Service Tenant Richard Hulme dyed after whose death 31 H. 8. it was found that he dyed seized of the said Mesnalty and that the same descended to Edward his Son and Heir within Age and found the Tenure aforesaid c. And during nonagâ— Robert Male dyed seized of the said Tenancy peravail and that the same descended to Richard his Son and Meir as was found by Office 25 H. 2. within age and that the said Tenancy was holden of the King as of his said Dutchy by Knights Service whereas in truth the same was holden of Edward Hulme then in Ward of the King as of his Mesnalty for which the King seized the Ward of the Heir of the Tenant And afterwards Anno quarto Jacobi Rogis nunc after the death of Richard Male the lineal Heir of Robert Male by another Office it was found that Richard dyed seized of the Tenancy and held the same of the King as of his Dutchy c. his Heir within age Whereupon Richard Hulme Cozen and Heir of the said Richard Hulme preferred a Bill to be admitted to traverse the Office found 4 Jac. Regis And the Question was Whether the Office found 35 H. 8. be any Estoppel to the said Hulme or if that the said Hulme should be first driven to Traverse that And it was objected That he ought first to traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. as in the Case 26 E. 65. And that the first Office shall stand as long as the same remaines in force To which it was Answered and Resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron and Court of Wards That the finding of an Office is not any Estoppel for that is but an Inquest of Office and the party grieved shall have a Traverse to it But when an Office is found falsly that Land is holden of the King by Knights Service in capite or of the King himself in Socage if the Heir fueâ—h a general Livery it is holden 46 Ed. 3. 12. by Mowbray and Persey that he shall not after adde that the Land is not holden of the King But that is not any Estoppel to the Heir himself and shall not conclude his Heir for so saith Mowbray himself expresly 44 Ass pl. 35. See 1 H. 4. 6. b. So 33 H. 6. 7. And there is no Book that saith that the Estoppel shall endure longer than his life but that is to be intended of a general Livery but a special Livery shall not conclude one And if a Jury find falsly in a Tenure of the King the Lord of whom the Land is holden may traverse that Office Or if Land be holden of the King in Socage c. the Heir may traverse the last Office for by that he is grieved and he shall not be driven to traverse the first Office And when the Father sues Livery and dyes the Conclusion is executed and past as is aforesaid And note there is a special Livery but that proceeds of the King's Grace and is not the Suit of the Heir and the King may grant it either at full age before aetate probanda or to the Heir within age as appears 21 E. 3. 40. And then is general and shall not comprehend any Tenure as the several Livery doth and therefore it is not any Estoppel without question See the 33 H. 8. cap. 22. 23 Eliz. Dyer 177. It was also Resolved in this Case that the Office of 35 H. 8. was not traversable for his own Traverse shall prove that the King had cause to have Wardship by reason of Ward And when the King comes to the Possession by a false Office or otherwise if it appears the King have any other Right to have the Land there none shall traverse the Office or Title of the King because the Judgment in the Traverse is Ideo consideratum est quod manus Domini Râ—gis amoveantur c. See 4 H. 4. fol. 33. in the Earl of Kents Case c. Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis Note The Priviledge Order or Custom of Parliament either of the Upper-House or House of Commons belongs to the Determination of the Court of Parliament and this appeareth by two notable Presidents 1. The one at the Parliament holden in the 27 H. 6. There was a Controversie moved in the Upper-House between the Earles of Aâ—undel and Devonshire for their Seats Places and Pre-eminences of the same to be had in the King's Presence as well in Parliament as in Councels and elsewhere The King by the Advice of Lords Spiritual and Temporal committed the same to certain Lords of Parliament who not having leisure to examine the same by the said Lords Advice referred it to the Judges of the Land to hear see and examine the Title c. and to report what they conceive herein The Judges reported as followeth That this matter viz. of Honour and Pre-eminency between the two Earles Lords of Parliament was a matter of Parliament and belonged to the King and his Lords in Parliament to be decided Yet being so commanded they shewed what they found upon Examination and their Opinions thereon Another Parliament 31 H. 6. 6th of March begun and after some continuance was prorogued to the 14 of February and afterwards in Michaelmas Term the same 31 H. 6. Thomas Thorpe Speaker of the Commons House was condemned in the Exchequer in 1000 l. Damages at the Duke of Buckingham's Suit for a Trespass done to him The 14th of Feb. the Commons mâ—ved in the Upper-House that their Speaker might be set at liberty to exercise his Place c. The Lords refer it to the Judges and Fortâ—scue and Prisoit the two Chief Justices in the Name of all the Judges answer'd That they ought not to consider this Question c. but it belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Justices But as to their Proceedings in the lower-Lower-Courts in such Cases they deliver'd their Opinions See 12 E. 4. 2. Hill 7 Jac. Regis In Cam. Stâ—ll Heyward and Sir John Whitbrook's Case In the Case between Hyward and Sir John Whitbrook in the Star-Chamber the Defendant was convicted of divers Misdemeanours and Fine and Imprisonment imposed on him and Damages to the Plaintiff And it was moved that a special Process might be made out of that Court to levy the said Damages upon the Lands and Goods of the said Defendant And it was referred to the two Chief Justices whether any such Process might be made who this Term moved the Case to the Chief Baron and the rest of the Judges and Barons and it was unanimously by them all Resolved That no such Process could or ought to be made neither for the Damages nor for the Costs given to the Plaintiff the Court having no such power but onely to keep the Defendant in Prison till he pay them For for a Fine due to the King they can make no Process to levy it but they estreat it into the Exchequer which hath power by Law to write forth Process
County of Hereford in his Denâ—esne as of Free and found the other Points of the Writ and it was holden by the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron 1. That Mâ—ssâ—agium vel Tenementum is uncertain for Tenementum is nomen collectivum and may contain Land or any thing that is holden 2. It was holden That it was void for the whole because no Town is mentioned in the Office where the Mâ—ssuage or Tenement c. lyeth and it was holden that no melius inquirendum shall issue forth because the whole Office is incertain and void Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards The Attorney of the Court of Wards moved the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron in this Case A man seized of Lands in Fee-simple covenants for the advancement of his Son and his Name Blood and Posterity that he will stand seized of them to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his eldest Son and to such Woman as he shall marry and the Heir-males of the body of the Son and afterwards the Father dyeth and after the Son takes a Wife and dyeth if the Wife shall take an Estate for Life And it was Resolved by the said two Chief Justices and Chief Baron That the Wife should take well enough being within the consideration which was for the advancement of his Posterity and without a Wife the Son cannot have Posterity Secondly It was Resolved that the Estate of the Son shall support the use to the Defendant and when the Contingent happeneth the Estate of the Son shall be changed according to the Limitation viz. to the Son and the Woman and the Heirs of the Body of the Son And so it was Resolved in the Kings-Bench by Popham Chief Justice and the whole Court in Sheffields Case in Q. Elizabeths time Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards Spary's Case John Spary seized in Fee in the Right of his Wife of Lands holden by Knight-service had Issue by her and 22 Dec. 9 Eliz. alienated to Edward Lord Stafford The Wife dyed the Issue of full age the Alienee holds the Lands And 10 years after the Fathers death and 12 years after the Mothers Office is found 7 Jac. finding all the special Matter after the Mothers death The Question was Whether the mean Profits are to be answer'd to the King And it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron that the King should have the mean Profits because the Alienee was in by Title and untill Entry the Heir has no Remedy for the mean Profits but that the King might seize and make Livery because the Entry of the Heir is lawful by the Stat. 32 H. 8. Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards It was found by force of a Mandamus at Kendal in Westmerland 21 Dec. 6 Jac. that George Earl of Cumberland long before his death was seized in Tail to him and to the Heirs-male of his body of the Castles and Mannors of Browham Applâ—by c. the remainder to Sir Ingram Clifford with divers Remainders in Tail the remainder to the right Heirs of Henry Earl of Cumberland Father of the said George and that the said George Earl so seized by Fine and Recovery conveyed them to the use of himself and Margaret his Wife for their Lives for the Joynture of Margaret and after to the Heir-males of the body of George Earl of Cumberland and for want of such Issue to the use of Francis now Earl of Cumberland and the Heir-males of his body and for want of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the said George And after by another Indenture conveyed the Fee-simple to Francis Earl By force of which and of the Statute of Uses they were seized accordingly and afterwards the 30 of Octob. 3 Jac. George Earl of Cumberland dies without Heirs male of his body c. And found further that Margaret Countess of Cumberland that now is was alive and took the profits of the Premisses from the death of the said George Earl till the taking the Inquisition and further found the other Points of the Writ 1. And first it was objected Here was no dying seized found by Office and therefore the Office shall be insufficient But to that it was Resolved That by this Office the King was not intitled by the Common-Law for then a dying seized was necessary But this Office is to be maintained upon the Stat. 32 and 34 H. 8. by force of which no dying seized is necessary and so it was Resolved in Vincents Case Anno 23 Eliz. 2. The second Objection was It doth not appear that the Wives Estate continued in her till the Earles death for the Husband and Wife had aliened the same to another and then no primer seizin shall be as is agreed in Binghams Case And to that it was Resolved That the Office was sufficient prima facie for the King because it is a thing collateral and no point of the Writ And if such Alienation be the same shall come in of the other part of the Alienee by a Monstrans de droit And the Case at Bar is a stronger Case because it is found the Councess took the Profits from the death of George the Earl till the finding the Office Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards Wills Case Henry Wills seized of the 4th Part of the Mannor of Wryland in the County of Dâ—von holden of Q. Eliz. iâ— Socage Tenure in capite of the said 4â—h part enfeoffed Zathary Irish and others and their Heirs to the use of the said Henry for his Life and after his Decâ—ase to Thomas Wills his second Son in Tail and after to the use of Richard Wills his youngest Son in Tail and after the said Henry so seized as aforesaid dyed All this Matter is found by Office And the Question was If the King ought to have primer seizin in this Case that Livery and Ouster le mayne should be sued by the Statutes of the 32 and 34 H. 8. And it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron that not if in this Case by the Common-Law no Livery or Ouster le main shall be sued and that was agreed by them all by the experience and couâ—se of the course See 21 Eliz. Dyer 362. and 4 Eliz. Dyer 213. And two Presidents were shâ—wed which were Decreed in the same Court by the Advice of the Justices Assistants to the Court. One in Trin. 16 Eliz. Thomas Stavely enfeoffed William Strelley and Thomas Law of the Mannor of Ryndly in Nottingh â—shire on condition that they re-enfeoffe the Feoffor and his Wife for their Lives the remainder to Thomas Stavely Sâ—n and Heir apparent of the Feoffer in Fee Which Mannor was holden of Q. Elizabeth in Socage Tenure in capite And it was Resolved That no Livery or Ouster le maine shall be sued in such Case because of the saving of the Stat. 32 H. 8.
THE RESOLUTIONS Of the JVDGES upon the several STATUTES Of Bankrupts As also The like Resolutions Upon 13 Eliz. and 27 Eliz Touching Fraudulent CONVEYANCES By T. B. Esq LONDON Printed for T. Twyford and are to be sold by Hen. Twyford and other Booksellers 1670. Pasch 4. Jacobi Regis Ford and Sheldon's Case upon Information in the Exchequer for the King THomas Ford a known Recusant bâ—fore the 23 of Eliz. for money lent to Sheldon some before and some after the said 23 Eliz. took Recognizance in the Names of others and also a Rent-charge to them in Fee with a Clause of Redemption by Deed the Condition of the Recognizance being for performance of the Covenanss in the Deeds and afterward was made the Statute of the 28 Eliz. which was That as often as any Failer was made in the payment of 20 l. a Month that so often the Queen by Process out of the Exchequer might take and enjoy all the Goods and two Parts c. And after the said Act Ford lent the several Sums of Money and took the Securities as aforesaid amounting in all to 21000 l. which being to Ford's use were all forfeited Afterwards 41 Eliz. was Convict of Recusancy and did not pay the 20 l. a Month If the King should have the Bâ—nefit of these Recognizances and Securities was the Qâ—estion 1. Upon Debate it was objected by Ford's Councel That the Recognizances had not been Forfeited though they had been made in Ford's Name the Statute speaking onely of Goods which doth not include Debts As if the King grant all the Goods of J. S. coming to him by Attainder the Patentee shall not have Debts And a Penal Law shall not be extended by Equity Obj. 2. That three Recognizances are not within the Intention of the Act being Savers of the Realty and acknowledged to perform Covenants as to the Rent-charge Ob. 3. No Fraud was in the Case And then no Statute being in this Case the Common-Law gives no benefit to the King As if Cestuy que use had been Attaint of Treason the Use being but a Trust could not be forfeited to the King And it not a Use A multo fortiori a meer Trust Ob. 4. What Forfeiture accrues to the King in this Case must be by force of the words Goods in the Statute which cannot be Ford having no Goods but a meer Trust Also one Recognizance was taken in the Names of others before the Stature and therefore cannot be thought to defeat the King of a Forfeiture which was not then in use Resolved 1. By all the Barons and Popham Chief Justice of England and divers other Justices that Personal Actions are as well included within this Word Goods in an Act of Parliament as Goods in Possession But because by Law things in Action cannot be granted over therefore by General Grant without special words can never pass And where the Statute saith Shall take seize and enjoy all the Goods and two parts c. the King may well enjoy a Debt due to a Recusant and by Process out of the Exchequer Levy it and so take and seize refers to Goods and two Parts of Lands in Possession Resolved 2. That it was Originally for the Loan of Money and both the Recognizance and Annuity were to secure the said Money And Recognizances fotfeited are but Chattels Personal Resolved 3. There was Covin apparent for he being a Recusant always as aforesaid and so chargeable to the King his taking the Recognizances in the Name of others shall be Construed with an Intent to prevent the King of his Forfeiture And so shall all Recognizances taken in others Names after the said Act be presumed to be taken As to Ceâ—â—uy que use who neither hath Jus in Re nor Jus ad Rem true it is he cannot Forfeit but an Act done to defraud the King of his lawful Duty the King shall not be barred thereof per obliquum if the Act was made de directo And for this If a man outlawed buy Goods in the Names of others the King shall have them notwithstanding So if an Accountant to the King purchase Lands in others Names yet the King shall sâ—ze those Lands for Money due to him And this appears by Walter Cherton's Case Trin. 24. Ed. 3. Rot. 4. in Scaccario for Reâ— fallere non vult falli autem non potest See another President Trin. 24. Ed. 3. Pot. 11. Resolved 4. Noâ—resert Whether the Duty do accâ—ue to the King by the Common-Law or by the Statute And though one of the Recognizances was taken before the Statute of the 28 of Eliz. yet that was to his use And though Ford was not Convict till the 41 of Eliz. that is not material for he was subject to a Forfeiture before Pasch 4 Jac. In Chancery 27 Junii 29 Eliz. The Case between the Lord St. John of Bletso and the Dean of Gloucester The Lord St. John brought a Quare Impedit in the Common-Pleas against the Defendant for the Church of Penmark in the County of Glamorgan which Suit was staid by Aid prayer and the Record removed into the Chancery The Plaintiff moved for a Procedendo and upon Oyer of Cause before Sir Thomas Bromley Lord Chancellor in the presence of Sir Gilbert Gerrard Master of he Rolls and Shute and Windham Justices and Popham Attorney and Egerton Sollicitor of the Queen the Plaintifâ— shewed a Gift in Tail of the said Advowson made to his Anc stor in 18 R. 2. and a Verdict for the same in 12 H. 8. and a presentation by his Grandfather to the said Church of a Clerk that was admitted instituted inducted and had possession divers years with other matters to prove the Plaintiffs Tâ—tle yet for that the Defendant and those from whom he claimes had time out of mind possessed the said Parsonage as Impropriate And for that it will be a dangerous President to all Owners of Impropriations It was Resolved by the Court of Chancery by the advice of the Justices and Councel Learned by the Queen aforesaid That no Procedendo in loquela be granted Vide Ridley fol. 153 154. the beginning of Appropriations and Annuities to be discharged of Tythes Vide ibid. 155. That the Saxon Kings appropriated eight Churches to the Monastery of Croyland Trin. 37 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber Crimes and Smith The Abbot of Sulby held the Parsonage of Iubbenhâ—m in Leicestershire to his proper use which as impropriate came to H. 8. by the dissolution of Monasteries 31 H. 8. who in the 37th year of his Reign granted it in Fee-Farm under which Grant the Plaintiff claimed The Defendant obtained a Presentation of the Queen and to destroy the said Impropriation shewed the Original Instrument of it 22 Ed. 4. with Condition in it That a Vicaridge should be competently endowed which was alledged never to be done But for that the Rectory was reputed and taken to be appropriate and a Vicar presented admitted instituted and inducted as a Vicar
October 28. H. 8. there was an Insurrection of the Lord Hussey and 20000 Men in Lincolnshire about Religion which was appeased by the Duke of Suffolk This was no sooner over but 40000 Men under Sir Robert Aske made a Commotion in Yorkshire Soon after was a great Rebellion in Lancashire Westmerland Cumberland and Northumberland which the Earl of Derby quieted Then Musgrave Tilby and others assaulted Carlisle Castle and were overthrown by the Duke of Norfolk Soon after Sir Francis Pigot Rebelled at Setrington in Yorkshire Soon after the Lord Darcy c. began a Commotion about Hull appeased by the Duke of Norfolk And all these Rebellions were between the 28. of and 30. of H. 8. in which time many of the Rebels were Executed And the King having effected in the 31 year of his Reign the Suppression of the greater Houses of Religion he establisht a Councel there for the quiet of the Counties of Yorkshire Northumberland Westmerland Cumberland Durham the Counties of the City of York Kingston upon Hull and Newcastle upon Tyâ—e for preventions of Ryots c. And in this time of Necessity the King Armed the President and Councel with two Authorities in one Commission The one A Commission of Oyer and Terminer de quibuscunque Congregationibus conventiculis illicitis coadjutoribus Lolardiis c. per quae pax tranquilitas subditorum nostrorum Comitatibus c. praedict gravat c. secundum legem coâ—suetudinem regni nostri Angliae c. The other Authority was Nec non quascunque actionesreales seu de libero tenemento personales causasque de bitorum demandorum quorumcunque in Com. c. praed quando ambae partes vel altera pars sic gravata paupertate fuerit quod commode Jus suum secundum legem Regni nostri aliter prosequi non possit c. And this was the Authority that the President and Councel had at first without any private Instructions as appears by the Commission under the Great Seal 31 H. 8. 6 pars Roberto Landavensi Episcopo Presidenti Consilii aliis out of which these things were observed 1. That the intention of the Commission was Quod pax subditorum tranquilitas preserventur 2. That they hear and determine Riots Routs c. according to Law or their Discretions which without question was no otherwise intended but that they should proceed according to Law for that is summa discretio and not according to private Conceits for talis discretio discretionem confundit so the other Clause concerning reall and personal Actions in all the Counties and Places aforesaid was onely ad faciendum populum for it was utterly void in Law 1. Because no such general Authority granted may be made by the Commission of the King to hear and determine all reall Actions within such a County according to Law as he may be Charter in a particular County or place As it was Resolved in Scrogges Case An. 2 Eliz. so 175. in Dyer Vid. Dyer 236. But the King by Letters-Patents may grant to a Corporation in such a Town Tenere placita realia personalia mixta And none can by this be prejudiced for the proceeding ought to be according to Law and if they erre a Writ of Errour lies See Magna Charta cap. 12. and Westm 2. cap. 30. which Acts give Authority to Justices of Assize in their proper Counties whereby it appears that without an Act of Parliament the King by Letters Patents cannot authorize Justices De Assize capiend to take them in another County As a Justice of one Bench or other ought to be made by Commission not by Writ yet he may be discharged by Writ 5 Ed. 4. 32. But Justices in Eyre are by Writ Bracton lib. 3. cap. 11. Britton fo 1. Also Westm 2. cap. 30. and of York cap. 4. sic de ceteris Also it was observed that at first the Commission extended onely when one or both Parties were so poor as they were not able to prosecute at Law Also they had no power to grant Injunctions and lastly their Commission was a Patent under the Great Seal and enrolled in Chancery And thus much was said concerning the first Institution of the Court 2. That our Proceedings in granting Prohibitions is for matter justifiable by Law As to this whereas at first their Authority was Patent it is now private for the Letters-Patent refer to private Instructions which are no where of Record Et de non apparentibus non existentibus eadam est ratio besides the danger to the Subject is great for if they lose their Instructions which hath and may happen all is Coram non Judice The second Reason is drawn from the contumacy of the Party supposed to be grieved by the Prohibition and against whom it is granted for if the Authority of the Councel be never so good yet being a late Jurisdiction the Party must of necessity plead it so as it may appear judicially for as we are Judges of Record so must we be informed of Record And no party prohibited ever yet moved in Court to have a consultation by which might be set forth the Jurisdiction of that Court and Councel so as the granting of Prohibitions hath been just The third Reason is drawn from the great Injury offered to the Defendants for it is a true Rule Misera servitus ubi jus est vagum aut incertum The Defendants by Law may in all Courts plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court but how can they do so when no man can possibly know what Jurisdiction they have And the keeping of them in such Secrecy bewrayeth that the Councel are afraid that they would not be justified if they were known 3. That the manner of our Proceedings was respectful for a Jury of Officers and Attorneys of our Court being according to an antient Custome time out of mind used sworn to present among other things all Defaults of Officers and Ministers in not executing the Process of this Couâ—t and all Impediments of the due Proceedings thereof And finding upon their Oaths divers unjust Impediments of the said Proceedings by the said Councel in particular thereupon a motion being made in open Court in Michaelmas Term last by the King 's Serjeant Philips of many Grievances done thereby prayed the Court according to Law and Justice to grant several Prohibitions in all those several Causes which we could not deny Yet first we conferred with Sir Cuthbert Pepper Attorney of the Wards and one of that Councel to let him understand the partâ—cular Gâ—ievances who upon Motion came to us to Seâ—geants Inne with whom we conferred who would not take upon him to justifie the same in no sort but said he would acquaint the President and Councel therewith and return their Answer Which for that it was neglected upon further Motion in Court we granted Prohibition as in Justice we ought 4. Now to answer all Objections And first where it was objected
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
had Issue John his eldest Son and others viz. Christopher Richard c. and being seized of Land in Fee oâ— 100 Marks per annum value his eldest Son being dead and his Grandchild John withâ—n age he gave direction for a Lease to be made of a Faâ—m called Roushal to Christopher during the minority of his Grand-child rendring the antient Rent with power of Revocation and of Lands in Yatesbury to Richard in the same manner and the same time Chrâ—stopher and Richard by the Covin of one Woodruff a Serivener 25 Eliz. drew two Leases to Christopher and Richard for 51 years rendring 4 d. per annum and without any power of Revocation John Shulter the Grandfather being blind with age and Woodruff telling him they were according to his direction And thereupon John Shulter thâ— Grandfather sealed and delivered them And it was resolved by the Lord Ellesmere Chancellor and two Chief Justies That the said Indentures could not bind the said John Shulter because he was blind and the effect was declared to him other than in truth it was Iâ— fully agreed with Mansers Case in the second part of my Reports fol. 4. Mich. 9 Jacobi Regis Sir Anthony Ashley's Case The Case was this Sir James Creyton had bought a pretended Right of and in the Mannor of â—yddy and Millisent and divers oâ—her Lands of which Sir Anthony had long possession Upon which divers Motions were made concerning Fines acknowledged to be staid c. in the Common-Bench and Sir James not prevailing in it entred into a wicked Conspiracy with several other Defendants in the Cause to accuse the said Sir Anthony of some Capital Crimes whereby he should forfeit all his Lands Goods and Chattels which they should share amongst them and in the end Henry Smith formerly a Servant to Sir Anthony was suborned to accuse the said Sir Anthony of the Muâ—ther of William Rice late Husband of Mary Rice one of the Defendants which William was dead 18 years before and Smith was to have 500 l. for his pains to have a place procured him in the Kings Guard in Ordinary a Proteâ—tion also from the King against his Creditors and a General Pardon Of all which Smith would have assurance before he would make any Accusation of the said Sir Anthony Whereupon Articles in Writing were drawn ingrossed and sealed between Sir James Creyton of the one part and John Cantrel Servant to Hunnings by Smith's Consent and to his use on the other part By which Sir Jaâ—es Covenanted that the said Cantrel and his Heirs after the Conviction and Attainder of Sir Anthony shall have a sixth part of his Mannors c. In consideration whereof Cantrel Covenanted that he should procure Witnesses to Convict the Plaintiff of Murther or other Capital Crimes c. Which Articles were sealed 16 of Feb. 7 Jac. And for the performance of the said Articles Sir James gave Bond of 8000 l. to Cantrel Within two dayes after Smith counterfeits himself sick and then pretending to disburthen his Conscience reveales the said Murther and accused himself for poysoning the said William Rice by the said Sir Anthonies Command so that he himself was Principal Upon this Sir James procures Mary Rice the Widow of the said William Rice to prefer a Petition to the King importing the Accusation aforesaid Which Petition the King referred to the Chief Justice of the Kings-Bench who after full Examination certified the King that he found a false Conspiracy to indict Sir Anthony without any just ground and certified also the effect of the Articles Upon which the King by Advice of the Privy-Councel thought the matter fit to be sentenced in the Star-Chamber Which in the same Term upon ordinary proceeding was heard by six dayes And it was objected by the Defendants Councel That the Bill upon the said Conspiracy did not lye and that it would be dangerous to maintain it for it will deter men to prosecute against great Offenders whereby they will pass unpunished And by the Law Conspiracy lyes where a man is indicted and legitimo modo acquietus but here he was never indicted c. But to this it was Answered and Resolved by the Lord Chancellor the two Chief Justices and all the Court That in this Case the Bill was maintainable though the Party accused was not indicted and acquitted before as it was Resolved in this Court Hill 8. Jac. in Poulter's Case Besides be Sir Anthony guilty or no the Defendants are punishable for promising Bribes and Rewards to Smith to accuse the Plaintiff and the Articles to share Sir Aâ—thonies Estate after Attainder And there is a great Indignity offered to the King in assuming to Covenant that the King shall protect or pardon or that any man's Estate may be shared before Attainder And it appeared by many Witnesses that William Rice dyed not of any poysoning but of a horrible Disease got by his dissolute life which with Reverence cannot be spoken And in this Case it was Resolved That if Felony be done and one hath suspition upon probable matter that another is guilty of it he may arrest the party so suspected to bring him to Justice But in this Case three things are to be observed 1. That a Felony be done 2. That he that doth arrest hath suspition upon probable cause 3. That he himself who hath the suspition arrest the party Resolved also That if Felony be done and common fame and noise is that one hath committed it this is good cause for him that knowes of it to arrest the party and with this agrees the Book 2 H. 5. 15 16. 15 H. 7. 5. 20 H. 7. 12. 21 H. 7. 28. 7 Ed. 4. 20. 8 Ed. 4. 27. 11 Ed. 4. 4. 6. 17 Ed. 4. 5. 6. 20 Ed. 4 6. B. 7 H. 4. 25. 27 H. 8. 23. 26 H. 8 9. 7 Eliz. Dy. 226. Hill 9 Jac. Regis In this Term the Attorney and Sollicitor consulted with me if at this day upon Conviction of an Heretick before the Ordinary the Writ de Haeretico combunendo lyeth and it seems to be clear that it doth not for the Reasons and Authorities that I have reported Trin. 9 Jacob before But after they consulting with Fleming Chief Justice Tanfield Chief Baron and Williams and Crook And they upon the Report of Dr. Cosins mentioned in my said Report and some Prâ—sidents in Queen Elizabeth's time they certified the King that the said Writ lyeth but that the most sure way was to convict the Heretick before the High Commissioners Pasch 10 Jac. Regis The Lord Vaux his Case In this Term the Lord Vaux was indicted of a Premunire in the Kings-Bench upon the New Statute for refusing the Oath of Allegeance upon his Arraignment he prayed he might be tryed per Pares But iâ— was Resolved That he shall not for that Magna Charta cap. 29. Nec super cum ibimus nec super eum mittemus nisi per legale judicium parium suorum is onely to be
and being amongst them of the Grand Inquest though not returned as one of them of his malice and upon his own knowledge as he pretended indicted 17 honest men upon divers penal Laws Some of the Justices looking over the Bills and seeing so many honest men indicted as they supposed malitiously demanded what Evidence they had to find the said Bills and they answered By the Testimony and Cognizance of one of themselves viz. Robert Scarlet And upon Examination it appeared that the said Robert Scarlet was not returned but had procured himself to be sworn by Confederacy as aforesaid For which Offence he was indicted at the Summer Assizes following 10 J c. held at Buâ—y upon the Statute 11 H. 4. c. 9. And he pleaded not guilty All the especiall Matter aforesaid being proved he was found guilty by a substantial Jury And in this Case divers Points were considered 1. Whether Justices of Assize have power to punish this offence or no And it was held affirmatively scil by force of their Commission of Oyer and Terminer And if the Act be indefinite or general and doth not give Jurisdiction to any Courts in special the general words of Commission of Oyer and Terminer extends to it Vide 7 Eliz. Dyer Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer may inquire of Offences against Penal Statutes unless the Statute appoint them to be determined in any Court of Record And the Opinion there that in any Courts of Record are restrained to the four ordinary Courts at Westminster is not held for Law as the Statute 5 Ed. 6. 14. against Forestallers c. gives the Penalty to be recovered in any Court of Record And Justices of Assize in regard of their Commission of Oyer and Terminer have always enquired thereof So the 33 H. 8. 9. of unlawful Games And of Woods 35 H. 8. c. 17. and many others 2. The second consideration was upon the Statute 11 H. 4. cap. 9. and it was held that Robert Scarlet was an Offender within that Statute because knowing he was not returned of the Grand Inquest procured himself by false Conspiracy to be sworn as aforesaid 3. The third Consideration was had of 3 H. 8. 10. which alters the Act of the 11 H. 4. in part as to denomination But in regard that still by that Act none can be of any Grand Inquest but by Return of the Sheriff And for this the Act 3 H. 8. 10. hath not altered the Law as to the Offence of Robert Scarlet 4. The said Act 11 H. 4. hath made a new Law viz. That any Indictment found against the said Act shall be void So that this may draw in Question all the Indictments found at the same Sâ—ssions And for this Judgment was given that he should be fined and imprisoned Trin. 10 Jac. Regis Baker and Hall's Case Note Upon Consideration of the Statute 3 H. 7. c. 14. It was Resolved by Coke Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas Yelverton Williams Snig and others That whereas it is provided that what person soever takes a Woman so against her Will c. in respect of this Word So which hath relation to the Preamble It was agreed by all that if the Wife hath nothing nor is Heir apparent it is out of the Statute for iâ— would not have been so curious in describing the Person and all in vain And Clergy is taken away by the 38 Eliz. cap. 9. for Principals or Procurers before Vide Stamf. so 37. b. and so was the Law taken 3 4 P. M. Vide Lamb 252. Note Receivers of the Woman are Principals but not the Receivers of them who took the Woman Vide Lamb. bid Note I saw a Report in Queen Mary's time upon the 50 Ed. 3. cap. 5. and 1 R. 2. cap. 15. concerning arresting Priests in Holy Church that the said Statutes are but in affirmance of the Common-Law and 't is there held that eundo redeundo morando for to celebrate Divine Service the Priest ought not to be arrested nor any who aid him in it and that the Party grieved may have an Action upon the Statute 50 Ed. 3. For though an Act doth not give an Action yet Action lyeth upon it 7 H. 6. 30. c. 2 H. 5. and 4 Ed. 4. 37. Vide Register in breve super Stat. Note If a man be convicted or hath Judgment of Death for Felony he shall never answer by the Common Law to any Felony done before the Attainder so long as the Attainder remains in force Vide 8 Eliz. c. 4. 18 Eliz 7. And at this day if a man be adjudg'd to be hang'd and hath his Pardon he shall never answer to any Felony before for he cannot have two Judgments to be hang'd Aliter If the first Attainder by Errour be reversed Vide 10 H. 4. Coroâ— 227. Case del Appeal c. A man seized of a Mannor to which he hath stray appendant by Prescription c. by his Bayley he seizeth an Ox as a Stray in the Mannor and makes Proclamation according to Law and within the Year and Day le ts the Mannor with all Royalties c. And Dyâ—r Sergeant moved the Court who should have the Stray And Brown Justice was of Opinion that the Lâ—ssor should have it But all the Justices were against him that the Lessee shall have it because the property of the Stray is not altered before the Year and Day and till then the Lord or the Mannor hath but the custody of it In Dr. Hutchinson's Case Parson of Kenn in Devonshire It was Resolved per totam Curiam That if any shall receive or take Money Fee Reward or other Profit for any Presentation to a Benefice with Cure although in truth he which is presented be not knowing of it yet the Presentation Admission and Induction are void per expressa verba Statuti 31 H. 8. cap. 6. and the King shall have the Presentation hac vice But if the Presence be not cognizant of the Corruption then he shall not be within the Clause of Disability in the same Statute and so it was Resolved by all the Justices in Fleetstreet Mich. 8. Jac. so 7. vide verba statuti Hugh Manneyes Case In an Information in the Exchequer against Hugh Manney Esque the Father and Hugh Manney the Son for Intrusion and cutting a great number of Trees in Merionâ—th shire the Defendants plead not guilty and one Rowland ap Eliza produced as a Witness for the King deposed upon his Oath that Hugh the Father and Son joyned in sale of the said Trees and commanded the Vendees to cut them down The Jury found upon this great Damages for the King and Judgment was given and Execution had of a great part Hugh Manney the Father exhibited a Bill in the Star-Chamber at Common-Law against Rowland ap Eliza and assigns the Perjury in this That the said Hugh the Father did never joyn in Sale nor command the Vendees to cut the Trees and Rowland ap Eliza was convict
of the Perjury by all the Lords in the Star-Chamber and it was Resolved by all That it was by the Common-Law punishable before any Statute Hayes Case in Cur-Wardorum By Inquisition in the County of Middlesex Anno 6 Jac. by vertue of a diem clausit extremum after the death of Humphry Willward it was found that the said Humphry died seized of a Messuage and 26 Acres of Land in Stepney and that John Willward was his Heir being 14 years and 9 days old and that the Land was held of the King in capite by Knights Service John Willward died within age and by Inquisition in Middlesex 8 Jun. Anno Jac. by vertue of a Writ of Deveneront after the said John's death it was found that John dyed seized in Ward to the King and that the said Messuage and Lands at the time of the said John's death were holden of the Dean of Pauls as of his Mannor of Shadwel All the mean Rates incurred in John's life-time are paid to the King 1. The Questions are 1. Whether by John's death and finding of the mean Tenure in the Deveneront the fiâ—st Office granted to Points be determined 2. Whether the Tenure found by the first Office may be traversed And as to these Questions it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and chief Baron That where the said John dyed the Office found by force of the Diem clausit extremum after Humphries death whereby the King was entituled to the Guardianship of John hath taken its effect and is executed and does remain as Evidence for the King after Johns death but yet is not traversable for it is traversable during the time it remains in force onely and the Jurors upon the Deveneront after the death of the said John are at liberty to find the certainty of the Tenure and they are not concluded by the first Inquisition and with this agrees 1 H. 4. 68. And this appears by the diversity between the Writ of Diem clausit extremum and the Deveneront which is but in one Point to wit the Diem clausit extremum is general And the Deveneront is not general but does restrain onely the Lands and Tenements quod deveneront c. And thus it was Resolved nono Jacobi in the Court of Wards in the Case of Dune Lewis Award of Capias Uâ—lagatum by Justices of the Peace In this same Term the Opinion of all the Court of Common-Pleus was That if one be out-lawed before Justices of Assize or Justices of Peace upon an Indictment of Felony that they may award a Capias Utlagatum and so was the Opinion of Pâ—riam Chief Baron and all the Court of Exchequer as to Justices of Peace for they that have power to award process of Outlawry have also power to award a Capias utlagatum See 34 H. 8. c. 14. See Lamb. Justice of Peace fol. 503. contra But see 1 Ed. 6. cap. 1. Justices of Peace in case of Profanation of the Sacrament shall award a Capias Utlagatum throughout all England Hersey's Case Star-Chamber John Hersey Gent exhibited his Bill in the Star-chamber against Anthony Barker Knight Thomas Barker Councellor at Law Robert Wright Doctor of Divinity Ravenscroft Clerk and John Hai is and thereby charged the Defendants with forging the Will of one Margery Pain and the Cause came to Hearing ad requisitionem defendentium and upon hearing the Plaintiffs Councel there appeared no Presumption against any of the Defendants but that the Testament was duly proved in the Ecclesiastical Court and upon an Appeal was also affirmed before Commissioners Delegates and Decreed also in Chancery So that it appeared to the Court that the said Bill was preferred of meer malice to slander the Defendants Now because the Defendants had no Remedy at Law for the said Slander and if it should pass unpunished it may encourage men It was Resolved by the Court That by the course of the Court and according to former Presidents the Court may give Damages to the Defendants and so it was done viz. 200 l. to the Doctor of Divinity 200 Marks to the Knight 40 l. to the Clerk 120 l. to the Woman And it was said that Creare ex ihilo quando bonum est est divinum sed creare aliquid ex nihilo quando est malum est diabolicum et plus Maledicite nocâ—nt quam Benedicite docent Hill 2 Jac. Regis Theodore Tomlinson brought an Action of account for Goods against one Philips in the Common Pleas and thereupon Philips sued Tomlinson in the Admiralty supposing the Goods to have been received in Forraign Parts beyond Sea and Tomlinson being committed for refusing to answer upon his Oath to some Interrogatories brought his Habeas Corpus Upon which it was resolved by the Court of Common plea in thrâ—e Points viz. 1. That the Court of Admiralty hath no Cognizance of things done beyond Sea and this appears plainly by the Statute 13 R. 2. cap. 5. and the 19 H 6. fol. 7. 2. That the Proceedings in the Court of Admiralty are according to the Civil Law and therefore the Court is not of Record and so cannot assess a Fine as the Judges of a Court of Record may 3. It doth appear that the Interrogatories were of such things as were within their Jurisdiction and the Parry ought by Law to answer This Case was intended by my Lord Coke to be inserted into his 7th Report but that the King commanded it should not be Printed but the Judges resolved ut supra Corven's Case Right to Sâ—ats in the Church Corven did Libel against Pym for a Seat in a Church in Dâ—vonshire And Pym by Sergeant Hutton moved for a Prohibition upon this Reason that himself is seized of a House in the said Parish and that he and all whose Estates he hath in the House have had a Seat in an Isle of the Church And it was Resolved by the Court that if a Lord of a Mannor or other Person who hath his House and Land in the Parish time out of mind and had a Seat in an Isle of the same Church so that the Isle is proper to his Family and have maintained it at their Charges that if the Bishop would dispossess him he shall have a Prohibition But for a Seat in the Body of the Church iâ— a Question ariseth it is to be decided by the Ordinary because the Freehold is to the Parson and is common to all the Inhabitants And it is to be presumed that the Ordinary who hath Cure of Soules will take Order in such Cases according to right and conveniency and with this agrees 8 H. 7. 12. And the Chief Justice Dame Wick her Case 9 H. 4. 14. which was The Lady brought a Bill in the Kings-Bench against a Parson Quare Tunicam unam vocatam A Coat Armor and Pennons with her Husband Sir Hugh Wick his Arms and a Sword in a Chappel where he was buried and the Parson claimed them as Oblations And it is there
holden That if one were to sit in the Chancel and hath there a place his Carpet Livery and Cushion the Parson cannot claim them as Oblations for that they were hanged there in honour of the Deceased the same Reason of a Coat-Armour c. And the Chief Justice said the Lady might have a good Action during her Life in the Case aforesaid because she caused the things to he set up there and after her death the Heir shall have his Action they being in the nature of Hire-looms which belong to the Heir And with this agrees the Laws of other Nations Bartho Cassanâ—us sol 13. Coâ—cl 29. Actioâ— dat si aliquis arma in aliquo loco posita deleat aut abrasit c. and in 21 Ed. 3. 48. in the Bishop of Carlisle's Case Note That in Easter Term 10 Jacob. it was Resolved in the Star-Chamber in the Case between Hussâ—y and Katharine Leyton that if a man have a house in any Parish and that he and all those whose Estate he hath have used to have a certain Pew in the Church that if the Ordinary will displace him he shall have a Prohibition but where there is no such Prescription the Ordinary shall dispose of common and vulgar Seats Earl of Shrewes buryes Case Sir Humphry Winch Sir James Ley Sir Anthony St. Leger and Sir James Hullesâ—on certified the Lords of the Councel by Command from them by Letters dated 28. Martii 1612. of the Claim of Gilbert Earl of Shrewesbury to the Earldome of Waterford and Barony of Dungarvan in Ireland as followeth King Henry the Sixth by Letters-Patents in the 20th year of his Reign did Grant to his Cosin John Earl of Shrewsbury in consideration of his Loyal Services in the City and County of Waterford pro se c. ipsum in Comitem Waterford una cum stilo et titulo ac nomine ac honore eisdem debitis ordinamus creamus habendum to the said Earl and his Heirs-males of his Body and further did Grant the Castles Lordships c. of Dungarvan to the said Earl and the Heirs-males of his Body To hold c. of the King and his Heirs by Homage and Fealty and by the Service of being his Majesties Seneschal in Ireland After in the Parliament called Des Absentees holden at Dublin in Ireland 10. Maii 28 H. 8. It was enacted by reason of the long absence of George Earl of Shrewesbury out of the said Realm That the King his Heirs c. shall enjoy in right of his Crown of England all Honors Mannors Castles c. and all and singular possessions c. as well Spiritual as Temporal which the said George Earl of Shrewesbury and VVaterford or any other Persons had to his Use c. King Henry the 8th by his Letters Patents dated 29th of his Reign reciting the said Statute Nos praemissa Considerantes c. did Grant to the said Earl and his Heirs the Abbey of Rufford with the Lands thereunto c. in the County of Nottingham and the Lordship of Rotheram in the County of York the Abbeys of Chestersteld Shirbrook and Glossaâ—dale in Derbyshire with divers other Lands c. to be holden in Capite And the Questions were as followeth 1. Whether by the long absence of the Earl of Shrewsbury out of Ireland the Title of the Honor be lost and forfeited he being a Peer of both Realms and refiding here in England 2. Whether by the Act Des absentâ—es 28 H. 8. the Title of Dignity of Earl of VVaterford be taken from the said Earl as well as the Land c. Afterwards by other Letters Patents dated 27th of Sept. 1612. the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron were required to consider of the Case and to certifie their Opinions which Case being argued by Councel learned in the Law in behalf the said Earl and they having taken great advisement It was unanimously Resolved by them all as followeth 1. As to the fiâ—st Resolved That since it does not appear what defence was requisite and that the Consideration Executory was not found by Office to be broken in that Point the said Earl of Shrewsbury notwithstanding does remain Earl of Waterford 2. As to the second It was Resolved That the said Act 28 H. 8. Des Absenteâ—s does not onely take away the Possessions given him at his Creation but also the Dignity it self for though one may have a Dignity without Possession yet is it very inconvenient that Dignity should be cloathed with Poverty and so it was resolved in the Lord Ogles Case in Edw. 6. Reign as the Baron of Burleigh 35 Elâ—z did report The cause of Degradation of George Nevil Duke of Bedford is worth observation which was done by Act of Parliament 16 June 17 Ed. 4. which Act reciting the making the said George Duke sets forth the cause of his Degradation in these words And for so much as it is openly known that the said George hath not or by Inheritance may have any livelyhood to support the said Name Estate and Dignity c. Therefore the King by Advice of his Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons c. Enacteth c. That from henceforth the same Creation of the said Duke and all Names of Dignity given to the said George or to John Nevil his Father be void and of none effect Wherein are to be observed 1. That though the Duke had not Possessions to maintain his Dignity yet it could not be taken from him but by Act of Parliament 2. Great Inconveniencies follow where there is great State and Dignity and no means to maintain it 3. It is good reason to take away such Dignity by Act of Parliament and then the Act shall be expounded to take away such Inconvenience And though the Earl of Shrewsbury be of great Honour Vertue and Possessions in England yet it was not the Intention of the Act to continue him Earl in Ireland when his Possessions there were taken away And where it was objected that the general words Honours and Hereditaments are explained and qualified by the said Relative subsequent which the said George or any to his use hath Now in regard no man can be seized of the said Digniâ—y therefore the Act doth not extend to it 'T is answered that is to be understood Reddendo singula singulis and these words which the said G. E. hath are sufficient to pass the Dignity and with this agrees all the Judges Opinions in England in Nevils Case upon the like in the Statute 28 H. 8. in 7th Part of my Reports sol 33 and 34. Hill 2 Jacob. Regis Jurisdiction of the Court of Common-Pleas In the last Term by the King's Commands the Justices of the Kings Bench and Barons of the Exchequer were assembled before the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere at York-house to deliver their Opinion Whether there was any Authority in our Books that the Justices of the Common-Bench may grant Prohibitions or whether every Plea ought to be pending
in the Court for such cause And the King would know their Opinions The Judges took time till this Term and then Fleming Chief Justice Tanfield Chief Baron Saig Altham Crook Bromley and Dodderidge Yelverton and Williams Justices being dead since last Term did deliver their Opinions to the Lord Chancellor That the Presidents of each Court are sufficient Warrant for their Proceedings in the same Court and for a long time and in many Successions of Reverend Judges Prohibitions upon Information without any other Plea pending have been granted Issues tryed Verdicts and Judgments given upon Demurrer All which being in force they unanimously agreed to give no Opinion against the Jurisdiction of the Common-Bench in this Case See my Treatise of the Jurisdiction of the Common-Bench in this Point Hill 10 Jac. Regis Parliament in Ireland The Lords of the Councel did write to the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron to look into Poynings Act made 10 H. 7. in Ireland and to consider thereof and certifie what shall be fit to be held concerning the same their Letter bore date Ultimo Janii 1612. Upon which in this Term the said Chief Justices Chief Baron Attorney and Sollicitor General were assembled two days at Sergeants Inne And they considered not onely of the said Act 10 H. 7. c. 4. called Poynings Act but also of an Act made in Ireland 3 4 P. M. c. 4. Entituled An Act declaring how Poynings Act shall be expounded and taken for by the said Act 10 H. 7. it is provided That no Parliament be hereafter holden in Ireland but when the Kings Lieutenant and Councell there first certifie the King under the Great Seal of that Land the causes c. and such causes c. affirmed by the King and his Councel to be good and expedient for the Land and his Licence thereupon c. A Parliament to be holden after the former before c. And any Parliament holden contrary c. to be void in Law Upon which Act divers Doubts were conceived 1. And first Whether the said Act 10 H. 7. does extend to the Successors of H. 7. the Act speaking onely of the King generally and not his Successors 2. If the Queen Mary were within the word King and both were held affirmatively for the word King being spoke indefinitely does extend in Law to all his Successors And this is so expounded by the Act 3 and 4 P. and M. viz. That the said Act 10 H. 7. shall extend to the King and Queens Majesty her Heirs and Successors Secondly where Povnings Act sayes the Kings Lieutenant and Councel the said Act 3 and 4 P. and M. explains it to extend to all other Officers the King shall Depute by what Name soever 3. The greatest Doubt was upon these words of Poynings Act And such Causes Considerations and Acts affirmed by the King and his Councel to be good and expedient for the Land c. Whether the King may make any change or alteration of the Causes c. which shall be transmitted hither from the Lieutenant and Councel of Ireland for that it is not affirmative but correction and alteration of them and therefore it was necessary to explain that the Act 3 and 4 P. and M. was in these words Either for the passing of the said Acts and in such form and tenor as they should be sent into England or else for the change or alteration of them or any part of them 4. Another Doubt arose from these words That dâ—ne a Parliament to be had If at the same Parl. other Acts which have been affirmed or altered here may be Enacted there which is explained by the said last Act in these words viz. For passing and agreeing upon such Acts and no others as shall be returned c. 5. A fifth Doubt arose from the same words Whether the Lieutenant and Councel of Ireland after the Parliament begun and pendente Parliamento may upon debate there transmit any other Considerations c. the which said Act 3 and 4 P. and M. is by express words explained they may And it was unanimously Resolved That the Causes Considerations and Acts transmitted hither under the Great Seal of Ireland ought to be kept in the Chancery in England and not be remanded 2. Iâ— they be affirmed they must be transcribed under the Great Seâ—l and so returned into Ireland 3. If the Acts transmitted hither be in any part altered or changed here the Act so altered must forthwith be returned under the Great Seal of England for the Transcript under the Irish Great Seal to remain in Chancery here shall not be amended but the Amendment shall be under the English Great Seal See 10 H. 6. 8. which begins Mich. 18 H. 6. Rot. 46. coram Rege how a Parliament was holden there before Poynings Act. See also another Act made in Ireland the same 10 H. 7. c. 22. vide R. 3. 12. Hibernia habet Parliamenta faciunt leges nostra statuta non ligant â—os quia non mittunt milites ad Parliamentum sed personae coâ—um sunt subjecti Regis sicut inhabitantâ—s Calinae Gascogniae Guienae But question is made of this in some of our Books vid. 20 H. 6. 8. 32 H 6 25. 1 H. 7. 3. 8 H. 7. 10. 8 R. 2. Precess 204. 13 Ed. 2. Tit. Bastard 11 H. 47. 7 Ed. 4. 27. Plow Comment 368. 13 Eliz. Dyer 35. 2 Eliz. Dyer 366. Calvins Case 7th of my Reports 226. 14 Ed. 3. 184. A Prâ—bend in England made Bishop of Dublin in Ireland his Prebendary is voâ—d See the Sâ—atute of Ireland c. That the Acts of Parliament made in England since the 10 H. 7. do not hind them in Ireland but all made in England before the 10 H. 7. by the Act made in Ireland 10 H. 7. c. 22. do bind them in Ireland Note Cambden King at Arms told me that some held if a Baron dyes having Issue divers Daughters the King confer the Dignity to him who marryes any of them as hath been done in divers Cases viz. In the case of the Lord Cromwel who had Issue divers Daughters And the King did confer the Dignity upon Burchier who marryed the youngest Daughter and he was called Cromwel and so in other Cases Note by Linwood it appears by the Canons Ecclesiastick none may exercise Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction unless he be within the Orders of the Church because none may pronounce Excommunication but a Spiritual Person But now by the 37 H. 8. c. 17. a Doctor of Law or Register though a Lay-man may execute Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction No Ecclesiastical may cite a Church-Warden to the Court but so as he may return home the same day Also the Canons limit how many Courts Ex Officio they may have in a year Mich. 11 Jac. Regis Note If a man give to one of his Children a certain sum in his life and after dyes though this is not given as a Child 's full Portion yet it
Law of what nature soever Therefore when one Captain Lee made suit to the King to have an Office to inventory the Goods of those that dyed Testate or Intestate It was Resolved by my Lord Chancellor and my Self That such Grant shall be utterly void being both against the Common-Law and the Statute 21 H. 8. In like manner when another sued to have the Registring of Birth-dayes and the time of death c. So Mich. 19 Jac. To make a New Office in the Kings-Bench onely for making Lattitats was resolved void So Littletons Suit to name an Officer to be a Gen. Reg. c. But the Suit was rejected notwithstanding the fair Pretences of it by the two Chief Justices and others See Hill 12 Jac. Regis 2. Secondly It was Resolved That it was inconvenient for divers Causes 1. For a private man to have private ends 2. The numbring of Strangers by a private man would inâ—er a Terrour and other Kings and Princes will take offence at it 3. It is to be considered what breach it will be to former Treaties 3. As to the third It may be performed without any Inconvenience and so it was divided by the Lord Burleigh and other Lords of the Councel 37 Eliz. To write Letters to the Mayors Bayliffs c. of every City Borough c. where any strangers are resident to certifie how many and of what quality c. which they are to know in respect of their Inhabitants c. and this may be done without any Writing which being shewn to the Lords was by them well approved and the Suits utterly disallowed Decemb. 3. Anno 3 H. 8. Commission was granted to divers to certifie the number of Strangers Artificers c. within London and Suburbs according to the Statutes See Candish Case 29 Eliz. 13 Eliz. A Grant of an Office to Thomas Knivâ—t to examine his Majesties Auditors and Clerks of the Pipe c. Resolved by the Court to be against Law for it belongs to the Barons who are Judges 25 Eliz. A Grant of an Office to Thomas Lichfield to examine all Deceits c. of the Queens Officers for 8 years Resolved to be void Sub-poena's in Chancery belonged antiently to the Six Clerks Queen Elizabeth granted the same to a particular man Affidavits Filing and keeping belonged to the Register King James granted them to a particular man So the erecting and putting down Innes did belong to the Justice of Peace the same King granted it to a particular man So likewise the taking of Depositions c. The Office of Alneger granted by the King to Simon Darlington and the Fees limited The Drawing Ingrossing and Writing all Licences and Pardons granted to Edward Bacon with former Fees and a Restraint to all others The Spa Office granted to Thomas George and others during life with the Fee of 2 s. and a restraint to others The Office of making and Registring all manner of Assurances and Policies c. granted to Richard Gandler Gent. with such Fees as the Lord Mayor and others should rate and a Restraint to others c. The Office of writing Tallies and Counter-Tallies granted to Sir Vincent Skinner The Office of ingrossing Patents to the Great Seal with encrease of Fees granted to Sir Richard Young and Mr. Pye Sed de hoc quaere Sir Stephen Proctor's Case In an Information in the Star-Chamber against Stephen Proctor Berkenhead and others for Scandall and Conspiracy against the Earl of Northampton and the Lord Wooton At the Hearing of the Case were present eight Lords viz. the Chief Baron the two Chief Justices two Bishops one Baron Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Chancellor And the three Chief Justices and the Temporal Baron condemned Sir Stephen Proctor and fined and imprisoned him But the Lord Chancellor the two Bishops and the Chancellor of the Exchequer acquiâ—ted him And the Question was if Sir Stephen Proctor shall be condemned or acquitted And the matter was referred to the two Chief Justices calling to their assistance the Kings Learned Councel And first they Resolved That this Question must be determined by the Presidents of the Court of Star-Chamber that Court being against the Rule and Order of all Courts For in all other Courts if the Justices are equally divided no Judgment can be given So also is it in the Parliament and therefore this course must be warranted by the Custom of the Court. And as to that two Presidents onely were produced viz. One in Hillary Term 39 Eliz. Gibson Plaintiff and Griffith and others Defendants for a Ryot where at Hearing 8 being present 4 gave Judgment that the Defendants were guilty and 4 â— contra and no Sentence of Condemnation was ever entred because the Lord Chancellor was one of the 4 that acquitted them The other was in Hillary 45 Eliz. in an Information against Katherine and others for Forging a Will c. where 4 finding the Defendants guilty of Forgery and 4 onely of Misdemeanour whereof the Lord Chancellor was one Sentence was entred according to the Chancellors Voyce and no other President could be found in this Case as I reported this Term. Concerning Benevolence Note The Exaction under the good Name of Benevolence began thus When King Edw. the 4th had a Subsidy granted him by Parl. in the 12th year of his Reign because he could have no more by Parl and with a Parl. he could not have a Subsidy he invented this Devise wherein observe 3 Things 1. The Cause 2. The Invention 3. The Success 1. The Duke of Burgundy who marryed Edw. the 4th Sister sollicited the King to joyn in War with him against the French King whereto he easily consented to be revenged of him for aiding the Earl of Warwick c. And this was the cause 2. The Invention was The King called before him several times many of his wealthiest Subjects to declare to them his Necessity and Purpose to levy War and demanded of each of them a Sum of Money which by the King 's extraordinary courtesie to them they very freely yielded to Amongst the rest there was a Rich Widow of whom the King merily asked what she would give him for maintenance of his Wars By my Faith quoth she for your lovely Countenance sake you shall have 20 l. which being more than the King expected he thanked her and vouchsafed to kiss her Upon which she presently swore he should have 20 l. more 3. The Success was That where the King called this a Benevolence yet many of the People did much grudge at it and called it a Malevolince Primo Ed. 5. The Duke of Buckingham in Guild-Hall London among other Things inveighed in his Speech against this Taxation and 1 R. 3. c. 2 a Statute is made against it 6 H. 7. The King declaring in Parl that he had just cause of War against the French King desired a Benevolence according to the Example of Edw. 4. and publish'd That he would by their open Hands measure their
Justices That forasmuch as no Corruption and Circumvention was proved in any of the Parties of which they may be Indicted at the Suit of the King or punished in this Court that the Fine shall stand And it was not apparent to the Commissioners he was within Age seeing he wanted but six Weeks but if they had known it it had been a Misdemeanour in them And for this in this Court Mich. 24. 25 Elliz. 15. Between William Cavendish and Anne his Wife one of the Co-Heirs of Henry Knightly against Robert Worsley and Katharine another Co-Heir and Trafford and others Defendants The Case was That Robert Worsely and Katharine his Wife being within Age acknowledged a Note of a Fine before Trafford and another of the Defendants by Dedimus Potestatem And by the Decree the Commissioners knew Katharine was within Age and therefore every one of them was Fined but the Fine stands Mich. 38 and 39 Eliz. In this Court one Alexander Gilderbrand seized of Lands in Windham in the County of Norfolk in Fee one Hubbard procured one Roger to take upon him the Name of Alexander Gilderbrand who was then beyond Sea to acknowledge a Fine to the said Hubbard of the said Lands and they were Fined in this Court and the Lands ordered to be re-assured to Alexander on pain of a greater Fine But the Fine was not drawn off the File nor Damages awarded to the party grieved Mich. 12 Jac. Regis Mansfield's Case 23 Eliz. In the Court of Wards the Case was this Henry Bushly seized in Fee of Lands in Northmims in the County of Hartford by his Will in writing demised the said Lands to Henry Bushly his Son in Tail the remainder to William Bushly And because his Son was within Age he demised the Education of him to Thomas Harrison whom he made his Executor Afterward it hapned that Henry the Son became a deformed Cripple and proved an Ideot a Nativitate which Ideot by the practice of Nichols and others was ravished from his Guardian and carryed upon mens shoulders to an unknown place and there kept in secret till he had acknowledged a Fine of his Lands to one Bothome before Justice Southcot 9 Eliz. and by Indenture the use of the Fine was declared to be to the use of the Cognizee and his Heirs which Bothome 12 Eliz. conveyd the said Land to one Henry Mansfield And 22 Eliz. the said Henry Bushly the Son was by Inquisition found an Ideot a Nativitate And upon this 33 Eliz. the Court of Wards took order for possession of the Lands And it was moved That though the Fine binds the Ideot yet the Indentures are not sufficient to direct the Uses But it war Resolved That forasmuch as he was enabled by the Fine as to the Principle he shall not be disabled to limit the Uses which are but as accessory The same is the Law of an Infant and a Feme-Court And the said Mansfield brought an Action of Trespass in the Common-Pleas against one Trott Farmer of the said Lands and the Issue was tryed at the Bar and the Deformed Ideot brought out of the Court of Wards to be shewn to the Judges of the Common-Pleas and to the Jurors And the Judges hearing that Mansfields Title was under the Fine levyed by that Ideot the Lord Dyâ—r and Court caused a Juror by consent to be withdrawn and the Lord Dyer said That the Judge who took the Fine was never worthy to take another yet notwithstanding all the Fine stood good Mich. 12 Jac. Regis Warcombe and Carrel's Case 20 Octob. 6 Eliz. In the Star Chamber the Case was Edward Carrel an Apprentice of the Laws for a great sum of money bought the Wardship of Joan the Daughter and Heir of Warcomb in the County of Hereford and marryed her to Edw. Carâ—el his youngest Son And after Hill 5 Eliz. the said Joan fell sick and being of the Age of 19 years and having no Issue Edward her Husband perswaded her to acknowledge a Fine of her Inheritance by which should be conveyed an Estate to the Husband and Wife in Tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Wife and Cognizance was taken by Ded. Potest directed to Sir Thomas Sanders and one Châ—snel of Grays-Inne before Easter divers Judges being here who might have examined her and on Friday in Easter Week she dyed but the Fine l'argent du Reigne was entred as of the last Term viz. Hâ—llary Term 4 days before the Wives death The Original Writ of Covenant bore Test 15 Jan. ret Crastin Pur. and the Ded. Potest 18 Jan. And James Warcombe Cosin and Heir of Joan complained by Bill against Edw. Carrel for getting the said Fine by indirect Practâ—ces and thereupon the Sentence of the Court was as followeth This day a right honourable Assembly being in this Court the matter depending in the same between James Warcombe Esque Plaintiff and Edw. Carrel of London Gent. Defendanâ— as well concerning the validity of a Fine levyed by the said Edward and Joan his wife which â—oan as the Plaintiff alleâ—dges was under age at the time of the Fâ—â—â— levyed and also for certain undue means committed by the said Edw. Carrel in the suing out and getting the said Fine and upon hearing all that could be alleadged on both parts the said Fine was by the Opinion of the whole Conrt adjudged good and effectual in Law And also no fault judged to be in the said Edward Carrel in suing out the said Fine but that the sâ—me was sued out in duâ— form and order of the Laws of this Realmâ— and this is within the Rule Facta tenent multa quae fieri prohibentur And as Carrel was not punished though he knew his Wife within Age so nor Hungate shall be punished though she knew her Son so and the rather by reason of that antient Verse Iâ—ges Communes sinescit Faemina iles M Clericus â—t Cultor Judix sibi parcet et ultor And by Sentence all were dismissed c. Among the Records in â—he Treasury Inter placita c. de Term. Sanct. Mich. 42 Ed. 3. Rot. 27. â— Cornubiâ— Helena filia Hugonis Alloâ— brought an Appeal of Robbery against I awâ—ence Boskosleak Rich. Câ—horta Jo. Gilmin and Joan his Wife and others and the Defendants plead not guilty and were found not guilty Nec unquamse subtraxerunte Iden praedictus Laurentius omnes alii c. cant inde quieti El praedicta Elena pro falso appello suo committitur c. et super hoc praed Laurentius alii petunt juxta forman Stat. quod Juâ—atores inquirant quae damna c. Et super hoc quaesitum est à praefatis Juratoribus c. Quidicunt quod praed Laurentius sustinuit ad valentiam 10 l. c. et sic singulatim de caeteris c. dicunt etiam quod Helena praed non est sufficient c. et quod Johannes Riddel sen Jo. Riddel jun. c. abettaverunt praed
the Law behead his Wives for Treason for judicandum est legibus non exemplis Tâ—iâ— 9 Jacob. Regis In this Term I moved the Justices in Sergeants Inne in Fleetstreet upon the Stat. 27 Jac. cap. 6. If the Justices of Peace may make a special Warrant to Constables c. to have the bodies of parties who are to take the Oath according to the Statute before them And it was Resolved by all unâ voce that they may and that for two Reasons 1. When the Statute gave power to Justices of the Peace to require any persons c. to take the Oath the Law implicite gave power to make a Warrant to have the body for Quando lex aliquid alicui concedit conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest 2. It is against the Offices of the Justices and the Authority given them by that Statute that they shall go and seek the parties Then I moved if in such case the Constables may break the Houses of the Parties named in their Warrants and it seemed to Us all that they cannot because they are not Offenders till they refuse to take the Oath before them or commit some Contempt to the King Note If the person be fugitive in another County he evades the Statute for the present but he may be indicted for Recusancy and the Indictment be removed into the Kings-Bench and they may make Process against them into any County of England Also if they are in their Houses the Door being shut c. they may be indicted before the Justices of Assize or Quarter-Sâ—ssions and then after a Venire Facias c. by force of a Capias their Houses may be broken by the Sheriff 10 Eliz. cap. 2. to which the 23 Eliz. refers Memorandum Hill 9 Jac. All the Justices of England by the Kings Command were assembled to consider of these two Statutes And in the beginning of this Term they were recited and debated and after good consideration and Conference together It was Resolved by all That if one be indicted for Recusancy the Court may proceed by Process upon the Stat. 23 Eliz. or by Proclamation according to 28 Eliz. And that the Process upon the Indictment and Venire Facias and Capias c. and upon the Capias the Sheriff upon Request made to open the Door as in Seymans Case and when by the Sheriff brought into Court he may upon refusal of taking his Oath be generally indicted c. But the Justices upon the second day of Conference did not speak to the other Point And this Resolution being reported to the Lords of the Councel aâ— Whitehall all the Judges being present 7 Feb. Hill 9 Jacob. Regis We were desired to put our Resolution into Writing I answered The Judges never used so to do But if the Attorney or Sollicitor came to us we will deliver our Opinions to them ore tenus but not in Writing At thâ— third day upon the Conference in this Term it seemed upon the Statute 3 Jac. If Justices of Peace upon Refusal before them commit any person to Gaol with Bayâ— and mention in their Warrant the Tender and Refusal then the Oath ought to be tendred again But if the Mittimus do not comprehend the Tender and Refusal then they may be generally indicted as upon Refusal in â—pon Court And it was Resolved That the major number of Justices of Peace who commit the Parties have Election to commit to the next Assizes or the next Sâ—ssions And observe that two Justices whereof one of the Quorum by the Stat. 7 Jac. may commit any person above the Age of 18. and under the Degree of Nobility altâ—ough he be not indicted or convict And it was Resolved by all That if the Indictment be commenced upon the Stat. 3 Jac. upon Refusal in open Court then the Indictment may be short and general c. Not so if the Indictment be upon the Commitment made by two Justices of the Peace This is good of any person whatsoever Mich. 10 Jac. Regis The Earl of Northampton's Case 1. The Attorney-General informed against Thomas Goodrick Gent. Sir Richard Cox Kt. Henry Vernon Gent. Henry Minors Thomas Lake Gent. and James Ingrum Merchant ore tâ—nus in the Star-Chamber and charged Goodrick that he had spoken and published of the E. of Northampton a Peer of the Realm c. divers false and horrible Scandals scil That more Jesuits Papists c. have come into England since the Earl of Northampton was Guardian of the Cinque-Ports then before 2. That the said Earl had writ a Book openly against Garnet c. but secretly had writ a Letter to Bellarmine intimating that he writ the said Book ad placandum regem sive ad faciendum populum and requested that his Book â—ight not be answered and that the Archbishop of Canterbury had told it the King and that the said Goodrick told it to one Deusbery who acquainted the Earl with it Goodrick being examined vouches Sir Richard Cox for Author Sir Richard Cox vouched the said Vernon Vernon cited Lake Lake that he heard it from Sergeant Nichols Nichols said one Speaket related it to him and that he heard it from James Ingrum and James Ingrum said that in October he heard the said words of two English Fugitives at Ligorn but never published them till the Earl of Salisbury's death in May last And all the Defendants confâ—ssed at Bar all that they were charged with and at the Hearing of this Case were 11 Judges Fleming being absenâ— propter aegritudinem And so it was Resolved That the publishing of false Rumours concerning the King or the Peers was in some Cases punishable by the Common-Law But of this were divers Opinions 1. And first as to Rumors themselves 1. They ought to be fase and horrible 2. Such of which Discord may arise betwixt the King and his People c. West 2. c. 24. 2 R. 2. cap. 53. 3. The Subversion and Destruction of the Realm ibidem 2. As to Persons they declared to be Prelates Dukes Earls Barons c. Justice of the one Bench or other or any great Officers c. 2 R. 2. c. 5. And the King is contained within West 1. c. 34. as appears in Dyer 5 Mary 155. 3. As to the third Point it was Resolved That if one hear such false and horrible Rumors it is not lawful to relate them to others And this appears by the Stat. viz. That the Party shall be imprisoned until he find out the party who spoke them Which proves it was an Offence else he should not be punish'd by Fine and Imprisonment It was also Resolved That the Offenders at the Bar if against them the Proceedings had been by Indictment upon these Statutes no Judgment could be had against them that they should be imprisoned till they found their Author for Goodrick did not relate to Deusbery that he heard from Sir Richard Cox but he related the same as of himself
all his Right Estate c. The Plaintiff surjoyneth and saith that the said sum of 5 l. 6 s. 8 d. c. was not rationabilis finis as the said Thomas Bradley above hath alleadged c. Upon which the Defendant doth demur in Law c. And in this Case these Points were Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Walmesly Warberton Daniel and Foster Justices 1. If the Fine had been reasonable yet the Lords ought to have set a certain time and place when the same should be paid because it stands â—â—on the point of Forfeiture As if a man assures Lands to one and his Heirs upon condition to pay to the Bargainee and his Heirs 10 l. at such a place or that he and his heirs shall re-enter there because no time is limited the Bargainor ought to give notice to the Bargainee c. when he will tender the money and he cannot tender it when he pleaseth and with this agrees 19 Eliz. Dyer 244. So in the Case at the Bar the Copyholder is not bound to carry his Fine alwayes with him c. And though that the Rejoynder is that the Plaintift refused to pay the Fine so he might well do when the Request is not lawful or reasonable And he that is to pay a great Fine as 100 l. or more it is not reasonable that he carry it always with him And the Copyholder was not bound to do it because the Fine was incertain and arbitrable as was Resolved in Hulbarts Case in the 4th Part of my Reports among the Copy-hold Cases 2. It was Resolved That though the Fine be uncertain and arbitrable yet it ought to be secundum arbitrium boni viri and it ought to be reasonable because Excessus in re qualibet jure reprobatur communi for the Common-Law forbids any excessive Distress as appears 41 Ed. 3. 26. And this doth appear to be the Common-Law for the Statute of Articuli super Chartas extends onely for a grievous Distress taken for the Kings Debt See F. N. B. 147. a. and 27 Ass 51. 28 Ass 50. 11 H. 4. 2. and 8 H. 4. 16. c. And so if an excessive Amerciament be imposed in any Couâ—t-Baron or other Court not of Record the Party shall have Moderata mis ericordia And Magna Charta is but an Affirmance of the Common-Law in this Point See F. N. B. 75. And the Common-Law gives an Assize of Sovient Distress and multiplication of Distress found which is Excess And with this agrees 27 Ass 50 51. F. N. B. 178 b. And if Tenant in Dower hath Tenants at Will that are rich and makes them poor by excessive Tallages and Fines this is wast F. N. B. 61. b. 16 H. 3. Wast 135. and 16 H. 7. Vide also the Register Judicial fol. 25. B. Waste lyeth in Exulando Henricum Hermanum c. Villeynes Quorum quilibet tenet unum messuagium unam Virgat terrae in Villenagio in Villa praed c. By all which it appears the Common-Law forbids excessive oppressing of Villains c. So in the Case at Bar though the Fine is uncertain yet it ought to be reasonable and so it appears by the Custome alleadged by the Defendant See Hubbard's Case before in the 4th Part of my Reports And when reasonableness concerning a Fine is in question the same shall be determined by the Court in which the Action depend 21 H. 6. 30. 22 Ed. 4 27. and 50 29 H. 8. 32. c. 3. It was Resolved That the Fine in the Case at the Bar was unreasonable being for the admittance of a Copy-holder in Fee-simple upon a Surrender made for this is not like a voluntary Grant c. for there Arbitrio Domini res estimari debet But when the Lord is compellable to admit him to whose use the Surrender is And when Câ—stuy que use is admitted he shall be in by him who made the Surrender and the Lord is but an Instrument to present the same 4. It was Resolved That the Surjoinder is no more than what the Law saith And for the Causes aforesaid Judgment was given for the Plaintiff And Coke Chief Justice said in this Case That if the Court of Admiralty amerce the Defendant excessively at discretion as seems by 19 H. 6. 7. the same shall not bind the Party and be it excessive or not it shall be determined in the Court where the Action shall be brought And a Writ of Account against a Bayliff or Guardian Quod reddat â—i rationabilem compâ—tum c. for the Law requires Reason and no excuse or extremity in any thing Mich. 6 Jac. Regis in the Common-Pleas Porter and Rochester's Case This Term Lewis and Rochester who dwelt in Essex in the Diocess of London were sued for subtraction of Tythes growing in B. in the said County of Essex by Porter in the Court of the Arches of the B. of Canterbury in London And the Case was The Archbishop of Canterbury â—ath a peculiar Jurisdiction of 14 Parishes called a Deanry exempt from the Authority of the Bishop of London whereof the Parish of St. Mary de Arcubus is the chief And the Court is called the Arches because it is holden there And a great Question was moved If in the said Court of Arches holden in London he might cite any dwelling in Essex for substraction of Tythes growing in Essex or if he be prohibited by the Statute 23 H. 8. cap. 9. which after Debate at Bar by Councel and also by Dr. Ferrard Dr. James and others in open Court and lastly by all the Justices of the Common-Pleas A Prohibition was granted to the Court of Arches And in this Case divers Points were Resolved by the Court. 1. That â—â—l Acts of Parliament made by the King Lords and Commons in Parliament are parcel of the Laws of England and therefore shall be expounded by the Judges of the Laws of England and not by the Civillians Cannonist although the Acts concern Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And in 10 H. 7. the Bishop of London caused onâ— to be imprisoned because the Plaintiff said he ought not to pay his Tythes to his Curate And the imprisoned Party brought his Action of false Imprisonment against those that arrested him by the Bishops Command and there the Matter is well argued what words are within the Statute and what words are not So upon the same Statute was Resolved in 5 Ed. 4. in Keysar's Case in the Kings Bench which see in my Book of Presidents And so the Statutes of Articuli Cleri de Prohibitione regiâ De Circuâ— spâ—cte agitis of 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. c. have alwayes been expounded by the Judges of the Common-Law as was adjudged in Wood's Case Pasch 29 Eliz. So 21 H. 8. cap. 13. See 7 Eliz. Dyâ—r 233. 15 Eliz. Dyer 251. 14 Eliz. Dyer 312. 15 Eliz. Dyâ—r 327. 18 Eliz. Dyer 352 347. 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. 2. Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Warbâ—â—ton Daniel and
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
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