levyed another Fine to all the said uses but only the Estate for 20. years to his Executors and made his wife his Executrix the wife married Sir Robert Remington It was adjudged in this case that by the second Fine the Lease for 20 years to his Executors was extinct Littletons Case 971. A seised of Lands holden in copite in consideration of a Marriage of M. his Daughter with W. L. Son of Sir John and of 1300 l paid by Sir John the Father of W. levyed a Fine of part of the Lands to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to W. and M. and the Heirs of the Body of W. upon the Body of M. the Remainder to the right Heirs of W. and the residue to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his first Son in Tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of W. with power to make a Joynture â—o his second Wife and to make Leases for Twenty one years or three Lives The marriage took effect A. took a wife and had Issue by her I. and died I. his Son and Heir within age W. died without Issue G. L. being his Brother and Heir the second wife of A. living and also M living It was upon â— Melius Inquirend found that M. was the Daughter of A. It was Resolved in this case that the Queen should have the Wardship of the third part of the whole Land during the minority of I. the Son of A. Also it was Resolved by them that although money was paid and so the consideration of the Marriage was a mixt consideration yet â—hat should not alter the Law for the duty to the Crown 1. and one Ciffias case was cited to have been so adjudged The Lord Ross and the Earl of Rutlands Case 972. H. Earl of Rutland 2 Elâ—z levyed a Fine with Proclamation to the use of himself and B. his Wife and the Heirs of his own Body and died B. married the Earl of Bedford they covenanted with Edward Earl of Rutland Son of H. Earl of Rutland to levy a Fine which Fine was levyed with Proclamation sur concâ—ssit of the said Mannors and Lands by the said Edward Earl to the said B. for Life Afterward Edward Earl of Rutland 29 Eliz. covenanted with the Lord Burâ—eigh and others to stand seised of the said Mannors to the use of himself and the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to the Heirs Males of the Body of Thomas Earl of Rutland his Grandfather Edward Earl 29 Eliz. died without Issue Male having a Daughter which was the Lady Roâ—s the Mother of the Lord Ross the plaintiff B. died the entail made by the Earl of Rutland and the discent to the Lord Ross the Plaintiff was found by Office It was Resolved by the Justices in this case That the Mannors did belong to the Plaintiff the Lord Ross as Issue in tail of Henry Earl of Rutland notwithstanding the Fine levyed by Edward Earl of Rutland because the Fine being sur concessit the same remained a Bar no longer then during the Life of B. Also they held the taking of the Fine by B. to be a surrender of her Estate but to be no discontinuance because not seised of the Tail at the time 3. Resolved the Lands should be in the King during the Minority of the Lord Ross Anno 1. Jacobi 973. It was Resolved by the Justices that Informations for the Queen alone in any Latin Court should not abate by the Demise of the Queen and so like of Informations tam pro the party quam for the Queen and so also it was of Informations in English Courts they were not discontinued by the Demise of the Queen Handall and his Wife and Browns Case in Chancery 974. The case was A. possessed of a Term for years had Issue a Son and two Daughters and by Will he devised his Term to John his Son and if he died to his two Daughters and if they died to his Wife he made his Son his whole Executor who entred claiming by the Will and after Probate he died Intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and for mony sold the Term to Brown the Defendant It was the opinion of the Justices that the Assignee of the Administrator should have the Term and not the two Daughters and Decreed in Chancery accordingly 975. Upon the cases of claims at the Coronation of the King these points were Resolved by the Justices 1. That where a Barony or a Mannor or Land holden by grand Serjeanty to do special Service at the Coronation is come to many hands by purchase there each Tenant is chargable with the whole Service but the King may appoint which of them shall do the Service and he which doth the Service shall alone have the Fee but if the Division be by Copartners there the eldest is only to do the Service and the other shall contribute to the charge and the eldâ—st shall have the Fees but if each Sister sell her part the Feoffee of the eldest shall not have the preheminence 2. Resolved where Grand Serjeanty is to be done at the Coronation by Tenure and the Lands come to an ignoble person who is unmeet to do the Service the Lord Steward may appoint a Noble or meet person to do the Service as Deputy to the Tenant of the Land 3. Resolved where Land is given to hold as to be Hostiarius Câ—merae Regis or the like In such Case the Tenants are to make their claims yet they are not to be admitted to the said Services by the Commissioners for claims or the Lord Steward but they are to be referred to the King himself their Tenure being perpetual and continuing Leigh and Helyers Case 976. A man supposing he had Title to certain Lands which were in the possession of I. S. contracted to sell them to I. D. and sealed a Lease for years to a third person to the use of I. D. with whom the contract made and the year and day long before expired Resolved it was maintenance by the Common Law but not within the Statute of 32. H. 8. Foster and Kings Case 977. A man made his Will and gave diverse Legacies and devised that the rest and residue of his Goods after his Debts and Legacies paid to his wife and after in the same Will he devised that his Overseers should enter into the Lands and cut down so much of the Woods as would suffice to pay his Debts Quere in this case if the Debts and Legacies shall be paid of the Woods if the Goods be not sufficient to pay them Skipwiths Case 978. Tenant in tail and he in the Reversion bargaineth and sells the Lands to the King and before enrollment Tenant in tail suffers a common Recovery Quere if the Issue in tail be barred by the Recovery not Resolved Lucas Case 979 Resolved in this case that before the Statute of 13 R. 2â— Murder was pardonable by the name of Felony but since that Statute the
sold Lands to B. and C. by Deed enrolled they suffered a Recovery to the use of A. and his Wife who was the Daughter of B. for her Joynture the Remainder over in Tail to their Issues A. dyed his Heirs within age Resolved in this Case it was an Assurance by A. himself for the advancement of his Wife and her Issues within the Statute of 34 H. 8. and the Heir of A. should be in Ward for the third part of the Land The Earl of Bedfords Case 954. The Case was this Francis Earl of Bedford made a Feoffment in Fee of the Mannor of D. to the L. St. John and others to the use of himself for 40. years and after to the use of John his second Son and the Heirs males of his body and for want of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Afterward Edward Lord Russell Heir apparent of the Earl dyed without Issue male of his body having issue Eliz. and Anne Daughters Afterward Francis by Indenture between him and I. S. and others for the advancement of the Heirs males of the body of the said Earl and the establishing of his Mannors in his blood Covenanted to stand seised of the said Mannor to the use of himself for life and after his decease to the use of Francis Lord Russell his youngest Son and the Heirs males of his his body with divers Remainders over Afterwards Francis Lord Russell dyed having Issue Edward Lord Russell and after dyed and if the Daughters of the said John Lord Russell or the Earl of Bedford should have the Mannor of D. was the Question in the Court of Wards It was Resolved the Daughters should not have the said Mannor but the Earl because there was no right Heir to take as purchasor when the estate Tail was determined by the death of John Lord Russell without Issue male for the Remainder to the right Heirs cannot be preserved by the mean estate for years for it ought to be a Freehold at least which ought to preserve such a Remainder till there be one to take it by the name of a purchasor as right Heir Andrews and Sheffields Case 955. A. hath Issue three Sons B. C. and D. and seised of Lands in P. by Will deviseth them in this manner viz. I will that all my Lands in P. shall Remain after the death of my Wife to C. my Son and his Heirs and if it fortune that D. liveth untill the said Lands come to C. then I will that C pay to D. 10 l. every year as long as D. liveth A. dyeth C. commeth to the Lands and payeth the Rent hath Issue and dieth It was Resolved that in this Case the devise did enure as a Rent-seck for the life of D. and the Lands in the hands of the Heir or Assignes of C. should be chargeable with the same Wrotesleys Case 956. A. seised in Fee of the Mannors of N. and W. of the Mannor of D. in Tail Covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his Wife and to his own right Heirs Afterward he dyed seised of these Mannors and also sole seised of other Lands in Fee The Mannor of D. was holden in Capite It was found that A. dyed his Heirs within age the body and Lands of the Mannor of D. was committed to I. S. and I. D. the committee ousted the Wife of D. It was Resolved that the Wife of A. should have recompence to the value of the said Mannor of D. out of the other Lands of the Heir of which his Ancestors dyed seised Boydell and Walthalls Case 957. The Case was A. seised of Land in Fee an Indenture was made purporting a Feoffment to B. and C. with Waranty There was another Indenture bearing date the same day with the first between the Feoffees and the Feoffor whereby the Feoffer reciting the former Feoffment to them granted that immedâ—atly after the said Feoffees and their Heirs and Assignes have taken and received the profits of the Lands during the Terme of 100 years then it should be Lawfull for A. his Heirs and Assignes to reenter and have the said Lands in their first right and Title It was Resolved by the Justices in this Case that the Intent upon the Livery was that the Feoffor should have the Lands after the 100. years quit possession of the Feoffees and that the use did immediately arise to the Heirs of the Feoffor as soon as the Lands had been enjoyed for 100. years and that by the Statute of 27 H. 8. the Heir of the Feoffor might enter The Earl of Rutlands Case 958. Ed. Earl of R. seised in Fee of and in the Reversion or Remainder of the Mannor of E. expectant upon the death of B. Countesse of B. who held the same for life for the augmentation of the Joynture of I. his Wife Covenanted 21 Eliz. with I. S. and I. D. before the last day of Trinity Term next following by Fine or other assurance to assure the Reversion or Remainder of the said Mannors to them and their Heirs and the parties thereof seised should stand seised of and in the Reversion and Remainder of the said Mannor to the use of the said Earl and the said I. his Wife and the Heirs of the said Earl for ever Afterwards in the same year by another Indenture made between the said Earl the Lord Treasurer and the said I. S. and others of the other part for the advancement of him who should succeed him in the Earldom and the advancement of the Heirs male of T. late Earl of R. his Grandfather to convey the Castle and Honor of B. and the said Mannor of E. amongst other Lands to the said Lord Treasurer and others to the use of the said Earl and the Heirs males of his body and for want of such Issue to the Heirs males of Tho. his Grandfather with divers Remainders over and by the last Indenture further Covenanted that if the said Earl before the Feast of our Lady next should not sufficiently convey all the said Honors Mannors c. in the last Indenture in manner and forme as therein is mentioned that then he and all other persons seised should from thenceforth stand and be seised to the uses in the last Indenture No Fine was levyed of the Mannor of E. before the end of Trinity Term but in Mick Term a Fine was levyed of the said Mannor within the time limited in the last Indenture and another Fine was levyed of other Land but not of the Mannor of E. and after the Earl died The Quest on in this case only was whether I. the wife of the said Earl might during the Life of B. Countess of B trayerse the Office found after the death of the Earl viz. That the Fine levyed of the Mannor of E. was not to the uses limited in the latter Indenture Resolved that the Office was insufficient for the Incertainty where it found the Earl was seised of the Reversion
and after to the use of C. in tail and after to D. in tail and after to the right Heirs of A. and of the Mannor of B. immediately after he the said A. should die without Issue of his Body to the use of E. daughter of I. for her Life and afterwards to D in tail and afterwards to C. in tail and to the right Heirs of A. And of the moiety of the Mannor of W. and other the Premises of which no use was before declared to the use of the said A. and such Heirs of his Body and after to the use of the said E for Life the remainder to D. in tail the remainder to C. in tail the Remainder to his right Heirs Provided That if at any time after he should be minded to revoke the said Indenture or any use or estates therein contained or to raise and create any other use or Estate and should declare the same to any person c. in the presence of two Witnesses then the Remainders and all other Estates in the said Indenture to be void and the Conusees of the Fine to stand seised to the use of the said A. and his Heirs Afterwards A. reciting the former Indenture and the Proviso in consideration of a Marâ—iage between I. D. and the said E. did declare to I. N. in the presence of two Witnesses that he did revoke and make void the former Deed and every Article therein concerning the Mannor of B. but as touching the Mannor of M that the same should stand in force and by the last Indenture did covenant with I. D. and E. his Wife that the Conusees of the Fine c. should stand seised of the Mannor of B. and the moiety of the Mannor of V. to the use of the said I. D. and E. his Wife for their Lives and after to the Issue of the Body of the said I. D. and E. as should be then eldest living at the death of the Survivors of them for the Life of such Issue and after to the use of the said A. and of such the Heirs of his Body as he should after beget on the body of I. his Wife or on the Body of any other woman which he should marry and after to â— in tail and after to C. in tail the Remainder to the right Heirs of A. It was found that E. was the Daughter of I. but born before her marriage with A. A and I. his Wife died and found he married no other woman and that F. was Son and Heir of A. and was of full age The Questions in this long case were these 1. Whether all the use and agreements in the first Indenture as to the Mannors of B. and V. were revoked by the second Indenture 2. Whether the new uses limited by the second Indenture and such Revocation of the former uses were effectual to convey any Estate to I. D. and E his Wiâ—e with the Remainder over to take away the immediate discent from the Heir at Law The case was argued in B. R. and the Justices were divided in their opinions and afterwards it was adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber but whether there Resolved or not Quaere Sir Arthur Goâ—ges Case 967. The case was the Lord Viscount Brindon was seised of Lands holden of the Queen in capite he had Issue Douglasse his Daughter and Heir who was married to Sir Arthur Gorge and she by him had Issue Ambrosia Gorge Sir Arthur married his Daughter Ambrosia when she was above the age of eight years and before she was of the age of nine years to Francis Gorge Son and Heir of Sir Thomas Gorge who died before Ambrosia accomplished her age of eleven years The Question upon the whole matter was if the Wardship of the body of Ambâ—osia did belong to the Queen or not It was Resolved in this case amongst other points that the Queen should have the Wardship in regard the Marriage was not a compleat Marriage because the Husband died before the years of consent of Ambrosia Bartons Case 968. A seised of the Mannâ—rs of O. and R. and of Lands called F. in the counry of Lanc. holden in capite 16 Octob. 19 Eliz made a Writing purporting that he did give the said Mannors and Lands to B. C. D. and E. and their Heirs to the several uses and under the agreements contained in a Schedule to the said Deed annexed and by the Schedule he declared the uses to be to himself for Life without Impeachment of wast and afterwards of part of the Lands to M. his Wife for her life and then to the â—ight Heirs of A. with a Proviso that if at any time after his Life during the Life of the said M. the Heirs of â—he said A. or any claiming under his Heirs trouble or disturb the said M. that then the said B. and other the parties should stand seised of the Lands in which she should be disturbed to the use of the said M. and her Heirs for ever Afterwards the said A. made a Lease of the said Mannors and Lands to I. S. for 100 years to begin after the death of M. A. died M entred The Heir of A after his death entred and disturbed M. contrary to the Pâ—oviso it was Resolved by the Justices in this case that the future use was checked by the Lease although it was but interesse termini and that the use to M. and her Heirs could not rise upon her dusturbance but that it was destroyed for ever Vernons Case 969. Margaret Winter Widow the late wife of Henry Vernon seised of Lands in Fee holden in capite enfeoffed thereof I. S. and others to the use of herself for Life and after to B. her younger Son and the Heirs of his body with divers Remainders over with a Proviso if she should be minded to alter the uses and signâ—fie the same under her hand and Seal to her Feoffâ—es and tender to them 10 l. that then all the uses in the Indenture should be voâ—d and hâ—r Feâ—ffees should stand seâ—sed to sâ—ch new uses as should be limited by the said M. M. according â—o the Proviso signified her intent and tendred 10 l. to her Feoffees and then declared that her said Feoffees should stand seised thereof to the use of G. W. for Life the Remainder to the said M. for Life the Remainder to H. Vernon her Son and the Heirs of his Body Henry Vernon died having Issue a Daughter within age and after M. W. died It was holden clearly in the Court of Wards that because there is no mention of any entry by the eldest Son and Heir that the Estate which Henry Vernon had in Tail was not avoided and so by consequence the Daughter of Heary Vernon should be in Ward Sir Robert Remington and Savages Case 970. A levyed a Fine of Lands to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to his Executors for 20. years the Remainder to his Son in tail with diverse Remainders over Afterwards he
630 Coles case 631 Collins and Willies case 637 Canes case 645 The Lord Cromwel and Andrews case 648 Clark and Hardwicks case 662 Coulter and Irelands case 664 Chambers Hanbâ—â—ges case 665 Cartwright and Dalesworths case 685 Corbens case 690 Collins and Hardings case 691 Cooper and Langworths case 692 The Countess of Warwicks case 735 Creswel and Holmes case 759 Chowley and Humbles case 757 Carter and Cleypales case 760 Clerk and Dayes case 761 Corbet and Corbets case 789 Costard and Wingates case 794 Crowther and Fryâ—rs case 800 The Countess of Warwick and Atwoods case 810 Sir Gervase Clifton and the Chancellors case 811 Carews case 819 Cotton and Wales case 828 Chard and Wyalis case 830 Cornwalls case 869 Callard and Callards case 901 Chamberlain Nichols case 908 Cundey and Edgcomoâ— case 919 Creswells case 962 Combes case 996 The Countess of Rutlands case 1006 Clerks case 1008 Carpenter and Collins case 1010 Closes case 1018 Croft and Evets case 1024 Cole and Moors case 1031 The Counâ—ess of Cumberlands case 137 Crew and Vernons case 1044 Case of the King and Howard 1049 Case of the Sheriffs of Bristol 1058 Curtys case 1081 Caries and Franklyns case 1086 Calimore and Johasons case 1103 Cowaden and Clerks case 1115 Cooper and Andrews case 1120 Cuddington and â—iâ—kings case 1121 Coxes case 1135 Chancellor and Schollars of Oxon B. of Norw case 1148 Comyn and Brandlyns case 1150 Case of the Coheirs of Sir William Rider 1156 Chaworth and Phillips case 1162 Colt and the Bishop of Coventry and Litchfields case 1194 Collier and Colliers case 1197 Sir Rich. Champernoâ— and Hills case 1224 D. LOrd Darcys case 206 Duland and Clâ—ypoles case 248 Dolman and Bishop of Salisburies case 250 Diggs case 264 Dorrel and Tyns case 280 Dawbney and Goorâ—s case 319 Dolman and Vavasors case 325 Sir Wolstan Dixies case 336 Margery Davies case 368 Degoze and Rowes case 426 Dean and Canons of St. Pauls case 454 Downbal and Catesâ—yes case 460 Dell and Higdens case 465 Dorley and Woods case 467 Dudley and Knights case 504 The Lord de la Ware and Palmers case 531 Doggerell and Pâ—kâ—s case 539 The L. Darcies case 548 Dover and Stratfields case 634 Davy Matthew and Binfields case 663 Digby and Vernons case 678 Dâ—ove and Shores case 606 Druries case 728 Davenant and Hâ—dris case 755 Deacon and Marshes case 762 Diggs case 793 Dalaoâ— and Hamonds case 803 Derick and Keâ—ys case 832 Dogett and Vowells case 838 Darcy and Allens case 870 Dâ—nny and Cores case 874 Dâ—kâ—â—â—on and Shâ—res case 942 Dâ—owâ—s case 960 Dâ—gbiâ—s case 961 Day and Peakâ—vels case 1007 Doyly and Drâ—kes case 1013 Dean and Chapter of Windsor and Pâ—nvins case 10â—8 Sir Tho. Dawbridgcourt and Sir Anthony Ashleys case 1043 Damus's case 1048 Dâ—ytons case 1068 Don Diego Serviente de Acune and Giffords case 1090 Dâ—gby and Fitzherberts case 1142 Day and Savages case 1144 Dawks and Hills case 1167 Davison and Bâ—â—kers case 1178 Dembyn and Bâ—awns câ—se 1181 Dibley and Dâ—ares case 1193 Day and Peckvells case 1225 Dorringtons case 1231 E. EAton Câ—lledge case 50 Earl of Worcest case 79 Eyres case 146 Evans case 229 Earl of Huntingdon and Lord Mouâ—tjoys case 293 Elmer and Gâ—alâ—s case 383 Ewer and â—shâ—oâ—s case 408 Sir Fran Engâ—efields case 433 Earl of Northumberlands case 434 Evingâ—on Brimstons case 461 Eatons case 462 Ewâ—r and Hâ—ydons case 468 Evesque of â—orcest case 469 East and Hardings case 485 Easton and Newmans case 598 Earl of Lâ—ncoln and Fishâ—â—s case 644 Eâ—ston and Bâ—eâ—s case 699 Egertons case 708 Evesque of Norwiches case 709 Evans and Williams case 834 Ewer and Moiles case 859 Edmunds and Bufkâ—ns case 928 English and Bowyers case 944 The Earl of Bedfords case 954 The Earl of Rutlands case 958 Ellis and Warnes case 981 Evesque of Sarums case 1032 Edwards and Dentons case 1054 Eman and Mouldsworths case 1105 The Earl of Cumberland and the Countess of Cumberlands case 1119 Eyre and Banisters case 1191 F. FRances case 12 Sir Godfrey Fuliambs case 14 Felton and Capells case 170 Fox and Colliers case 240 Foreman and Bobhams case 323 Fanshaws case 351 Fisher and Boys case 398 Fenwick and Mâ—tfords case 417 Sir Moile Finch and Throgmortons case 418 Fulwood and Wards case 428 Sir Moile Finch and Hen. Finches case 437 Fitzherberts case 439 Fuller and Fullers case 453 Fennor and Plasketts case 561 Ford and Glanvils case 618 Fisher and Smiths case 737 Foxley and Ansleys case 745 Ford and Holâ—orns case 773 Fort and Wards case 866 Fitzwilliams case 887 Freshwater and Rois case 891 Falsowe and Thornies case 918 Fishers case 949 Forsters case 951 Framptons case 966 Forster and Kings case 977 Forster and Browns case 994 Ford and Hoskins case 1071 Fryer and Gildrings case 1108 Forster and Jacksons case 1111 Fryer and Bestneys case 1200 Forster and Peacocks case 1202 G. GOwer and Andrews case 55 Gascon and Whatleys case 129 Griffiths case 178 Stephens and Clerks case 112 Grocooke and Whites case 294 Griffiths case 374 Sir Tho. Gorges case 377 Gorges case 393 Lady Greshams case 395 Green and Edwards case 419 Germin and Ascotts case 472 Goodwin and Ishams case 474 Grammiuham and Ewres case 492 Gawen and Ludlows case 514 Gregory and Blasfields case 542 Green and Bufkyns case 556 The Lady Greshams case 577 Gybon and Bowyers case 590 Gooses case 614 Grey and Willoughbies case 626 Griffin and Lawrences case 642 Garraway and Brabridges case 943 Gage and Topers case 741 Gibbons and Marltiwards case 764 Gooles and Granâ—s case 772 Gregory and Blâ—shfields case 785 Gambleton and Grastons case 807 Gawen and Rants case 813 Gellâ—brand and Habards case 820 Guy and Browns case 841 Grâ—â—ts and Rigeways case 853 Garrard and the Dean and Chapter of Rochesters case 871 Gregory and Harrisons case 878 Giddy and Heales case 915 Gomersal and Watkâ—nsons case 922 Godall and Wyatts case 939 Gervoys case 950 Georges and Stanfields case 952 Sir Arthur Gorges case 967 Griffith and Smiths case 98â— The Lord Greys case 1027 Goodricks case 1047 Goodson and Duffields case 105â— Glanviles case 1066 Gold and Deaths case 1074 Gresly and Luthers case 1110 Girryes case 1151 Guy and Sedgwâ—cks case 1154 Green and Handlies case 1213 Gresham and Lucas case 1215 H. HElior and Okâ—dens case 52 Hawâ—e and Kirkbyâ—â— case 107 Hawtree and Anger 's case 194 Howse and the Bishop of Elyes case 210 Honâ—ks and Alboroughs case 232 Harwell and Lucas case 233 Heydons case 261 Hunt and Gateleys case 283 Sir William Herberts case 287 Hyde and Newports case 315 Hill and Morses case 320 Higham and Harwoods case 344 Heyward and Bettesworths case 380 Henage and Curles case 386 Hudson and Lees case 402 Hice and Pallingtons case 420 Hulme and Jees case 427 Hunger and Freys case 440 Hoe and Tayâ—ors case 457 Hawle and Vaughns case 488 Harbin and Bartons case 491 Hide and the Dean and
the Use passeth to the Bargainee and then the Fine being levyed upon it the Bargain is irrevocable if not by Error 70. Lord and Tenant by Knights service the Tenant dyes his Heir being a Daughter within age of 14. years the Lord seizeth the VVard and after at 13. years she marryeth without the assent of the Lord It was the opinion of Wray Justice That the Lord should not have the forfeiture of the Marriage without tender but otherwise of the value of the Marriage because that de mero jure pertinet ad Dominum 71. Lessee for years hath Execution by Elegit of the Moyety of the Rent and Reversion against his Lessor the Lease being upon Condition Resolved That it is a suspension of the whole Condition during the Extent and although but the moyety of the Rent was extended yet the entire Condition was suspended and cannot be proportioned being entire 72. A man was bound in a Bond to make a sufficient Lease to the Obliger before such a day the same to be made at the Costs of the Obliger In Debt upon the Bond it was a holden a good Plea That the Plaintiff did not tender the Costs to him and if then that he was ready c. The Lord Windsors Case 73. A Precipe was brought against him It was Edwardo Domino Windsor de London Militi and because the word Militi was after the name of Dignity the VVrit abated 74. Entry sur Disseisin was brought the Writ was of an Entry in duas partes in tribus partibus dividend unius Messuagii and not in duas partes unius Messagii in tribus partibus dividend and yet adjudged good Pasch 3. Eliz. 75. Debt upon Obligation conditioned if the Obligator pay all such sums which he was Obliged to pay by his several writings Obligatory that then c. The Defendent said That there were not any writings Obligatory by which he was to pay any sum Adjudged to be no plea because it is repugnant to the Condition and he is estopped to say against the Condition 76. Wast The Case was Lease for life Covenanted to repair the houses at his proper Costs during the Terme The groundsels of the houses were rotten and the Lessee cut down trees upon the Land to repair them Resolved he might do it and it was not Wast and his justification of it good notwithstanding the Covenant which shall not exclude him from that benefit which the Law gives him 77. Debt against an Executour of an Executor the Defendant pleaded That the Executor his Testator had fully Administred and so nothing in his hands It was found that he had Assetts upon which a Fieri fac issued to the Sheriff who returned he had nor any thing adjudged a void Return and the Sheriff was amerced for if he had not goods of the Testator he should be payed of his own goods because when he pleads the first Executor had fully administred he doth not deny but Assetts remained after the death of his Testator 78. A grant was made per nomen Messuagii sive tenement It was holden by Dyer that neither a Garden nor Land do passe by the Grant but nothing but the House and Carthage Weston said the Garden should passe with the Messuage with an Averment that they have been occupied together Quere The Earl of Worcesters Case 79. Debt was recovered against the Earl and the Plantiff had an Elegit in the County of M. The Sheriff returned he had no goods nor Cattels Land nor Tenements within his County It was holden that after the year he might have a scire facias and upon that that an Elegit And it was holden that the party might divide his Execution and have several Elegits into Several Counties and to that purpose diverse Presidents were shewed by Lenard one of the Prothonotories Lady Audleys Case 80. Detinue A Woman delivered Goods to rebayl and after took Husband who after his Intermarriage released all Actions to the Baylee Adjudged the Release was good for that by the Intermarriage the Property of the Goods was in the Husband 81. In Dower The Tenant vouched the Heir of the Husband within the same County and he appeared and entred into Warranty as he who had nothing by Discent Judgement shall be given presently and the Sheriff by a special Writ shall put the Woman in Possession of all the Lands of the Tenant and that to avoid Circuit of Action betwixt the Tenant and the Vouchee Then the Question was If the Heir had nothing by Discent but Lands in tayle if they should be assigned to the Woman for her Dower It was the greater opinion she should not have Dower of the Lands intailed because the Execution for the Wife against the Vouchee is given only for Avoidance of Circuit of Action betwixt the Tenant and the Vouchee and therefore it follows That she shall not have Execution of other Lands whereof the Tenant could not have Execution against the Vouchee and the Lands intayled cannot be rendred in value 82. A Lease was made to 3. Habendum to them and the Survivor of them modo forma sequente viz. to one for Life the Remainder to another for Life the Remainder to the 3d. for Life It was holden they are not joynt Lessees by this Lease but they take by way of Remainder but if the viz had been before the Habendum or no Habendum had been then they had taken a joynt Estate notwithstanding the Limitation by the viz. because the viz. is but a declaration of the precedent Text and shall not confound the same mala est expositio quae corrumpit textum Skernes Case 83. A. by Indenture let an House to I. S. for 40. years The Lessee by the same Deed covenanted with the Lessor that he would repair the House during the Term and that it should be lawfull for the Lessor his Heirs and Assigns after the 40. years past every year during the Term to come into the House to see if the Reparations were sufficient by the Lessee his Executors or Assigns and if it should be repaired upon the view of the Lessor that then the Lessee should hold the Lease during 40. years after the first years ended I. S. granted over his Term by these words Totum interesse terminum terminos quae tunc habuit intenementis illis It was resolved in this Case That the words in the Assignment did not extend but to the first Term and therefore the possibility of the future Term did not pass but that by the Assignment there was a separation between the first Term and the possibility and by consequence the possibility determined 2ly That the want of the word Assignes did not hinder the possibility for it was a thing inherent which passed without such word But yet they held That if there had been the word Assignes yet the Assigns could not have taken the possibility 84. Debt upon Obligation The Defendant said he was to pay 20 l. at a
his Heirs A scire fac issued against the Heir and Terre Tenants who made default and Judgment was given against the Heir aswell of his own proper Land as of those which he had by discent It was said by Cook that although the Heir upon default shall be charged above his Assets but that was where a man bound him and his Heirs in the Recognizance but here the Heir should not be charged because the words of the Recognizance are no obligation against the Heir but only upon the Land and therefor he prayed contribution against the other Feoffes The Court refused to grant it and said that one purchasor shall have contribution against another but the Heir shall not have it but shall be in the same degree as his Ancestors was Bantings Case 288. In Trespas the Case was John Banting contracted himself to Agnes A. after Agnes was Maried to F. and Cohabited with him Banting sued Agnes in the Court of Audience and proved the Contracts and sentence was there pronounced that she should Marry the said Banting and Cohabit with him which she did and they had Issue Charles Banting and the Father dyed It was argued by the Civilians that the Marriage betwixt Banting and Agnes was void and that Charles was a Bastard But it was Resolved by the Justices that Charles the Issue of Banting was Legitimate and no Bastard 289. The Case was Lessee for years assigned the Terme to the Wife of the Lessor and a stranger and afterward the Lessor bargained and sold for Mony by deed Inrolled the stranger dyed the the Wife claimed to have the residue of the Terme not expired Whether by the Bargain and sale the Terme of the Wife was extinct or not was the Question it was said it was not but Contrary if the Husband had made a Feoffment in Fee with Livery Quaere the Case was not Resolved Vide Plowdens Commentary Amy Townsends Case Treshams Case 290. Tenant in Capite made gift in tail to I. S. upon condition that if he aliened that it should be Lawfull for him to enter I. S. aliened Tenant in Tale entred for the Condition broken It was adjudged That a Fine for the Alienation of the Tenant in Tail was due to the Queen and that the Queen might charge the Lands in whose hands so ever they came for this Fine and the duty was not discharged by the entry of the Tenant in Tail for the Condition broken but the Tenant of the Land was Chargeable for the same 291. Debt against an Executor for 100 l. in C. B. Afterwards Debt was brought against the same Executor for 100 l. in B. R. in which he confessed the Action and pleaded the same to the first Action and that he had fully administred all but the said 100 l. The Court inclined to be of opinion that the plea was not good but that the Executor was chargeable to the first Judgment Quaere because not Resolved 292. A. for mony sold to B. all the Butter which should be made of his Cowes in a year and when he had made Butter he sold the same to C. C. paid his money and set his mark upon the Barrells and left them in the Custody of A. and afterwards A. delivered them to B. the first vendee C. brought a Replevin and B. claimed the property in the Butter by the first sale It was said that the property of it was in C. for the first Contract betwixt A. and B. was but a Covenant and agreement that A should sell the butter when it should be made for before that he could not sell it and before the making of it there was no property in it and so no contract and the second alienation was a change of the property and so B. hath no remedy for it but his Action upon the Case against A. Quaere not Resolved The Earl of Huntington and Lord Mountjoyes Case 293. The Lord Mountjoy bargained and sold Lands by deed enrolled Proviso that it is Covenanted granted and agreed that it shall be Lawfull for I. S. who was a stranger to dig in the Lands for Mynes It was adjudged in this Case that although the word Proviso absolutely taken be a Condition yet when it is coupled with other Words subsequent It shall be construed to be a Covenant and not a Condition Crocook and Whites Case 294. Debt upon an Obligation the condition was That if the Defendant Warrant and defend an Oxgange of Land to the Plaintiff against I. S. and all others that then c. It was Resolved the word defend shall be taken and shall not imply any other sense but a defense against Lawfull Titles and not against Trespasses and this Case was put by Anderson Chief Justice If one Covenants to make a Lease of all his Lands in D. and in D. he hath aswell Copyhold Land as Freehold Land he is not by the Covenant to make a Lease of the Copyhold Land for that he cannot Lawfully Lease without License and the for the Law shall construe the Covenant to be of Lands dimiseable and not of other Lands Roberts Case 295. The Bishop of Batb and Wells granted to King E. 6. by Deed enrolled all his Farmes and Hereditaments of W. in W. in the County of S. Habend to the King and his Heirs and in W. the Bishop had a Rectory which extended into the County of D. It was holden in this Case that the word Farme did not include the Rectory without a special averment that the same was in Lease before but the word Hereditament was sufficient to passe the Rectory 296. A Statute is Continued during the Will of the King It was Resolved that the Demise of the King had determined his Will 297. Note it was Resolved by the Justices that if Lands are devised to 2. men and to the Child with which the Wife of the Devisor is ensient It is a good Devise and the Child shall take by the Devise but if he shall be Joynt or Tenant in Common with the other Quaere Grises Case 298. A. gave Lands to his Son and his Wife for life the remainder to the Heirs of A. the Son dyed having Issue within age A. dyed Living the Wife It was adjudged that the Issue of the Son should not be in Ward for the Remainder notwithstanding the Statute of 32 H. 8. Wests Case 299. West went beyond Sea and wrote a Letter that his Land should go in such a manner It was adjudged to be a good Will and Devise Cooks Case 300. It was agreed by the Justices in this Case that if Lessee for years during his Terme set up Posts for out-doores and hangs doores upon them by Engines that he cannot take them away at the end of the Terme but otherwise they conceived if it be of Indoors within the house Mollineux Case 301. A. bound himself in an Obligation upon condition that if he did pay to the Obligee the sum of 20 l. within 40. dayes after his personal
nostra Regia suscipimus in protectionem nostram Regiam corpus terras bona de Warren Et nolumus quod inquiratur neque quod Praerogativa nostra arguatur The Protection was disallowed by the Court and it was said That the Prerogative of the King which tends to the prejudice of the Subject is not allowble Baldwine and Cooks Case 359. A Lease was made to Husband and Wife for years if they or any issue of their body should so long live one of them died having no Issue Resolved the Lease was not determined for it is to be taken if the Husband or the Wife or the Issue should live the Lease was to continue Kernes Case 360. Debt upon Obligation The condition was That if the Defendant within a Month after the decease of his Mother pay to I. S. 20. l. or 20. Kyne at the Election of I. S. that then the Obligation should be void The Defendant pleaded that the Plantiff did not shew to him his Election which of the things he would have within the month Resolved that he ought to have shewed his Election to the Defendant within convenient time before the expiration of the month for it shall be against Reason that the Defendant shall be charged to make provision of both things 361. The Case was T. B. recovered in a Quare Impedit and before he had Execution he was Out-lawed The Queen brought a Scire facias to execute the Judgment It was resolved that the Scire facias to execute the Judgment was well brought and there was priviledge enough to sue execution of the Judgment because the thing as it was in the Plantiff is in the Queen and that is a thing in action and therefore it cannot be a thing in possession in the Queen and so she is not to present but is to prosecute the Execuâ—ion of the Judgment 362. Note where an Obligation was taken with a Condition that he should not exercise the Art and Mystery of a Black-Smith within such a Town Resolved the Obligation was void and the Condition a Condition against the Law Mascalls Case 363. A. leased an house to B. for years B. covenanted to repair the house and that it should be lawfull for A. his Heirs and Assignes to enter into the House and see in what Reparations it stood and if upon view any default should be found and thereof warning be given to B. his Executors c. then within four months after such warning it should be amended A. granted the Reversion over to C. in Fee who upon view gave warning to B. which upon warning was not repaired upon which C. as Assigne of A. brought Covenant it was said the Action did not lye because the house became ruinous before his interest in the Reversion Resolved the Action did well lye for it is not conceived upon the ruinous Estate of the house but for the not repairing within the time appointed and so it is not material at what time the house became ruinous Caines Case 364. C. and his Wife being Joynt-Tenants the Husband alone was impleaded and made default the Wife prayed to be received it was the opinion of the Court she was not receivable because she was no Party to the first Writ Then he prayed that he in reversion might be received It was said he was receivable because but one of the Tenants for life was impleaded The opinion of the Court that he should be received and might plead the Joynt-Tenancy in abatement of the Demandants Writ Purfreys Case 365. P Leasee of 40. year of a Tavern in London leased the same to J S for three years who covenanted and granted with P. that from time to time he would keep the same a Tavern and sell Wine there and that he monthly and every month upon request would make an account to the Lessor or his Assignes of all Wines should be there uttered or sold and would pay to the Lessor or his Assigns 30. s. for every Tun of Wine sold P. granted the Interest of the Reversion of the Term to a Stranger and afterwarda he demanded an account and the Lessee refused upon which he brought the action upon the Bond to perform Covenants and if the Grantor should give an account notwithstanding his Assignment or the Grantee should have an account as Assignee by the Statute of 32. H. 8. was the Question the Case is argued but not resolved 366. Note by Anderson Chief Justice there is a difference between general words infamous given to a private person and when to a publique Officer or Magistrate for a private person is not slandered without a particular Infamy but by general words a Magistrate or Officer may be slandered Wherefore Resolved that these words spoken of a private person were not actionable viz. Thou shouldst have sit on the Pillory if thou hadst thy desert The Lord Wentworths Case 367. The Case was The Lord Wentworth procured a Grant of the Wardship of Withypoll from the Master of the Wards Attorney and Auditor and dyed The Lord Wentworth his Son procured a Bill assigned and upon it Letters Pattents within four months to be made to him which Letters Pattents were to this effect That the Queen had granted to him Custodiam haeredis terrae de Withypoll Proviso that if the said Withypoll shall die within age not married nor the effect of his marriage taken that then the said Lord Wentworth the Son should have the Ward and marriage of his Heir at the end of his Letters Pattent there was a general Non obstante of all Statutes Restrictions c. The Lord agreed with Withypoll for his Wardship and in consideration of 400. l. to him paid did release to him the Wardship and gave liberty to him to marry at his pleasure Proviso if he did not pay 1200. l. at a certain day the Grant should be void before which day Withypoll died his Brother being his Heir within age and the Lord Wentworth sued to have the Wardship of him by his Letters Pattents There were four points in the Case 1. If the Patent be persuant to the Statute of 32. H. 8. of Erection of the Court of Wards 2. If this Statute which enabled the Masters and Officers of the Court of Wards should have Authority to make Sale and Grants of the Kings Wards had restrained the King himself that he could not grant them 3. If the general Non obstante had dispensed with the Statute in the two points aforesaid The 4. If the effect of the marriage shall be said to be taken This case was argued by Cook and Egerton for the Queen and Heale and Yelverton for the Lord Wentworth but the case was not resolved but adjourned Ideo Qu. Margery Davies Case 368. A man was bound in Covenant and Obligation upon it to pay to the three daughters of a Stranger 10. l. a piece at their several ages of 21. years the party lying sick made his Will and in performance of the
good against a Purchaser bna fide for valuable consideration Crowther and Fryers Case 800. The case was a Parson sued a Copyholder for Tythes arising upon his Copyhold he prayed a Prohibition and suggested that the Bishop of W. was Lord of the Mannor and that he and his Predecessors time out of mind c. for them their Farmors and Tenants had bin discharged of Tythes arising upon the Mannor and shewed he had bin a Copyholder of the Mannor and preseribed in his Lord. It was the opinion of the Justices in this case that although there is a Prescription upon a Prescription one in the Copyholder to make the estate good the other in the Bishop to make his discharge good yet a Prohibition lyeth for the Prescription in the Lord of Right of necessity and common Intendment proceeds the Prescription in the copyhold estate and the discharge of the Tythes in the Lord shall go to the benefit of the Copyholder Blake and Allens Case 801. B. was bounden 10 A. in an Obligation of an 100 l. for the true behaviour of his Son he being an Apprentice to A. A. after the sealing and delivery of the Bond razed out the word Libris and inserted the word Marcis It was the opinion of the Justices it was not a Forgery punishable because he made his own Bond void and it was not a prejudice to any but to himself 802. Two Executors made Partition of their Testators Specialties and then one of them did release to the Debtor an Obligation which did appertain to the part of the other the Debtor having notice of the Partition betwixt them the other sued in Chancery for Reliefe but the Chancery would not relieve him but if the Release was obtained by Covin for a less Sum then the Debt was there it was holden the Debtor should satisfie the Over-plus 803. It was agreed by the Justices that the Hundred is not chargable with the escape of the Felons nor to pay the Robbery if the Robbery be done in an House nor if it be a Robbery in the High-way in the Night 804. Note It was Resolved â—9 Feb. 43. Eliz. by the Justices upon the Arraigment of the Earl of Essex 1. That when the Queen sent the Lord Keeper and others of her Council to him commanding him to disperse the armed persons which he had in his house and to come to her and he refused so to do and kept the armed men in his house that that was Treason 2. That when he went with a Troop of Captains and others into the city of London and there prayed aid of the citizens to assist him in defence of his Life and to go with him to the Court so as he might be of power to remove his Enemies which attended upon the Queen that that was Treason 3. That the Fact in London was actual Rebellion although he did not intend hurt to the Queen 4. That the adherence of the Earl of Southampton to the Earl of Essex although he did not know of any other purpose then of a private Quarrel which the Earl of Essex had against certain of the Queens Sewants was also Treason in him 5. That all those who went with the Earl out of Essex-House into London whether that they knew his intent or not were Traitors although they departed by Proclamation but those who upon a suddam adhered to him in London and departed so soon as Proclamation was made they were within the Queens Grace of pardon by the Proclamation Holland Jackson and Ogdens Case 805. Error was brought to reverse a Recovery and a Scire facias issued against K and other Terre-Tenants depending which a Writ of Estrepment was awarded against the Terre-Tenants and Resolved it did well lye Dalton and Hamonds Case 806. It was Resolved by the Justices in this case that if the Lord demandeth an excessive Fine of his Copyholder and he refuseth to pay it it is no forfeiture otherwise where it is a reasonable Fine and the Court and Jury shall be Judges of the reasonableness of it But if a Fine be certain the Tenant is to bring it with him to Court and to pay it before admittance and if he be not ready to pay it it is a forfeiture Gambleton and Grassons Case 807. In Trover and Commission it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in stay of Judgment that the Distringas with the Nisi prius bore the same date with the Venire facies It was the Resolution of the Court that it should be amended for it was aided by the Statute of 32. H. 8. Higgins and Spicers Case 808. A Venire facias was awarded to the Coroners ita quod B. who was one of the Coroners se non intromittat because he was the Servant of R. who was Sheriff It was said the same was no cause of Challenge but the Court conceived it was because confessed However it was but a misconverting of process which was aided by the Statute Hall and Jones Case 809. Action was brought upon the case for slanderous words in a Court of Pipowders The Stile of the Court was Curia pedis pulverizati ratione Mercati c. Secundum consuetudinem Civiiatis It was adjudged there for the Plaintiff and Error brought and Assigned that a Court of Pipowders doth not belong to a Market but to a Faire The Court held that by custome of a city or place it might be to a Market 2. Resolved that an Action upon the case for slanderous words did not lie in a Court of Pipowders and for that cause the Judgment was reversed The Countess of Warwick Attwood and Davies Case 810. Action upon the case against two the one pleaded to Issue the other demurred upon the Demurrer the Plaintiff had Judgment and a Writ of enquire of Damages against him alone and the Defendant relinquished the other Issue It was the opinion of the Court that he might relinquish against him and have Judgment and execution of the damages against the other only Sir Gervase Clifton and Chancellors Case 811. In Trover and Conversion of Jewels The Defendant pleaded that a Stranger was possessed of the Jewels and sold them to him in his shop in Bristol he being a Gold-Smith and because he did not say that the Sale was in pleno Mercatu nor aver'd it was his shop in which he used the Trade of a Gold-Smith It was adjudged for the Plaintiff and in this case it was agreed that the King cannot grant to one that his Shop shall be a Market overt to bind Strangers because it is against the Law Ludd and Wrights Case 812. In debt to perform an Accord the breach was assigned of a thing out of the Submission and issue being joyned the Plaintiff at the Nisi prius was Nonsuit Then the Judgment given upon the insufficient Pleas is not upon the Nonsuit It was holden the Defendant should have costs for the unjust vexation Gawen and Rants Case 813. In Replevin the case was
The Spanish Ambassador and Plages Case 1040. Plage was pressed with his Ship at Lisbone to carry the King of Spains Soldiers to such a Port and had their Letters from the Vice-Roy of Portugal to trade to Brasil he performed the Service of Transportation and 14 months after traded at Brasil and freighted his Ship there for the transportation of Goods to Hamborough and was bound with Sureâ—ies in the Custom-house of Brasil to pay the customes due to the King of Spain at St. Michaels the Ship by tempest was forced into England and did not touch at St. Michaels The Spanish Ambassador pretending the Goods to be forfeit to the King of Spain sued for them in the Admiralty here and a Sentence was there for the King of Spain to have the Goods Plage sued to the Lord Chancellor here to have an Appeal from that Sentence and an Appeal was granted him Sir Thomas Palmers Case 1041. Sir Thomas Palmer who was attainted of Treason in the time of Ed 6. for natural affection 7 Ed 6 by Indenture covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life the remainder to I. S. for Life the remainder to the first Son of the said I. S. in tail the remainder to his eighth Son he was attainted before I. S. had any Son It was Resolved that by the Attainder the Son of I. S. was barred which was afterwards born and the Fee-simple was in the Crown discharged of all the Remainders Jepps and Tunbridges Case 1042. The Defendant delivered a brief of the cause to some of the Jâ—rors impannelled before they appeared for their Instructions This was adjudged an offence for which he was Sentenced in the Star-chamber And in this case it was Resolved that the Plaintiff and Defendant himself may labor the Jurors to appear but a stranger cannot so do 2. That the writing of a Letter or a request by wordâ— by one not a party to the Suit to the Jurors to appear is Maintenance 3. It is not lawful for the party himself to instruct the Jurors either by writing or by word nor to promise them any Reward for their appearance for it is Embracery in them aswell as in a stranger Sis Tho. Dâ—wbridgecourt and Sir Anthony Ashleys Case 1043. The Defendant was decreed â—n Chanceâ—y to pay 1000 l. to the Plaintiff after the Decree the Defendant procured the Son of Sir Thomas by a Letter of Attorney which he had from his Father to agree only the Suit for 200 l. whereof 100 l. was paid in hand and the rest to be paid at a day certain to make a Release which the Son did in his own name but not in the name of his Father It was the opinion of the Justices and also of the Lord Chancellor that this Release was void Crew and Vernons Case in the Star-chamber 1644 Sir Randolph Crew and all those whose Estate c. he had in the Mannor of Crew time out of mind c. had had Turf to born in the House of Crew-hall in a great Waste called Okehanger Moor being interâ—upted he sued in the Exchequer at Chester whereupon Affidavit of the possession 60. years his possession was established After the hearing of the Cause there Vernon interrupted the servants of Crew and with Harrows tore the Turffs for which cause a Bill was exhibited in the Star-chamber against the said Vernon and others they put in a scandalous Answer saying that the Judge at Chester ought not in Justice have made such an Order and called the Affidavit an equivocating Affidavit and affirmed the owners of the Mannor of Crew had taken the Turff but by License and Vernon affirmed to the Court that he had a Release to shew for the discharging of the Prescription but no such Prescription could be shewed nor was but a Grant of Turff to be there taken In this case it was Resolved by the Court the Prescription was not determined by the new Grant but the Grant enured as a confirmation and so the title of Prescription remained 2. Resolved that the words spoken of the Court of Chester were very scandalous and the Affidavit which he called an equivocating Affidavit was approved by the whole wherefore the Defendants were sentenced and fined by the Court and the defendants were to acknowledge their offence to the Court of Chester Sir Anthony Barkers Case 1046. I. S. exhiâ—ited a Bill in the Star Chamber against Sir Anthony Barker and divers other Gentry of Credit and charged the Defendants with the forging of the Will of M. P. and with many undue practices in drawing the said M. P. to make such a Will At the hearing of the Cause the Plaintiff relinquished the Forgery confessing it was no Forgery but would have insisted upon the practices of the Defendants for drawing the said M. P. to make the Will The Court refused to permit the Plaintiff to insist upon the practices for if he would have insisted upon the practices he ought to have confessed the Will and then have shewed the undue practises used to draw her to make such Will Wherefore the Plaintiff was fined 200 l. to the King and the Court gave Damages to each of the Defendants and the reason why they gave damages they declared to be because the Bill being scandalous no action lay for the Defendants at Law because the Bill was prefered before competent Judges to punish the Offences if there had been any and therefore it was reason by reason of such defect of the Common Law in giving damages the Court having Jurisdiction of the Cause supplied the said defect Goodricks Case 1047. Goodrick at a Tavero said to D. being a Master of Arts at Cambridge That there was late a great Contestation befor the King betwixt the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Northampton Lord Privy Seal because the Archbishop enformed that since the said Lord had been Warden of the Cinque Ports there were more Jesuites and Seminary Priests come into the Realm then before which he said was the Newes of the Court Another offence was That Ingram a Merchant had heard at Ligorne in Florence by two Students out of the Colledge at Rome that the Earl of Northampton writ a Letter to Cardinal Bellaâ—ine to pray him that no answer should be made to his book which he had Written upon the Treason of Garnet the Jesuite because he writ it only ad placandum Regem faciendum populum The Defendants were found Guilty upon their Confessions It was Resolved by the Justices it was a slander within the Statute of Z. R. 2. which moved sedition betwixt the King and his Nobles and that although the publisher did produce his author of such false newes yet he himself was punishable and if one saith there is common Rumor that such a one hath done such an act an action upon the Case lyeth although he doth produce his Author And in this Case it was agreed that if one sayes to another the effect of