the better and not in the worser sense But of this sée before 6. That where the sense of the words is general and may be taken divers waies there it shall bée understood with reference to the person of whom they are spoken For in this the Rule is Sermo relatus ad personam intelligi debet de Conditione personae And thus the same words spoken to one man may be and spoken to another man may not be actionable to say to a Iudge or such like Officer You are a corrupt man is actionable But such words to another man are not actionable Coo. 4. 16. And yet if in this case there be other words spoken together with these words that do manifest them not to bée intended with reference to his office but to some other thing the words will not be actionable Coo. 4. 16. Hetleys Rep. 123. 139. Wée have toucht it before That Slander is and may bée by word or by déed And by word it may be either of the title a man hath to his Land or of his Person Wée shall first of all lay down something of the first of the slander of titles and then wée shall enter upon the slander of per●ons As to which it may bee easily discovered by that which is laid down in the general foregoing Rules That in this subject wée are upon these things are principally to bée considered 1. The Person of the Slanderer 2. The Person of the Slandered 3. The way and manner of divulging of the Slander 4. The frame of the words whereby the Slander is raised and made 5. The matter and quality of the slander it self Wée shall therefore after wée have dispatcht the first and after wée have spoken a little to the Slander of great men called Scandalum Magnatum in the next place say something to every one of these particulars CHAP. III. Of the Slander of a Title to Land THere are some words spoken that are in scandal and disparagement of Words that tend to the slander of a mans title to his Land or to a mans disinheritance Sect. 1. a mans Title to his Land or tend to a mans disheritance for which an Action of the Case may lye And for the opening of this point these things are to be known That in all cases where an Action will lye for a Slander of this nature there must be these things in the Case 1. The words must be spoken about such Land as wherein I that am to bring the Action have some Title of Estate or at least a possibility or probability of Estate or Title in Possession Remainder or Reversion For if they bée spoken about Land that doth not concern mée and wherewith I have not to do they cannot as they refer to the Land be actionable 2. The words spoken must be false For if what is said bée true bée it what it will the speaker may justifie the speaking of it where an Action is brought against him for it 3. They must be spoken by one that neither hath nor pretendeth title to the Land himself and that is not of Counsel with him that hath or pretendeth title to it For if a man lay claim to Land that another hath in possession or to which hée doth pretend title as next heir or otherwise And hée shall say any such words as these That the Land is his Land that claimeth it and not the others or that hee hath a good title to it and the other hath no title to it or that hee hath such an Estate in it or such a conveyance of it if in truth hee have such a conveyance of it and if it bée true as hée saith no Action will lye for it So if they both claim as heir and the one of them say of the other That hee is a Bastard or that hee is not the rightful heir or that his Father was an Alien or the like and that hée himself is the heir And so if the Counsel of such a man shall use any such words as these in the agitation of his Case about the Lands these words will not be actionable And yet if a man shall pretend title to the Land another hath in possession and hath no colour of title for it And say hée hath such a déed or conveyance of it where in truth hée hath no such déed or conveyance at all or if hée hath any such it is a counterfeit and a forged one and hée knoweth it to be so in these Cases the words may be actionable But if there be any colour for what is said the words will not be actionable Coo. 4. 17 18 Yelvertons Rep 80. 88. New Book of Entries 20. 28. Trin. 25. Eliz. B. R. Banisters Case Mich. 3. Jac. B. R. Croo. 2. 339. 4. The party that brings the Action must have or be likely to have some special damage by the speaking of the words as that hée is hindred in the sale of his Land was forced to fall his price or in his preferment in marriage or the like by it And therefore where a man is not about the sale of his Land or about a match with a Wife or Husband and another shall speak words to the disparagement of the title of his Land this will not bear an Action But if by the speaking of the words hée hath lost his Chapman or otherwise suffered any special prejudice the which he must not faile to set forth in his Declaration there without question the Action will lye Croo. 1. 99. 100. Croo. 2. 213. 397. 422. 484. Croo. 2. 642. 337. Owens Rep. 32. Popham Rep. 187 Yelvertons Rep. 88. Bulstr 2. part 9● 5 That where the words are spoken to the prejudice of his Inheritance as where he is denied to be rightful Heir or the like there the Averment Action may be maintainable without Averment of any present damage and therefore it is held that this Action will lye for saying of a lawful Heir to Land before or after the Ancestors death He is a Bastard and so albeit the words be spoken before or after he hath Land in possession and though he be not about to sell the Land and although he have no special losse by the speaking of the words for by this the King or other Lord may be moved to search after the Title and the Title of his Land if he have any may be called in question and so it may in time turne to his prejudice Coo. 4. 17. Croo. 2. 642. M. 20. Jac. B. R. Elborrows case 6 That this Action will not lye for words that are too general and incertain nor for words that are not malicious sufficiently positive and the like within the Rules of words spoken in other cases for if they be incertaine of a

objected that the words were too general for shee might kill him by physick and it might not bee Felony Croo. 2. 306. Words general Case 214. Foxcrost brought an Action of the Case against Lacy and declared that Charge of Murder whereas Lacy and four others were Defendants in a suit concerning Conspiracies c. and that communication was moved betwéen John Walter and Richard Gwyn Esquires concerning the said suit that the said Defendant Lacy upon the said communication in their presence spake these words These Defendants meaning the Plaintiff and the other six are those that helped to Murther Henry Farrer meaning one Henry deceased who was murthered by one Thomas Gulfield who was hanged for it to the plaintiffs damage c. The defendant denyeth the words and found for the Incertainty in the person slandered plaintiff and Iudgement given error was assigned generally that the Iudgement should have béen contrary but Iudgement was affirmed for it was holden that it was sufficiently laid to entitle every one of the defendants to a several Action as if they had béen especially named Hobarts Rep. 119. Case 215. In the Exchequer an Action of the Case was brought by K. D. against Slander in another tongue Welsh W. T. for calling him Idoner in the Welsh tongue and did not aver what the word did import and yet Iudgement was given for the plaintiff and the Court took Information by Welshmen what the word meant in English And the like Iudgement in the Common-pleas and upon the like form of Declaration were found in search in the Common-pleas betwéen William Verch Howel against Evan George for a Slander in Welsh words Trin. 43. Eliz. rot 3024. and another Pasche 44. Eliz. Rot. 8034. And at this time Serjeant John Moore informed the Court that Iudgement had béen given in the Kings-Bench 6. Jac. in the Case of one Tuch Healer of Felons Averment upon these words thou art a healer of Felons without any averment how the words were taken because the Court was informed and took knowledge that in some Countries it was taken for a smotherer of Felons Hobb 155. Case 216. James Steward brought an Action of the Case against Bishop for saying Charge of Theft Indirect words of charge of him Innuendo c. is in Warwick Gaol for stealing of a Mare and other Beasts and after a verdict for the plaintiff upon divers motions in Arrest of Iudgement the whole Court gave opinion Seriatim that the words would not bear Action for they do not affirm directly that hee did steal the Beasts as if hee had said that hee stole them and was in Gaol for it but they do only make Report of his Imprisonment and the supposed reason of it and it may very well bee that the Warrant or Mittimus was for stealing expresly as is the common form of making of the Kalender of the Prisoners for the Iustices of Assize and the like Hob. 196. Case 217. Mich. 6 Jac. B. R. Frank. versus Alsop in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Writ of Error after a judgement given in the Kings Bench for these words I will prove thee a thief and a plotter of theevery and I I will prove thee a Thief will prove it by thine own Son or I will send him to the Devil And it was adjudged that the words were not actionable and therefore the former judgement was reversed Croo. 214. Case 218. Hill 5 Jac. B. R. Smith versus Turner for these words Thou art no true Subject to the King and that I will prove upon not guilty pleaded Treason and a verdict found for the Plaintiff upon motion for arrest of judgement it was adjudged against the Plaintiff and that the words were not actionable for they were too general and incertaine Croo. 2. 202. and Yelverton 104. Case 219. Mich. 5 Jac. B. R. Sir Tho. Holts Case for these words Sir Tho. Holt struck his Cook on the head with a Cleaver and cleaved his head the one part lay on the one shoulder and another part on the other upon not Charge of Murder guilty pleaded and a verdict for the Plaintiff but moved in arrest of judgement and adjudged by the Court that the words were not actionable because it was not averred that the Cook was killed but Argumentative for notwithstanding the wounding the Party may be yet alive and Incertainty in the words the slander that is actionable must be direct against which there may not be any intendment Croo. 2. 184. Case 220. Mildmay brought an Action of the Case against Standish for saying The Land was lawfully assured to John Talbot for one thousand six Slander of a title to Land hundred years and that he was thereof lawfully possessed whereas in truth some such estate was made but the same was not legally made nor was John Talbot thereby legally interessed in the Tearm for it was true that he had a limitation of such an estate by a Will which was the reason why he spake the words yet because hee took upon him the knowledge of the Law and did meddle with a matter did not concern him judgement was given for the Plaintiff Mildmay versus Standish Coo. 175. Case 221. Hill 4 Jac. B. R. Edwards Case for these words Thou art a Witch and Witch I will prove thee a VVitch And it was adjudged for the Plaintiff Croo. 2. 150. Case 222. Mich. 3 Car. B. R. Turners Case for these words Hee Predict quer Innuendo and one Allen are perjured Knaves upon not guilty pleaded Charge of Perjury it was found for the Plaintiff and it was adjudged for the Plaintiff albeit it were objected that Hee cannot refer to two persons and are perjured persons cannot be referred to one person but the Court held it well albeit it be false english for the sense appeareth and that it is not like to the Case where one saith that I. S. and I. D. is perjured or if one say to thee that one of you is perjured this is voyd for incertainty Croo. 2. 101 102. Case 223. Margaret Blisse who was in remainder after an estate in Tayl did Slander of a title to Land bring an Action on the Case against Edward Stafford for slandering her Title in affirming that A. had issue on B. who is alive and the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Action adjudged by all But did abate for an exception to the Court Owens Rep. 37. Case 224. Hill 3. Jac. B. R. William Wisemans Case For these words that the Defendant said de praefato Querente existente fratri suo naturali My Brother praefat Querentem Innuendo is perjured Vpon not guilty Perjury pleaded and verdict for the Plaintiff it was after motion to arrest the Iudgement adjudged for the Plaintiff Although it were said that the words be incertain what Brother hée intended and it may be he had divers Incertainty in the person slandered Brethren and that the