within the body of the County but they do not restrain the execution of the same Court to be served upon the Land for it may be that the party hath not any thing upon the Sea and then it is reason to have it upon the Land and if such a Defendant have nothing wherewithall to make agreement they of the Court have power to take the body of such a Defendant upon the Land in execution In which case these points were observed 1. Although that the Court of Admiralty is not a Court of Record because they proceed there according to the Civil Law see Brook 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 hath not goods then they may arrest the body of the Defendant within the body of the County But the great Question between them was If a man committeth See this point resolved 8 Eli. Dyer per curiam which is omitted out of the printed Book Piracy upon the Sea and one knowing thereof receiveth and comforteth the Defendant within the body of the County if the Admiral and other the Commissioners by force of the Act of 28 H. 8. cap. 16. may proceed by Indictment and conviction against the Receiver and Abettor in as much as the offence of the Accessary hath his begining within the body of the County And it was resolved by them that such a Receiver and Abettor by the common Law could not be indicted or convicted because that the common Law cannot take conusance of the original Offence because that is done out of the Iurisdiction of the common Law and by consequence where the common Law cannot punish the principal the same shall not punish any one as accessary to such a principal And therefore Coke chief Iustice reported to them a Case which was in Suffolk in anno 28 Eliz. where Butler and others upon the Sea next to the Town of Laystaft in Suffolk robbed divers of the Queens subjects and spoyled them of their goods which goods they brought into Norfolk and there they were apprehended and there brought before me then a Iustice of the Peace within the same County whom I examined and in the end they confessed a cruel and barbarous Piracy and that those goods which then they had with them were part of the goods which they had robbed from the Queens subjects upon the High Sea and I was of opinion that in that case it could not be Felony punishable by the common Law because that the original act scil the taking of them was not any offence whereof the common Law taketh knowledg and by consequence the bringing of them into a County could not make the same Felony punishable by our Law and it is not like where one stealeth goods in one County and brings them into another there he may be indicted of Felony in any of the Counties because that the original act was Felony whereof the common Law taketh knowledg and yet notwithstanding I committed them to the Gaol until the coming of the Iustices of Assises And at the next Assises the Opinion of Wray chief Iustice and Periam Iustices of Assise was That for as much as the common Law doth not take notice of the original Offence the bringing of the goods stoln upon the Sea into a County did not make the same punishable at the common Law and thereupon they were committed to Sir Robert Southwell then Vice-Admiral of the said Counties and this in effect agrees with Lacies case which see in my Reports cited in Binghams case in the 2 Reports 93. and in Constables case C. 5. Reports 107. See the Piracy was Felony the Book of 40 Assis 25. by Schard where a Master or Captain of a Ship together with some Englishmen robbed the Kings sujects upon the High Seas where he saith that it was Felony in the Norman Captain and Treason in the Englishmen his companions and the reason of the said case was because the Normans were not then under the Obedience and Allegiance of the King of England for King John lost Normandy and for that cause Piracy was but Felony in the Norman but in the English who were under the Obedience and Allegiance of the King of England the same was adjudged Treason which is to be understood of Pettit Treason which was High Treason before and therefore in that case the Pirates being apprehended the Norman Captain was hanged and the English men were hanged and drawn as appeareth by the same Book see Stamford 10. And some objected and were of opinion That Treasons done out of the Realm might have bin determined by the common Law but truly the same could not be punishable but onely by the Civil Law before the Admiral or by Act of Parliament as all Foreign Treasons and Felonies were by the common Law and therefore where it is declared by the Statute of 25 E. 3. That adherence to the Enemies of the King within England or elsewhere is Treason the same shall be tryed by the common Law but where it is done out of the Realm the Offendor shall not be attainted but by Parliament until the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 2. although that there are Opinions in some Books to the contrary see 5 R. 2. Quare impedit c. XXII Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Pettus and Godsalves Case IN a Fine levyed Trinity Term anno quinto of this King between John Pettus Esq Plaintiff and Roger Godsalve and others Deforceants of the Mannor of Castre with the appurtenances c. in the County of Norfolk where in the third proclamation upon the Foot of the same Fine the said proclamation is said to have been made in the sixth year of the King that now is which ought to have been anno quinto of the King and whereas upon the Foot of the same Fine the fourth proclamation is altogether left out because upon the view of the proclamations upon Dorsis upon Record not finis ejusdem Termini per Justiciarias remaining with the Chyrographer and the Book of the said Chyrography in which the said proclamations were first entered it appeareth that the said proclamations were rightly and duly made therefore it was adjudged that the Errors or defects aforesaid should be amended and made to agree as well with the proclamation upon Record of the said Fine and Entry of the said Book as with the other proclamations in Dorsis super pedes aliorum finium of the same Term and this was done upon the motion of Haughton Serjeant at Law XXIII Mich. 7 Jacobi In the Court of Wards Sammes Case JOhn Sammes being seised of Grany Mead by Copy of Court Roll of the Mannor of Tollesham the great of which Sir Thomas Beckingham c. and held the same of the King by Knights service in capite Sir Thomas by
any Mortuary but in such manner as is mentioned in the Act upon pain of forfeiture of so much in value as they take more then is limited by the Act and forty shillings over to the party grieved Yet it appeareth by Doctor and Student lib. 2. cap. 55. fol. 105. That if the Parson c. sueth for Mortuaries otherwise then the Act appointeth that a Prohibition lyeth yet there is a Penalty added which is an authority expresly in the Point And the Case at Bar is a more strong Case and that for three reasons 1. It was made in affirmance of the Canon Law 2. It was made for the ease of the People and Subjects and for the maintenance of the Iurisdiction of the Ordinary so as the Subjects have benefit by the Act and therefore although that the King may dispence with the penalty yet the Subject greived shall have a Prohibition And the Rule of the Court was Fiat Prohibitio Curiae Cantuar. de Arcub Inter partes praedict per Curiam And Sherly and Harris Iunior Serjeants at Law were of Councell in the Case III. Mich. 6 Jacobi Regis Edwards Case THe high Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiasticall objected divers High Commission Articles in English against Thomas Edwards dwelling in the City of Executer 1. That Mr. John Walton hath been many yeares trained up in Learning in the Vniversity of Oxford and there worthily admitted to severall degrees of Schools and deservedly took upon him the degree of Doctor of Physick 2. That he was a Reverend and well practised man in the Art of Physick 3. That you the said Thomas Edwards are no Graduate 4. That you knowing the Premisses notwithstanding you the said Edwards c. of purpose to disgrace the said Dr. Walton and to blemish his Reputation Learning and Skill with infamy and reproach did against the Rules of Charity write and send to the said Mr. Doctor Walton a lewd and ungoodly and uncharitable Letter and therein tared him of want of Civility and Honesty and want of Skill and Iudgment in his Art and Profession c. And you so far exceeded in your immoderate and uncivill Letter that you told him therein in plaine termes He may be crowned for an Asse as if he had no manner of skil in his Profession and were altogether unworthily admitted to the said Degrees and therein you purposely and advisedly taxed the whole Vniversity of rashnesse and indiscretion for admitting him to that Degree without sufficiency and desert 5. And further to disgrace the said Mr. Doctor Walton in the said Vniversity did publish a Copy of the said Letter to Sir William Courtney and others and in your Letter was contained Sipsilam lichenen mentegram Take that for your Inheritance and thank God you had a good Father And did not you thereby covertly mean and imply That the Father of the said Dr. Walton being late Bishop of Exeter and a Reverend Prelate of this Land was subject to the Diseases of the French Pox and Leprosie to the dislike of the Dignity and Calling of Bishops 6. That in another Letter you sent to Mr. Doctor Maders Doctor of Physick you named Mr. Doctor Walton and made a Horn in your Letter And we require you upon your Oath to set down whether you meant not that they were both Cuckoulds and what other meaning you had 7. You knowing that Dr. Walton was one of the high Commission in the Dioces of Exeter and having obtained a Sentence against him in the Star-Chamber for contriving and publishing of a Libell did triumphingly say That you had gotten on the hipp a Commissioner for Causes Ecclesiasticall in the Dioces of Exeter which you did to vilifie and disgrace him and in him the whole Commission Ecclesiasticall in those parts Lastly That after the Letter missive sent unto you you said arrogantly That you cared not for any thing that this Court can do unto you nor for their censure for that you can remove this matter at your pleasure And this Term it was moved to have a Prohibition in this Case And the matter was well argued And at last it was resolved by Coke chief Iustice Warberton Daniel and Foster Iustices That the first six Articles were meer Temporall concerning Doctor Walton in his Profession of Physick and so touched the Temporall person and a temporall matter and in truth It is in the nature of an Action upon See Book of Entries 444. 447. Non est Juri consentanium quod quis super iis quo rum cognitio ad nos pertinet in Curia Christianitatis trahatur in placita vi Stat. Circumspecte agatis An. 13. E. 1. Episcopus teneat plicita in Curia Christianitatis de his quae sunt mere Spiritualia Et vi Linwood f. 70. Lit. m. dicuntur mere Spiritualia quia non habent mixturam Temporalem vi 22 E. 4. l. Consultat vi 22 E. 4 the Abbot of Sion case the Case for Scandall in his Profession of Physick And yet the Commissioners themselves do proceed in the same Ex Officio And it was resolved that as for them a Prohibition doth lye for divers causes 1. Because that the matter and persons are Temporall 2. Secondly Because it is for Defamation which if any such shall be for the same it ought to begin before the Ordinary because it is not such an Enormous Offence which is to be determined by the high Commissioners And for the same reason Suit doth not lye before them for calling the Doctor Cuckould as it was objected in the seventh Article And it was said that the high Commissioners ought to incur the danger of Premunire 2. It was resolved That the Ecclesiasticall Iudge cannot examine any man upon his Oath upon the intention and thought of his Heart for Cogitationis penam nemo emoret And in cases where a man is to be examined upon his Oath he ought to be examined upon Acts or words and not of the intention and thought of his heart and if every man should be examined upon his Oath what opinion he holdeth concerning any point of Religion he is not bound to answer the same for in time of danger Quis modo tutus erit if every one should be examined of his thoughts And so long as a man doth not offend neither in act nor in word any Law established there is no reason that he should be examined upon his thought or Cogitation For as it hath been said in the Proverb Thought is free And therefore for the sixth and seventh Articles they were resolved as well for the matter as for the form in offering to examine the Defendant upon his Oath of his intention and meaning were such to which the Defendant was not to be compelled to answer Ergo It was resolved that as to the Article he might justifie the same because as it appeareth upon his own shewing that the Doctor was sentenced in the Star-Chamber Also the Libell is matter meer Temporall and if it
Court. See 21 Eliz. Dyer 362. If Tenant in Socage dyeth seised in possession his Heir within the age of fourteen years he shall not sue Livery but shall have an Ouster le main una cum exitibus but otherwise it is if the Heir be of the age of fourteen years which is his full age for Socage and therewith agreeth 4 Eliz. Dyer 213. And two presidents were shewed which were decreed in the same Court by the advice of the Iustices Assistants to the Court. One in Trinity Term 16 Eliz. Thomas Stavely the Father enfeoffed William Strelley and Thomas Law of the Mannor of Ryndly in the County of Nottingham upon condition that they re-enfeoff the Feoffor and his Wife for their lives the remainder to Thomas Stavely son and heir apparent of tho Feoffor in Fee which Mannor was holden of Queen Elizabeth in Socage in capite and upon consideration of the saving in the Statute of 32 H. 8. next after the clause concerning Tenure in Socage in chief it was resolved That no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in such case and the reason was because that the precedent clause giveth liberty to him who holdeth in Socage in chief to make disposition of it either by act executed or by Will at his free will and pleasure and before the said act no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in such case and the words of the Saving are Saving c. to the King c. all his Right c. of primer seisin and relief c. for Tenure in Socage or of the nature of Tenure in Socage in chief as heretofore hath been used and accustomed But there was no use or custom before the Act that the King should have any primer seisin or relief in such case and the words subsequent in the said Saving depend upon the former words and do not give any primer seisin or relief where none was before Another president was in Pasc 37 Eliz. in the Book of Orders fo 444. where the case was that William Allet was seised of certain Lands in Pitsey called Lundsey holden of the Queen in Socage in chief and by Deed covenanted to stand seised to the use of his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of Richard his younger son in Fee and dyed his Heir of full age and all that was found by Office and it was resolved ut supra That no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in that case but the doubt in the case at Bar was because that Henry the Feoffor had a Reversion in Fee which descended to the said VVilliam his eldest son XXI Trinity Term anno 7 Jacobi Regis The Case of the Admiralty A Bill 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 Pirats upon the High Seas and shewed in certain what Piracy they had committed the said Sir Richard Hawkins knowing the same did them receive abet and comfort within the body of the County and for bribes and rewards suffered them to be discharged And what offence that was the Court referred to the consideration of the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron who heard Councel of both sides divers days at Serjeants Inn. And first it was by them resolved that by the Common Law the Admirals 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 Statute of 13 R. 2. cap. 5. by which it appeareth that such was the Common Law in the time of King Edw. the third and therewith agreeth the Statute of 2 H. 4. cap. 11. and the Statute of 15 H. 2. cap. 3. That because the Admirals and their Deputies encroach to themselves divers Iurisdictions and Franchises more then they ought to have Be it enacted that all Contracts Pleas and Complaints and all other things arising within the bodies of the Counties as well by Land as by Water as also of Wreck of the Sea the Admiral Court shall not have any conusance power or jurisdiction c. Nevertheless of the death of a man and of Mayheme done in great Ships being in the main stream of great Rivers onely below the Bridges nigh to the Sea and not in other places of the same Rivers and to arrest Ships in the great Flotes for the great Voyage of the King and of his Realm and by the Statute of 2 H. 5. cap. 6. the Admirals of the King of England have done and used reasonably according to the ancient Law and Custom upon the main Sea See the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 5. And all this appeareth to be by the common Law and with that agreeth Stamford fo 51. And if a man be killed or slain within the Arms of the Sea where a man may see from the one part of the Land to the other the Coroner shall enquire of it and not the Admiral because that the Country may well know it and he voucheth 8 E. 2. Coron 399. So saith Stamford the same proves that by the common Law before the Statute of 2 H. 4. cap. 11. the Admiral shall not have Iurisdiction unless upon the High Sea See Pla. Com. 37. 6. If the Marshal holdeth Plea out of the Verge or the Admiral within the body of the County the same is voyd See 2 R. 3. 12. 30 H. 6. 6. by Prisoit 2. It was resolved that the said Statutes are to be intended of a power to hold Plea and not of a power to award execution scil de jurisdictione tenendi placiti non de jurisdictione exequendi For notwithstanding the said Statutes the Iudg of the Admiralty may do execution within the body of the County and therefore in 19 H. 6. 7. the case was W. T. at Southwark affirmed a Plaint of Trespass in the Court of Admiralty before the Steward of the Earl of Huntington against J. B. of a Trespass done upon the High Sea upon which issued a Citation to cite the said J. B. to appear before the Steward aforesaid at the common day then next ensuing directed to P. who served the said Citation at which day the said J. B. made default and the usage of the Court is that if the Defendant maketh default he shall be amerced by the discretion of the Steward to the use of the Plaintiff The which J. B. for his default aforesaid was amerced to twenty marks whereupon command was made to the said P. as Minister of the Court aforesaid to take the goods of the said J. B. to make agreement with the beforesaid W. T. by force of which he for the said twenty marks took five Cows and an hundred sheep in execution for the mony aforesaid in the County of Leicester 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
Curia nostra non alibi tractari sicut praedict est cedere poterit attentetis sive attentim faciatis quovismodo By which also it appeareth That Tithes may be discharged and that the matter of discharge ought to be determined by the Common Law and not in the Spirituall Court And it is to be observed That in the said Iudgment nor in the Register any averment is taken of the value of the thing given in satisfaction of the Tithes Also by the Act of Circumspecte agatis made 13 E. 1. It is said S. Rector petat versus parochianos oblationes decimas debitas seu consuetas c. which proves that there are Tithes due in kind and other Tithes due by Custome as a Modus Decimandi c. And yet it is resolved in 19 E. 3. Jurisdiction 28. That 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 Tithes due by Custome which is a Modus Decimandi By which it appeareth also That Tithes by Custome may be altered into another thing So where a man grants a parcel of his Mannor to a Parson in Fee to be quit of Tithes and makes an Indenture and the Parson with the assent of the Ordinary without the Patron grants to him that he shall be quit of Tithes of his Mannor for that parcell of Land Afterwards if he or his Assignee be sued in the Spirituall Court for Tithes of his Mannor he or his Assignee shall have a Prohibition upon that Deed. And if that Deed was made before time of memory and he hath so continued to be quit of Tithes he shall have a Prohibition upon that Deed if he be sued for the Tithes of that Mannor or of any parcell of the same upon that matter shewed See 8 E. 4. 14. F. N. B. 41. g. vi 3. E. 3. 17. 16 E. 3. t. Annuity 24. 40 E. 3. 3. b. and F. N. B. 152. And therefore if the Lord of a Mannor hath alwaies holden his Mannor discharged of tithes and the Parson had before time of memory or in ancient times divers Lands in the same Parish of the Gift of the Lord of which the Parson is seised at this day in Fee in respect of which the Parson nor any of his Predecessors ever had received any tithes of the said Mannor If the Parson now sueth for tithes of the Mannor the Owner of the Mannor may shew that speciall matter and that the Parson and his Successors time out of mind have holden those Lands c. of the Gift of one who was Lord of the said Mannor in full satisfaction of the tithes of the said Mannor And the proof that the Lord of the Mannor gave the Lands that tithes should never be paid at this day is good evidence to prove the surmise of the Prohibition And so of the like and 19 E. 3. t. Jurisdiction 28. it is adjudged That Title of Prescription shall be determined in the Kings Court And therefore a Modus Decimandi which accrueth by Custome and Prescription in the Kings Court And it appeareth by the Statute of 6 H. 4. cap. 6. That the Pope by his Bulls discharged divers from payment of tithes against which the Act of Parliament was made and by the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 13. That the Possessions of Religious persons given to the King were discharged of payment of tithes in certain Cases and by the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 7. it is provided That all and singular persons shall divide set out yeild and pay all and singular tithes and Offerings aforesaid according to the lawfull customes and usages of the Parishes and places where such tithes or Duties shall come or immediatly arise or be due Provided alwaies and be it enacted That no person or persons shall be sued or otherwise compelled to pay any manner of tithes for any Mannors Lands Tenements or Hereditaments which by the Laws or Statutes of this Realm are discharged or not chargable with the payment of any such tithes And the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. Enacts That every of the Kings Subjects shall from henceforth justifie and truly without fraud or guile divide set out c. all manner of their prediall tithes in their proper kind as they will rise and happen in such manner and form as hath been of right yeilded and paid within forty years next before the making of this Act or of Right or Custome ought to be paid So as it appeareth by this that tithe is due of Right and by Custom And also in the same Act there is a Proviso in these words Provided alwaies and be it enacted That no person shall be sued or otherwise compelled to yeild give or pay any manner of tithes for any Mannors Lands Tenements or Hereditaments which by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm or by any Priviledge or Prescription are not chargable with the payment of any such tithes or that he discharged by any composition reall so as it appeareth by that Act that one may be discharged from the payment of tithes five manner of waies 1. By the Law of the Realm that is the Common Law As Tithes shall not be paid of Coals Quarries Brick Tiles c. F. N. B 53. and Register 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 by the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 13. the Statute of 45 E. 3. c. 3. By Priviledge as those of S. Johns of Jerusalem in England The Cistertians Temptors c. as it appeareth by 10 H. 7. 277. Dyer 4. By Prescription As by Modus Decimandi or an annuall Recompence in satisfaction of them as appeareth before by the Authorities aforesaid 5. By reall Composition as appeareth by the said Writ cited out of the Register And so you have one or two examples for many others which may be added of these five manners of discharges of Tithes And by them all it appeareth That a man may be discharged of the payment of Tithes as before is said So as now it apparently appeareth by the Laws of England both Ancient and Modern That a Lay-man ought prescribe in modo Decimandi but not in non Decimando and that in effect agrees with the Opinion of Thomas Aquinas in his Secunda secundae Quaest 86. ar ultimo For there he saith Quod in veteri lege praeceptum de solutione Decimarum partim erat morali inditum ratione naturali quae dictat Quod iis Qui Divino Cultui ministrant ad salutem totius populi necessaria victui debent ministr juxta illud 1 Cor. 9. Quis militat c. Who goeth to War at his own charges c. Partim autem erat judiciale ex Divina institutione robur habens scil Quantum ad determinationem certae partis And all that
in the Information was denied in the Kings Bench was utterly denied for the same was moved when two Iudges were in Court who gave not any opinion therein but required Serjeant Hutton who moved it to move the same again when the Court was full c. XII Pasch 7 Jacobi Regis NOte that this Term a Question was moved at Serjeants-Inne Who by the Common Law ought to repair the Bridges common Rivers and Sewers and the High-waies and by what means they shall be compelled to it and first of the Bridges And as to them it is to be known That of common Right all the Country shall be charged to the Reparation of a Bridge and therewith agreeth 10 E. 3. 28. b. That a Bridge shall be levied by the whole Country because it is a common Easement for the whole Country and as to that Point the Statute of 22 H. 8. cap. 5. was but an affirmance of the Common Law And this is true when no other is bound by the Law to repair it but he who hath the Toll of the men or Cattell which passe over a Bridge or Cawsey ought to repaire the same for he hath the Toll to that purpose Et qui sentit commodum sentire debet onus and therewith agrees 14 E. 3. Bar 276. Also a man may be bounden to repaire a Bridge ratione Tenurae of certain Land But a particular person cannot be bound by prescription scil That he and all his Ancestors have repaired the Bridge if it be not in respect of the Tenure of his Land taking of Toll or other profit for the Act of the Ancestor cannot charge the Heir without profit But an Abbot or other Corporation who hath a lawfull being may be charged scil That he and his Predecessors time out of mind c. have repaired the Bridge For the Abbot and Covent may bind their Successors vide 21 E. 4. 28. 27 E. 3. 8. 22 Ass 8. 5 H. 7. 3. And if an Abbot and his Predecessors time out of mind have repaired a Bridge of Almes they shall be compelled to repaire it and therewith agreeth 10 E. 3. 28. So it is of a High-way of common Right all the Country ought for to repaire it because that the Country have their ease and passage by it which stands with the reason of the Case of the Bridge but yet some may be particularly bounden to repaire it as is aforesaid He who hath the Land adjoyning ought of common Right without prescription to scoure and cleanse the Ditches next to the way to his Land and therewith agreeth the Book of 8 H. 7. 5. But he who hath Land adjoyning without prescription is not bound to repair the way So of a common River of common Right all who have ease and passage by it ought to cleanse and scoure it For a common River is as a common Street as it is said in 22 Ass and 37 Ass 10. But he who hath Land adjoyning to the River is not bounden to cleanse the River unlesse he hath the benefit of it scil a Toll or a Fishing or other profit See 37 Ass p. 10. XIII Pasch 7 Jacobi Sir William Reades and Boothes Case IN the great Case in the Star-Chamber of a Forgery Between Sir William Read Plaintiff and Roger Booth and Cutbert Booth and others Defendants the Case was this The said Roger Booth 38 Eliz. was convicted in that Court of the publication of a Writing under Seal forged in the name of Sir Thomas Gresham of a Rent-charge of a hundred pounds cut of all his Lands and Tenements to one Markham for ninety nine years bearing date the one and twentieth year of Queen Elizabeth the said Roger knowing it to be forged And afterwards the said Sir William Read exhibited the said Bill against the said Boothes and others for forging of another writing under Seal bearing date the twentieth of Eliz. in the name of the said Sir Thomas Gresham purporting a Deed of Feoffment of all his Lands except certain to Sir Rowland Heyward and Edward Hoogon and their Heirs to certain uses which was in effect to the use of Markham the younger and his Heirs And for the publication of the said Writing knowing the same to be forged was the Bill exhibited And now upon the hearing of the Cause in the Star-Chamber this Term These doubts were moved upon the Statute of 5 Eliz 1. If one who is convicted of publication of a Deed of Feoffment of Rent-charge knowing the same to be forged Again at another day forge another Deed of Feoffment or Rent-charge if he be within the case of Felony within the said Act which doubt ariseth upon these words eftsoons committed again any of the said Offences And therefore it was objected that he ought to commit again the same natute of Offence scil If he were convicted of Forgery he ought to forge again and not only publish knowing c. And if first he were convicted of publishing knowing c. he ought to offend again in publication knowing c. and not in Forgery for eftsoons which is iterum implyeth that it ought to be of the same nature of Offence The second doubt was If a man committeth two Forgeries the one in 37 of Eliz. and the other in 38. and he is first convicted of the last if he may be now impeached for the first The third doubt was when Roger Booth was convicted in 38 Eliz. and afterwards is charged with a new Forgery in 37 Eliz. If the Witnesses proving in truth that it was forged after the first conviction if the Star Chamber hath Iurisdiction of it The last doubt was when Cutbert Booth who never was convicted of Forgery before if in truth the Forgery was done and so proved in 38 Eliz If he might be convicted upon this Bill because that the Forgery is alledged before that it was done As to the first and second doubts it was resolved by the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron that if any one be convicted of Forgery or publication of any Writing concerning Freehold c. within the first Branch or concerning Interest or Term for years c. within the second Branch and be convicted if afterwards he offend either against the first Branch or second that the same is Felony As if he forgeth a Writing concerning interest for years within the second branch and be convicted and afterwards he forgeth a Charter of Feoffment within the first branch or è converso that that is Felony and that by expresse words of the Act That if any person or persons being hereafter convicted or condemned of any of the said Offences which words any of the said Offences extend to all the Offences mentioned before either in the first branch or in the second branch by any the waies or means above limited shall after any such conviction or condemnation eftsoons commit or perpetrate any of the said Offences in form aforesaid which words Any of the said Offences c.
the Feoffee and another is not any new thing but the pernancy of the old profits of the Land which well may be limited to the Feoffee and another joyntly But if the use had been onely limited to the Feoffee and his Heirs there because there is not any limitation to another person nec in praesenti nec in futuro he shall be in by force of the Feoffment And it was resolved That Ioynt-tenants might be seised to an use although that they come to it at several times as if a man maketh 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 tayl or in fee in this case if after he marryeth a Wife she shall take joyntly with him although that they take the use at several times for they derive the use out of the same fountain and Freehold scil the Feoffment See 17 Eliz. Dyer 340. So if a Disseisin be had to the use of two and one of them agreeth at one time and the other at another time they shall be Ioynt-tenants but otherwise it is of Estates which pass by the common Law and therefore if a Grant be made by deed to one man for term of 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 the Tenant for life dyeth in that case the Heirs of A. and B. are not Ioynt-tenants nor shall joyn in a Scire facias to execute the Fine 24 E. 3. Joynder in Action 10. because that although the remainder be limited by one Fine and by joynt words yet because that by the death of A. the Remainder as unto the moyety vested in his Heir and by the death of B. the other moyety vested in his Heir at several times they cannot be Ioynt tenants But in the case of a use the Husband taketh all the use in the mean time and when he marryeth the Wife takes it by force of the Feoffment and the limitation of the use joyntly with him for there is not any fraction and several vesting by parcels as in the other case and such is the difference See 18 E. 3. 28. And upon the whole matter it was resolved That because in the principal case the Father and Son were Ioynt-tenants by the original purchase that the Son having the Land by Survivor should not be in Ward and accordingly it was so decreed XXIV Pasc 39 Eliz. Rot. 233. In the Kings-Bench Collins and Hardings Case THe Case between Collins and Harding was A man seised of Lands in Fee and also of Lands by Copy of Court Roll in Fee according to the Custom of the Mannor made one entire Demise of the Lands in Fee and of the Lands holden by Copy according to the Custom to Harding for years rendering one entire Rent and afterwards the Lessor surrendered the Copyhold Land to the use of Collins and his Heirs and at another time granted by Deed the Reversion of the Freehold Lands to Collins in Fee and Harding attorned and afterwards for the Rent behinde 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 apportioned and therefore if one demiseth three Acres rendering 3 s. Rent and afterwards bargaineth and selleth by Deed indented and inrolled the Reversion of one Acre the whole Rent is gone because that the Contract is entire and cannot be severed by the Act of the Lessor Also the Lessee by that shall be subject to two Fealties where he was subject but to one before As to these points it was answered and resolved That the Contract was not entire but that the same by the Act of the Lessor and the assent 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 sui principalis and that cannot be severed or divided by the assent of the Lessee or express attornment or implyed by force of an Act of Parliament to which every one is a party as by force of the Statute of Inrolments or of Vses c. And as to the two Fealties to that the Lessee shall be subject although that the Rent shall be extinct for Fealty is by necessity of Law incident to the Reversion and to every part of it but the Rent shall be divided pro rata portionis and so it was adjudged And it was also adjudged That although Collins cometh to the Reversion by several Conveyances and at several times yet he might bring an Action of Debt for the whole Rent Hill 43 Eliz. Rot. 243. West and Lassels Case A man made a Lease for years of certain Lands and afterwards deviseth the Reversion of two parts to one he shall have two parts of the Rent and he may have an Action of Debt for the same and have Iudgment to recover Hill 42 Eliz. Rot. 108. in the Common-Pleas Ewer and Moyls Case The Devisee of the Reversion of part shall avow for part of the Rent and such Avowry shall be good and maintainable Note well these Cases and Iudgments for they are given upon great reason and consideration for otherwise great inconvenience would ensue if by severance of part of the Reversion the entire Rent should be lost and the opinion reported by Serjeant Bendloes in Hill 6 and 7 E. 6. to the contrary nihil valet scil That the Rent in such case shall be lost because that no contract can be apportioned which is not Law For 1. A Rent reserved upon a Lease for years is more then a Contract for it is a Rent-service 2. It is incident to the Reversion which is severable 3. Vpon recovery of part in Waste or upon entry in part for a forfeiture or upon surrender of part the Rent is apportionable 25. 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 certain sum of mony at a certain day upon which Issue was taken and the Iury found the Modus Decimandi by payment of the said sum but that it had been payd at another day and the Case was well debated and at the last it was resolved That no Consultation should be granted for although that the day of payment be mistaken yet it appeareth to the Court that no Tythes in kinde were due for which the suit was in the spiritual Court and the Tryal of the Custom de Modo Decimandi belongeth to the Common Law and a Consultation shall not be granted where the Spiritual Court hath not Iurisdiction of the Cause Tanfield chief Baron hath the Report of this Case XXV Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis IN an Ejectione Firmae the Writ and Declaration were of two parts of