lawfully endowed and paid his first Fruits and Tenths Resolved by all the Court that it shall be presumed that the Vicaridge was lawfully endowed And that it is a dangerous President to examine Originalls of Impropriations and Endowments of Vicaridges for that they may perish And so it was decreed for the Plaintiff Hill 4. Jac. Regis Bedle and Beard Anno 31. Ed. 1. The King being seized of the Mannor of Kâ—mbolton to which the Advowson of the said Church was appendant by Letters Patents granted the said Mannor wish the Appâ—â—tenances to Humphry de Bohun Earl of Hereford in tayl generall Humphry de Bohun the Issue in tayl by his Deed. 4 Ed. 3. granted the said Advowson then full of an Incumbent to the Prior of Stonely and his Successors And at next avoydance they held In proprios usus Upon this Appropriation Concurrentibus his quae in jure requiruntur the Prior and his Successors held the same till the dissolution of the Monastery 27. H. 8. The said Mannor descended to Edward Duke of Buckingham as Issue to the Estate Tayl. And the Reversion descended to H. 8. The Duke 13 H. 8. was attaint of High Treason 14 H. 8. The King granted the said Mannor c. with all Advousons appendant c. to Richard Wingfield and his Heirs Males 16 H. 8. It was Enacted that the said Duke forfeit all Mannors c. Advousons c. which he had c. in 4 H. 8. The King 37 H. 8. granted and sold the said Rectory of Kimbolton as impropriate in Fee which by mean conveyance came to the Plaintiff for 1200 li. 37 Eliz. Beard the Defendant got a Presentation of the Queen by Lapse pretending the said Church was not lawfully impropriate to the Prior. 1. For that Humphry who granted to the Prior had nothing in it nothing passing to his Ancestor by these words Manâ—rium cum pertinentiis 2. Or for that having no more but an Estate Tayl by his death his Grant was void But Resolved by the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere with the principal Judges and upon consideration of Presidents that the Plaintiff shall enjoy the Rectory for though by any thing which can now be shewn the Impropriation is defective yet it shall be now intended in regard of the antient and continual possession that there was a lawfull grant of the King to the said Humphry who granted in Fee so that he might lawfully grant it to the said Priory Omnia pâ—â—sumitur Solâ—mniter esse acta And all shall be presumed to be done which might make the antient Impropriation good And antient Grants and Acts shall not be drawn in question though they cannot be shewn for Tempus edâ—x rerum Letters Patents and Writings may consume be lost or imbezilled And therefore the Church was allowed to be rightfully impropriate and the rather in regard of the antient and long possession of the Owners of the said Rectory Mich. 4. Jac. Regis Case of Forfeiture by Treason Hill 43 Eliz. A Case was moved to all the Justices Tenant in Tayl before the Statute of 27 H. 8. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife in Tayl. And after the said Statute the Husband was attaint of High Treason 31 H. 8. and dyed The Wife continued in possession and dyed their Issue enter and die and this descends to his Issue and all this found by Office The Question was if the Issue in Tayl or the King shall have the Land 1. And it was objected that the antient Estate Tayl cannot be forfeited because it was discontinued and such right of Action cannot be forfeited As was agreed in the Marquess of Winchesters Case 2. The Feoffor himself in this Case had not any right to the antient Estate Tayl it being extinguished by his Feoffment and therefore by his Attaint could not forfeit what he had not 3. The Issue in Tayl in remitted to that antient right which cannot be forfeited And the new Estate Tayl derived under the discontinuance which may be forfeited by the Statute 26 H. 8. cap. 13. is continued and by Act in Law viz. the discent and remitter avoided And the Kings Estate may be divested out of the King by remitter As if Tenant in Tail grant Land to the King c. and the King grant the Land to the Tenant in Tail for life the remainder to his Son and Heirs for life Tenant for life dies the Issue by and in Law is remitted and the Kings Estate is divested out of him This accords with Plow Com. 489. Nicols Case 1. Resolved that in this Case the Issue in Tail is barred for though right of Action cannot be given to the King by the 26 H. 8. yet when Tenant in Tail discontinues his Estate to the use of himself in Tail and after is attaint of Treason now by that Statute he doth not onely forfeit the new Estate in Tail but by this the right of the antient Estate is barred for ever And so note out of the said Statute a diversity between a naked right of Action not forfeitable and an Estate of Inheritance forfeiâ—able coupled with an antient right for which the Forfeiture of the possession is barred by the said Act And iâ— is not like the Case in Plow Com. of Remitter for this is no barre of an antient right Pasch 4 Jac. Regis Case at a Committee aoncerning Bishops At this Parliament held Pasch 4 Jac. Regis It was strongly urged at a Grand Committee of Lords and Commons in the Painted-Chamber that such Bishops as were made after the first day of the Session were not lawful Bishops 1. Admitting them Bishops yet the manner and form of their Seals Stiles Process and Proceeding in their Ecclesiastical Courts were not consonant to Law Because by the Statute 1 Ed. 6. cap. 2. it is provided That thenceforth Bishops should not be Elective but Donative by Letters-Patents of the King And for that at this day all Bishops were made by Election not Donation of the King therefore the saâ—d Bishops are not lawful 2. By the same Act it is provided That all Summons c. and Process in Ecclesiastical Courts shall be made in the King's Name and Stile and their Seals Engraven with the Kings Arms and Certificates made in the Kings Name It was therefore concluded Thâ—t the said Statute being still in force by Consequence all Bishops made after the Act 1 Jac. were not lawful Bishops And the Proceedings being in the Name of the Bishop makes them unlawful Quia non obserâ—ata forma infertur adâ—ullatio actus Upon Consideration had of these Objections by the Kings Commandment it was Resolved by Popham Chief Justice of England â—nd Coke Attorney of the King and after affirmed bâ— the Chief Baron and the other Justices Attendant to â—he Parliament that the said Act of the 1 Ed. 6. cap. 2. is not now in force being repealed annulled and annihlated by three several Acts of Parliament Any whereof being
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
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.
89. But in a Writ of false Judgement the Plaintiff shall have direct averment against what the Judges in the inferior Court have done as Judges Quia Recordum non habent 21 H. 6. 34. Neither shall a Judge in the Cases aforesaid be charged before any other Judge at the Suit of the King 27 Ass pl. 18. 23. 2. R. 3. 9. 28 Ass pl. 21. 9 H. 6. 60. Catlyn and Dyer chief Justices Resolved That what a Judge doth as a Judge of Record ought not to be drawn in Question in this Court Nota bene that the said matters at the Bar were not examinable in the Star-Chamber and therefore it was Decreed by all the Court That the said Bill without any Answer to it by Barker shall be taken off the File and utterly cancelled And it was agreed That the Judges of the Realm ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed Corruption which extends to the annihilating of a Record or tending to the slander of the Justice of the King except it be before the King himself for they are only to make an account to God and the King otherwise this would tend to the subversion of all Justice for which reason the Orator said well Invigilandum est semper multae invidiae sunt bonis And the reason hereof is the King himself being de jure to deliver Justice to all his Subjects and because himself cannot do it to all Persons he delegates his Power to his Judges who have the Custody and Guard of the Kings Oath Thorpe being drawn into question for Corruption before Commissioners was held against Law and he pardoned Vide the conclusion of the Oath of a Judge Stowes châ—oi 18 Ed. 3. 312. Weyland chieâ— Justice of the Common Bench and Hengham Justice of the Kings Bench and other Justices were accused of Bribery and their Causes were determined in Parliament Vide 2 Ed. 3. fol. 27. The Justices of Trayl-Baston their Authority was grounded upon the Statute of Ragman which you may see in old Magna Charta Vide the form of the Commission of Trayle-Baston Hollingshead Chron. fol. 312. whereby it appears That the Corruption of his Judges the King himself examined in Parliamentâ— and not by Commission Absurdum est affirmare recredendum esse non judici Pasch 4 Jacob. Regis Case concerning the Oath ex officio The Lords of the Council at Whitehall sedente Parliamento demanded of Popham chief Justice and my self upon motion of the Commons in Parliament In what cases the Ordinary may examine any person ex Officio upon Oath and upon Consideration and View of our Books we answered the said Lords at another day in the Council Chamber 1. That the Ordinary cannot constrain any man to swear generally to Answer to such Interrogatories as shall be administred unto them but ought to deliver them a Copy of the Articles in writings that they may know whether they ought to answer them by Law or no according to the Course of the Chancery and Star-Chamber 2. No man shall be examined upon the secret thoughts of his Heart or of his secret Opinion but of what he hath spoken or done No Lay-man may be examined ex officio nisi in causis matrimonialibus et Testamentariis as appears by an Ordinance of Ed. 1. Title Prohibition Rastal See also the Register fol. 366. the force of a Prohibition and an Attachment upon it by which it appears That such Examination was not only against the said Ordinance but also against the Custome of the Realm which hath been time of which c. but also in prejudice of the Crown and Dignity of the King and with this agrees F. N. B. fol. 41. And so the Case reported by my Lord Dyer not printed Trin. 10 Eliz. One Leigh an Attorney of the Common Pleas was committed to the Fleet because he had been at Mass and refused to swear to certain Articles and in regard they ought in such case to examine upon his Oath and hereupon he was delivered by all the Court of Common-Pleas The like in Mich. 18 Eliz. Dyer fol. 175. in Hinds Case Also vide de Statute 25 H. 8. cap. 14. which is declaratory as to this point It stands not with the right order of Justice that any person should be convict and put to the losse of his Life good Name and Goods unless by due Accusation and Witnesses or by Presentment Verdict precess of Outlawry c. And this was the Judgment of all the said Parliament See F. N. B. Justice of Peace 72 Lam. 6. in his Justice of Peace 338. Crompton in his Justice of Peace 36. 6. In all which it appears That if any be compelled to Answer upon his Oath where he ought not by Law this is oppression and punishable before a Justice of Peace c. But if a Person Ecclesiastical be charged with any thing punishable by our Law as for Usury there he shall not be examined upon Oath because his Oath is Evidence against him at the Common Law but Witnesses may be cited Register title Consult F. N. B. 53. d. 2 H. 4. cap. 15. In H. 8. nor Ed. 6. time no Lay-man was examined upon his Oath except in the said two Cases But in Queen Maries Reign 2 H. 4. was revived but afterwards repealed 10 Eliz. Note King John in the time of his Troubles granted by his Charter 13 Maii Anno Regni 140. submitted himself to the Obedience of the Pope And after in the same year by another Charter he resigned his Crown and Realm to Pope Innocent and his Successors by the hands of Pandulph his Legate and took it of him again to hold of the Pope which was utterly voyd because the Dignity is an inherent inseparable to the Royal Blood of the King and descendable and cannot be transferred Also the Pope was an Alien born and therefore not capable of Inheritance in England By colour of which Resignation the Pope and his Successors exacted great Sums of the Clergy and Layety of England pro commutandis paenitentiis And to fill his Coffers Pope Gregory the 9th sent Otho Cardinalis de Carcere Tulliano into this Realm to Collect Money who did Collect infinite Sums so that it was said of him Quod Legatus saginatur bonis Angliae which Legate held a Councel at London Anno Dom. 1237. 22 H. 3. and for finding out Offences which should be redeemed with Money with the assent of the English Bishops he made certain Canons among which one was Jusjurandi Calumniae in causis Ecclesiasticis cujus libet de veritate dicendi in spiritualibus quoque ut veritas facilius aperiatur c. Statuimus de Caetero praestari in regâ—o Angliae secundum Canonicas legitimas Sanctiones obtenta in contrarium consuetudine non obstante c. By which Cannon it appears That the Law and Custom of England was against such Examinations so that this was a new Law and took its effect de
Kings Bench because no Writ of Error lyes but in Plaint Robert Bankes Case Mich. 6 Jac. Regis Mich. 6 Jac. Rot. 639. Robert Bankes Gent. brought an Action upon the Statute of Winton 13 Ed. 1. against the Inhabitants of the Hundred of Burnham in the County of Bucks and counted that certain misdoers to the Plaintiff unknown at Hitcham the 22d of Nov. 5 Jac. assaulted the Plaintiff and robbed him of 25 l. 3 5. 2 d. ob and that he immediately after the robbery the same 22d of Nov. at Joplow and Maalow the next Towns to Hitcham in the said County made Hâ—e-and Cry c. and after the said Robbery and within 20 dayes before the purchase of the Writ viz. the 19 of Fâ—br Aâ— 5. at Dorney in Com. praed the Plaintiff before Sir William Gâ—rrard Knight then Justice of Peace in the said County and living next the said Hundred being examined upon Oath according to the Statute 27 Elâ—z the Plaintiff upon his Oath said He knew not the Parties who robbed him and since the said Robbery 40 dayes are past and the said Inhabitants of Burnham have not made him any amends nor the Bodies of the Felons or any of them have taken but suffered them to escape to which the Defendants plead Not Guiley and Vâ— fa. was awarded de vicineto c. And the Jury gave a special Verdict and found that the Plaintiff was robbed and made Hue-and-Cry as aforesaid and found over That the Plaintiff was sworn before Sir William Gerrard as aforesaid and said upon his Oath in these English words viz. That he on Thursday the 22 d. of Nov. 1604. riding under Hitcham wood c. was then and there set upoâ— by Horsemen which he knew not and robbed of 25 l. 3 s. 2 d. ob but whether the said Oath so taken be true according to the said Statute 27 Eliz. the Jurors pray the direction of the Court. Mouses Case Mich. 6 Jac. Regis In an Action of Trespass brought by Mouse for a Casket and 113 l. taken and carryed away the Case was the Ferryman of Gravesend took 47 Passengers into his Barge to pass to London and Mouse was one of them the Barge being upon the Water a great Tempest happened so that the Barge and all the Passengers were in danger to be drowned if a Hogshead of Wine and other pouderous things were not cast out And it was Resolved per totam Curiam That in a case of necessity for saving the Lives of the Passengers it was lawful to the Defendant being a Passenger to cast the Plaintiff's Casket out of the Barge with what was in it for quod quis ob tutelam corporis sui fecerit jure id fecissâ— videtur Upon the special matter pleaded and Reply De injuria sua propria absque tali causa the first day of this Term the Issue being tryed and it was proved directly That the Men had been drowned if the things had not been cast out The Plaintiff was Non-sult Resolved also That though when the Ferry-man surcharge the Barge yet to save the Passengers Lives in such a Necessity it is lawful for the Passengers to cast the things out of the Barge yet the Owners shall have their Remedy upon the surchage against the Ferry-man but if there was no surcharge but the danger came by the Act of God then every one must bear his own losse for Interest Râ—ipub quod homines conserventur â— Ed. 4. 23. Bull. c. 12 H. 8. 15. 28 H. 8. Dyer 36. Mich. 5. Jac. Regis Prohibitions del Roy. Noâ—e On Sunday the 10. of Nov. in this Term the King upon Complaint made by Bancroft Arch-Bishop of Canterbury concerning Prohibitions the King was informed That when Question was made of what matters the Ecclesiastical Judges have Cognâ—zance c. in any Case in which there is not express Authority in Law the King himself may decide in his Royal Person the Judges being but his Delegates c. And the Arch-Bishop said this was clear in Divinity To which it was answered by Mee in the presence and with the clear Consent of all the Justices of England and Barons of the Exchequer that the King in his own person cannot adjudge any Case either Criminal as Treason c. or betwixt party and party concerning Inheritance Goods c. But it ought to be determined in some Court of Justice according to the Law and Custome of England and all Judgments are given Ideo consideratum est per Curium And the King hath his Court in the Upper House of Parliament in which he with his Lords is the Supream Judge over all Judges And in this respect the King is called Chief Justice 20 H. 7. 7. a. by â—rudnel and it appears in our Bookes 2 R. 3. 9. 21 H. 7. 8. that that the King may sit in the Star-Chamber but this was onely to consult not in judicio So in the Kings-Bench but the Court gives Judgment And 't is commonly said in our Books the King is alwayes present in Court and therefore he cannot be Non-suit And it appears by the Acts of Parliament 2 Ed. 3. c. 9. 2 Ed. 3. c. 1. That neither by the Great Seal nor by the little Seal Justice shall be delayed ergo The King cannot take any Cause out of any of his Courts and give Judgment upon it but in his own Cause he may stay it as appears 11 H. 4. 8. And the Judges informed the King that no King after the Conquest ever assumed to himself to give Judgment in any Cause whatsoever which concerned the Administration of Justice within the Realm 17 H. 6. 14. 39 Ed. 3. 14. the King cannot Arrest any man 1 H. 7. 4. Hussey chief Justice Reports being Attorney to Ed. 4. That Sir John Markham chief Justice said to Ed. 4. That the King cannot Arrest a man for suspition of Treason or Felony as his other Leiges may And it was greatly marvailed That the Archbishop durst inform the King that such absolute Power as aforesaid belonged to him by the Word of God Vide 4 H. 4. cap. 22. Westm 2. cap. 5. vide le stat de Marlbridge cap. 1. stat de Magn. Chart. cap. 29. 25 Ed. 3. c. 5. 43 Ed. 3. c. 3. 28 Ed. 3. c. 3. 37 Ed. 3. c. 18. vide 17 R. 2. ex Rotulis Parliamenti in Turri act 10. A controversy of Land between Parties was heard by the King and Sentence given which was repealed because it did belong to the Common Law Then the King said That the Law was grounded upon Reason and that He and Others had reason as well as the Judges To which it was answered by Me That true it was God had endued his Majesty with excellent Science but his Majesty was not learned in the Laws of England and Causes which concern the Life or Inheritance or Goods of his Subjects which are not to be decided by natural Reason but artificial Reason and Judgment of Law which
Ayd Hill 6 Jacob. Regis Prohibitions Upon Ashwednesday in Feb. 1606. A great Complaint was made by the President of York to the King That the Judges of the Common-Law had in Contempt of the Kings Command last Term granted 50 or 60 Prohibitions out of the Common-Plâ—as to the President and Councel of York after the 6th of February and named 3 in particular 1. Between Bell and Thawptes 2. Another between Snell and Huâ—t 3. And another in an Information of a Riotous Rescue by English Bill by the Attorney-General against Christopher Dickenson one of the Sheriffs of York and others in rescuing one William Watson out of the Custody of the Deputy of one of the Purseyvants of the said Councel who had Arrested the said Watson by force of a Commission of Rebellion by the said President and Councel awarded Which Prohibition upon the Information was as was said denyed upon a Motion in the Kings-Bench the last Term but granted by Us. And the King sent for me to answer the Complaint and I onely all the rest of the Justices being absent waited upon the King who in the presence of Egerton Lord Chancellor and others of the Privy-Councel rehearsed to me the Complaint aforesaid And I perceived well that the King had thereupon conceived great displeasure against the Judges of the Common-Pleas but chiefly against Me To which I having the Copy of the Complaint sent me by the Lord Treasurer answered in this manner That I had made search in the Office of Prothonotaries of the Common-Pleas and as to the Cases between Bell and Thawpts and Snell and Huet no such could be found but I would not take advantage of a Misprisal And the truth was the 6th of February the Court of Common-Pleas had granted a Prohibition to the President and Councel of York between Lock Plaintiff and Bell and others Defendants and that was a Replevin in English was granted by the said President and Councel which I affirmed was utterly against Law for at Common-Law no Replevin ought to be made but by Original Writ directed to the Sheriff and the Statute of Marlbridge cap. 21. and West 1. cap. 17. authorize the Sheriff to make a Replevin So 29 Ed. 3. 21. 8 Eliz. Dyer 245. And the King by his Instructions neither had made the President and Councel Sheriffs nor could grant them Power to make a Replevin against Law which the Lord Chancellor affirmed for very good Law and it may well be we have granted others in the like Case Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between Sir Bethel Knight now Sheriff of the County of York as Executor to one Stephenson who made him and another his Executors and preferred an English Bill against Chambers and others in nature of an Action of the Case upon a Trover and Conversion of Goods and Chattels in the Testators Life to the value of 1000 l. And because the other Executor would not joyn with him he had no remedy at Common-Law but was forced to pray remedy there in Equity And I say the President and Councel have not any Authority to proceed in that Case for divers causes 1. Because there is an express Limitation in their Commission that they shall not hold Plea between Party and Party c. unless both or one of the Parties tanta paupertate sunt gravati that they cannot sue at Common-Law and in that Case the Plaintiff was a Knight Sheriff and man of great quality 2. Because by that Suit the King was deceived of his Fine which was 200 l. because the Damages amounted to 4000 l. And that was one of the Causes that the Sheriff began his Suit there and not at Common-Law Another Cause was that their Decrees which they take upon them are final and uncontroulable either by Errour or any other Remedy which is not so in the Kings Courts where there are five Judges for they can deny Justice to none who hath Right nor give any Judgment but what is controulable by Errouâ— c. And if we shall not grant Prohibitions in Cases where they hold Plea without Authority then the Subjects shall be wrongfully oppressed without Law and we denyed to do them Justice And their Ignorance in the Law appeared by allowing that Suit viz. That the one Executor had no Remedy at Common Law because the other would not joyn in Suit with him whereas every one Learnâ—d in the Law knows that Summons and Severance lyeth in any Suit brought as Executors And this was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Another Prohibition I confess we granted between the L. Wharton who by English Bill before the Councel sued Bank S. Buttermere and others for fishing in his several Fishings in Darwent in the County of C. in nature of an Action of Trespass at Common-Law to his Damages of 200 l. and for the Causes before recited and because the same was meerly determinable at Common-Law we granted a Prohibition And that also was allowed by the Lord Chancellor Then the King asked me the Case of Information upon the Riotous Rescous To which I answered That one exhibited a Bill there in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus against Watson who upon his Oath affirmed that he had satisfied the Plaintiff and owed him nothing yet because he did not deny the Debt the Councel Decreed the same against him And upon that Decree the Pursuyvant was sent to Arrest the said Watson who Arrested him upon which the Rescous was made And because the Action was in the nature of an Action of Dâ—bâ— upon a Mutuatus where the Defendant at Common Law might have waged his Law the Prohibition was granted and that was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Also I affirmed it was Rescous because the principal cause belonged not to them but it might be a Riot yet not punishable by them but by course of Law by a Commission of Oyer and Terminer Also I confess that we have granted divers Prohibitions to stay Suits there by English Bill upon penal Statutes for the manner of prosecution as well for the Action Process c. as for the Count is to be pursued and cannot be altered and therefore without question the Councel in such Cases cannot hold Plea which was affirmed also by the Lord Chancellor And I said no Court of Equity can be Erected at this day without Act of Parl as was Resolved in Q. Eliz. time in Parots Case and lately in the Case of the President and Councel of Wales And the King was well satisfied with these Reasons who gave me his Royal Hand and I departed from thence in his favour Pasch 7 Jac. Regis This Term a Question was moved at Sergeants Inne who by the Common-Law ought to repair the Bridges common Rivers and Sewers and the High-ways and by what means they shall be compelled to it and first of Bridges And as to them it is to be known that of common right all the Country shall be
The words whereof are Saving c. to the King c. all his Right c. of primer seizin and relief c. for Tenure in Socage or of the nature of Tenure in Socage in chief as heretofore hath bin used But there was no Custom before the Act for the King to have primer seizin c. Another President was in Pasch 37 Eliz. in the Book of Orders fol. 444. where the Case was That William Allet was seized of certain Lands in Pitsey called Lundsey holden of the Queen in Socage Tenure in chief and by Deed covenanted to stand seized to the use of his wife for life and afterwards to the use of Richard his younger Son in Fee and dyed and all was found by Office and it was Resolved ut supra But the Doubt oâ— the Case at Bar was because Henry the Feoffor had a Reversion in Fee which descended to the said William his eldest Son Trin. 7 Jacobi Regis The Case of the Admiralty A Bâ—ll was preferred in the Star-Chamber against Sir Richard Hawkins Vice-Admiral of the County of Devon and was charged that one William Hull and others were notorious Pyrates upon the High Seas and shewed in certain what Pyracy they had committed That the said Sir Richard Hawkins knowing the same did receive them and abet comfort them and for Bribes suffered them to be discharged And what Offence that was the Court referred to the consideration of the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron who heard Councel of both sides divers days at Sergeants Inne And it was Resolved by them 1. That the Admirals by the Common-Law ought not to meddle with any thing done within the Realm but onely with things done upon the Sea and that appeareth fully by the 13 R. 2. cap. 5. and therewith agrees 2 H. 4. c. 11. and 15 H. 2. c. 3. So also 2 H. 5. c. 6. 5 Eliz. c. 5. and this agrees with Stamf. fol. 51. 8 Ed. 2. Coron 399. See Plo. Com. 37 b. 2 R. 3. 12. 30 H. 6. 6. by Prisoit 2. It was Resolved That the Statutes are to be intended of a Power to hold Plea not of a Power to award Execution for notwithstanding the said Statutes the Judge of the Admiralty may do Execution within the Body of the County And therefore 19 H. 6. 7. the Case was W. T. at Southwark affirmed a Plaint of Trespass in the Admiralty against J. B. of a Trespass done upon the High-Sea Whereupon J. B. was cited to appear at the common day next ensuing at which day the said J. B. made default And according to the usage of the Court the said J. B. was amerced to 20 Marks Whereupon Command was made to P. as Minister of the said Court to take the Goods of the said J. B. to make agreement with the aforesaid W. T. by force of which he for the said 20 Marks took 5 Cowes and 100 Sheep in Execution for the said Money in the County of Ieicester And there it is holden by Newton and the whole Court That the Statutes restrain the power of the Court of Admiralty to hold Plea of a thing done within the body of the County but they do not restrain the Execution of the same Court to be served upon the Lands In which Case these Points were Resolved 1. Though the Court of Admiralty is not a Court of Record see Brooks Error 77. acc yet by Custom of the Court they may amerce the Defendant for his default by their discretion 2. That they may make Execution for the same of the Goods of the Defendant in corpore Comitatus and if he have not Goods may arrest his Body But the great question between them was If a man commit Pyracy upon the Sea and one knowing thereof receive and comfort the Defendant in the Body of the County if the Admiral and other the Commissioners by the Act 28 H. 8. cap. 16. may proceed by Indictment and Conviction against the Receiver and Abetter the Offence of the Accessary having his beginning within the Body of the County And it was Resolved by them That such a Receiver and an Abetter by the Common-Law could not be indicted and convicted because the Common-Law cannot take Cognizance of the Original Offence being done out of the Jurisdiction of the Common-Law and where it cannot punish the Principal it cannot punish the Accessary And therefore Coke Chief Justice reported to them a Case which was in Suffolk 28 Eliz. where Butler and others upon the Sea next to the Town of Iaystoff robbed divers of the Queens Subjects of their Goods which they brought into Norfolk and there were apprehended and brought before Me then a Justice of Peace in the same County and upon Examination they confessed a cruel and barbarous Pyracy and that the Goods then in their Custody were part of the Goods which they had so robbed And I was of Opinion that in that Case it could not be Felony punishable by the Common-Law because the Original Act was not offence whereof the Common-Law taketh knowledge and then the bringing them into the County could not make the same Felony punishable by our Law Yet I committed them to the Gaol untill the coming of the Justices of the Assizes And at the next Assizes the Opinion of Wray Chief Justice and Perian Justices of Assize was agreeing with Me ut supra and thereupon they were committed to Sir Robert Southwel then Vice-Admiral for those Countieâ— and this in effect agrees with Lacies Case which see in my Reports cited in Bingham's Case 2 Rep. 93. and in Constables Case C. 5. Rep. 107. See Pyracy was Fâ—lony 40 Ass 25. by Schard where a Captain of a Ship with some English-men robb'd the Kings Subjects upon the High Seas and the saith 't was Felony in the Norman Captain and Treason in the English-men which is to be understood of Petit-Treason and therefore in that Case the Pyrates being taken the Norman Captain was hang'd and the English drawn c. hang'd as appears by the same Book See Stamford 10. Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas Pettus and Godsalve's Case In a Fine levyed Trinity Term Anno quinto of this King between John Pettus Esq Plaintiff and Richard Godsalve and others Deforceants of the Mannor of Castre c. in Norfolk where in the â—hird Proclamation upon the Foot of the Fine the said Proclamation is said to be made in the sixth year of the King that now is which ought to have been Anno quinto And the fourth Proclamation is altogether left out because upon view of the Proclamations upon Dorsis upon Record not Finis ejusdem Termini per Justiciarios remaining with the Chirographer c. it appeareth the said Proclamations were duly made therefore it was adjudged that the Errours aforesaid should be amended and made to agree as well with the Prâ—clamation upon Record of the Fine and Entry of the Book as with the other Proclamations in Dorsis c. And
this was done upon the Motion of Haughton Sergeant Mich. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards Samme's Case John Samme's being seized of Grany Mead by Copy of Court-Roll of the Mannor of Tellesham the Great of which Sir Thomas Beckingham c. and held the same of the King by Knights Service in capite Sir Thomas by Deed indented dated 22 Decemb. 1 Jacobi between him of the one part and John Sammes and George Sammes Son and Heir of John on the other part did bargain sell enfeoffe c. to John Sammes the said Mead callâ—d Grany Mead to hold to the said John Sammes and George Sams and their Heirs and Assigns to the onely use of the said John and George and their Heirs and Assigns for ever and Sir Thomas by the same Indenture covenants to make further Assurance to the said John and George c. and Livery and Seizin was deliver'd accordingly John Sammes the Father dyeth George Sammes his Son and Heir within Age the Question was Whether Geo. Sammes should be in Ward to the King or no And in this Case three Points were Resolved 1. Forasmuch as George was not named in the Premisses he cannot take by the Habendum and the Livery according to the Indenture gives nothing to George it being to him as void but though the Feoffment be good onely to John and his Heirs yet the use limited to John and George and their Heirs is good 2. If the Estate had been conveyed to John and his Heirs by the Release c. as it may well be to a Tenant by Copy of Court Roll the use limited to them is good 3. But the third was of greater doubt If in this Case the Father and Son were Joint-Tenants or Tenants in common And it was Resolved That they were Joint-Tenants and that the Son in the Case at Bar should have the said Grange by the Survivor for if at the Common-Law A. had been enfeoffed to the use of him B. and their Heirs though that he was onely seized of the Land the use was jointly to A. and B. for a use shall not be suspended or extinct by a sole Seizin or joint Seizin of the Land and therefore if A. and B. be enfeoffed to the use of A. and his Heirs And A. dyeth the entire use shall descend to his Heirs as appears 13 H. 7. 6. in Stoner's Case and by the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 10. Of Uses And when it was said that the Estate of the Land which the Father hath in it as to the moiety of the use which he himself hath shall not be devested out of him To that it was Answered and Resolved That that shall well be for if a man make a Feoffment in Fee to one to the use of him and the Heirs of his body in this Case for the benefit of the Issue the Statute of Uses devests the Estate vested in him by Common-Law and executes the same in himself by force of the Statute And it is to be known that an Use of Land which is but a pernency of Profits is no new thing but part of that which the Owner of the Land had and therefore if Tenant in Borough-English or a man seized on the part of his Mother make a Feoffment to another without consideration the younger Son in the one case and the Heir on the part of the Mother on the other shall have the use as they should have the Land it self if no Feoffment had been made as it is holden 5 E. 4. 7. See 4 and 5 P. and M. Dyer 163. See Fenwick and Milford's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. So in 28 H. 8. Dyer 11. the Lord Rosses Case 13 H. 7. 6. by Butler So in the Case at Bar the Use limited to the Feoffee and another is not any new thing but the pernancy of the old profits of the Land which may well be limited to the Feoffee and another jointly But if the use had been onely limited to the Feoffee and his Heirs there because there is not any Limitation to anothers person nec in praesenti nec in futuro he shall be in by force of the Feoffment And it was Resolved That Joint-Tenants might be seized to an use though they come to it at several times as if a man make a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and to such a Woman which he shall after marry for term of their lives or in tail or in fee in this Case if he marry a Wife after she shall take jointly with him though they take the use at several times See 17 Eliz. Dyer 340. but otherwise it is of Estates which pass by the Common-Law as 24 Ed. 3. Joynder in Action 10. If a Grant be made by Deed to one man for life the remainder to the right Heirs of A. and B. in Fee and A. hath Issue and dyeth and afterwards B. hath Issue and dyeth and then Tenant for Life dyeth in that case the Heirs of A. and B. are not Joynt-Tenants because by the death of A. the remainder as to one moiety vested in his Heir and by the death of B. the other moiety vested in his Heir at several times And upon the whole matter it was Resolved That because in the principal Use the Father and Son were Joint-Tenants by the Original Purchase that the Sonne having the Land by Survivor should not be in Ward and accordingly it was so Decreed Pasch 39 Eliz. Rot. 233. In the Kings-Bench Collins and Harding's Case The Case was A man seized of Lands in Fee and also of Lands by Copy of Court-Roll in Fee according to the Custom of the Mannor made one intire Demise of the Lands in Fee and of the Lands holden by Copy according to the Custom to Harding for years rendring one intire Rent and afterwards the Lessor surrendred the Copy-hold Land to the use of Collins and his Heirs and at another time granted by Deed the Reversion of the Free-hold Lands to Collins in Fee and Harding attorned and afterwards for the Rent behind Collins brought an Action of Debt for the whole Rent And it was objected That the reservation of the Rent was an entire Contract and by the Act of the Lessee the same cannot be apportionâ—d and therefore if one dâ—mise 3 Acres rendring 3 s. Rent and afterwards bargains and sells the reversion 〈◊〉 one Acre the whole Rent is gone because the Contract is entire c. Also the Lessee by that shall be subject to two Fealâ—â—es where he was subject but to one before To these Points it was answered and Resolved That the Contract was not entire but that the same by Act of the Lessor and Consent of the Lessee might be divided and severed for the Rent is incident to the Reversion and the Reversion is severable and by consequence the Rent also for accessorium sequitur naturam suâ— principâ—lis And as to the two Fealties to that the Lessee shall be subject though the Rent