where the Plaintiff shews a speciall Title under the Possession of the Defendant As for example In trespasse for breaking of his Close the Defendant pleads that J. G. was seised of it in his Demesne as of fee and enfeoffed J. K. by virtue of which he was seised accordingly and so being seised enfeoffed the Defendant of it by which he was seised untill the Plaintiff claiming by calour of a Deed of Feoffment made by the sayd J. G. long before that he enfeoffed J. K. where nothing passed by the sayd Feoffment entred upon which the Defendant did re-enter here the Plaintiff may well traverse the Feoffment supposed to be made by the sayd J. G. to the sayd I. K. without making Title because that this Feoffment only destroies the Estate at will made by the sayd I. G. to the Plaintiff which being destroyed he cannot enter upon the Defendant albeit the Defendant cometh to the Land by Disseisin and not by the Feoffment of the sayd I. K. for the first Possession of the Defendant is a good Title in Trespasse against the Plaintiff if he cannot shew or maintain a Title Paramounâ— But the Feoffment of the sayd I. G. being traversed and found for him he hath by the acknowledgment of the Defendant himself a good Title against him by reason of the first Estate at will acknowledged by the Defendant to be to the Plaintiff and now not defeated But in the same case he cannot traverse the Feoffment supposed to be made to the sayd I. K. to the Defendant without an especiall Title made to himself for albeit that I. K. did not enfeoff the Defendant but that the Defendant disseised him or that he cometh to the Land by another means yet he hath a good Title against the Plaintiff by his first Possession not destroyed by any Title Paramount by any matter which appeareth by the Record upon which the Court is to adjudge and with this accord the opinion of 31 4. 1. That the materiall matter of the Bar ought alwaies to be traversed or other wise that which upon the pleading is become to be materiall and that which the Plaintiff traversed here to wit the Lease made by Wright to the Defendant is the materiall point of the Bar which destroyeth the Title Paramount acknowledged to the Plaintiff by the colour given in the Bar which is good without another Title made So note well the diversity where in pleading in Trespasse the first Possession is acknowledged in the Plaintiff by the Bar and where it appeareth by the pleading to be in the Defendant and where and by what matter the first Possession acknowledged in the Plaintiff by the Bar is avoided by the same Bar And upon this Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff as appeareth in 34. and 35. Eliz. Rol. Earl of Bedford versus Eliz. Anne Russell Mich. 34. and 35. Eliz. 2. IN tho Court of Wards the Case was thus between the now Earl of Bedford In the Court of Wards and Elizabeth and Anne the Daughters and Heirs of John late Lord Russell which was put ten times to all the Iustices to be resolved Francis late Earl of Bedford was seised of the Mannor of Baruake Chaldon c. in Commitatu Dorset in his Demesne as of see and so seised the fourth year of Queen Eliz. of it enfeoffed the Lord S. John of Bletsoe and others in see to the use of himself for forty years from the date of the sayd Deed and after to the use of the sayd John then his second Son and the Heirs Males of his body and for default of such Issue then to the use of the right Heirs of the sayd Earl the Feoffor for ever Afterwards Edward Lord Russell Son and Heir apparant to the sayd Earl dyed without Issue and after the sayd John Lord Russell dyed without Issue Male having Issue the sayd two Daughters afterwards to wit 27 Eliz. the sayd Francis Earl of Bedford by Indenture made between him and the Earl of Cumberland and others in consideration of the advancement of the Heirs Males of the body of the sayd Earl which by course of descent should or might succeed the sayd Earl in the name and dignity of the Earldome of Bedford and for the better establishment of his Lordships Mannors and Hereditaments in the name and blood of the sayd Earl covenanted and grantes with the sayd Covenantees that he and his Heirs hereafter shall stand seised of the sayd Mannors amongst others to the use of himself for life without impeachment of Waste and after his decease to the use of Francis the Lord Russell and the Heirs Males of his body for default of such Issue to the use of Sir William Russell Knight his youngest Son and the Heirs Males of his body with diverse Remainders over after which the sayd Francis Lord Russell tyed having Issue Edward the now Earl of Bedford and after this the sayd Francâ—s late Earl of Bedford dyed also and after the Daughters of the sayd John Lord Russell or the now Earl of Bedford shall have these Mannors of Barunke c. was the question and upon this it was argued by Cook Sollinton and others for the Daughters that an use at Common-law was but a confidence put in some to the benefit and behoof of others and that Conscience was to give remedy but for those for whose availe the confidence was and that was in this Case for the sayd Daughters which were the right Heirs to the sayd Francis late Earl of Bedford upon the first conveyance made 41 Eliz. for the confidence that he put in the Feoffees as to the profits that he himself was to have was but for the forty years and how can any other say that he shall have any other Estate when he himself saith that he will have it but for forty years and therefore in this case his right Heir shall take as a Purchasor by the intent of the Feoffor which hath power to make a disposition of the use at his pleasure and his pleasure as appeareth was to have it so and it is not as if the use had been limitted to be to himself for life with such a Remainder over in which Case the use of the Fee by the operation of Law ought to execuse in himself for the Free-hold which was in him before As where Land is given to one for life the Remainder to his right Heirs he hath a Fee-simple executed but here he shall have but an Estate for forty years precedent and that the Fee-simple cannot be executed by such a limitation made to the right Heirs but in case of an Estate for years only precedent such a limitation to his right Heirs afterwards is not good but in case of an use it is otherwise for it may remain to be executed to be an use in Esse where the right Heir shall be and therefore not to be resembled to an Estate made in Possession And an Vse is alwaies to be
to Charles late Lord Sturton Father to the said Iohn Lord Sturton and the said Charles Lord Sturton disseised the said Lady Sturton and levied a Fine of the said Land to Cottington and his Heirs with Proclamations according to the Statute and warranted it against him and his Heirs And the said Lord Charles dyed before the Proclamations past and the Warranty descended upon the said John Lord Sturton after which and before the Proclamations past the said Lady Sturton entred upon the said Cottington after which the said Lady died and after her death and all the Proclamations past the said John Lord Sturton as Heir in Tail entred and made the Lease to the said Okes upon whom Cottington the Defendant entred as under the right of the said Cottington the Conusee And I perceiving the Court strongly to incline upon the matter of Warranty that it shall bar the entry of the Heir and make a discontinuance against him according to the inference which is taken by Littleton in his Chapter of Discontinuance because the truth was and so acknowledged to the Court although it were omitted in the Verdict that the said Charles Lord Sturton was attained of Felony and Murther and so the blood corrupted between the said Charles and John Lord Sturton wherby in a new Action the Garranty had not hurt the Title of the said Lord John I then moved the Court upon the other point of the Fine with Proclamations and the Court also agreed in this point if the Warranty had not been that yet the Fine with Proclamations shall bar the said John Lord Sturton notwithstanding the entry made by the Lady Sturton were before the Proclamations past because that notwithstanding his regresse made the Reversion remains in Cottington not defeated by his regresse in respect of the Statute whch makes that the Fine remains effectuall against the Heir in Tail if nothing be done by him to undo it before the Proclamations past as by claim regresse and the like but the Act of a stranger shall not help him wherby Iudgment being therupon given against the said Okes the said John Lord Sturton stood satisfied and the Cottingtons enjoy the Land to this day wheras if this opinion of the Court had not been on a new Action the said Sir John might have been relieved against the Warranty And Gaudy said that this was a very good Case for the point upon the Statute in this case Earl of Shrewsbury versus Sir Thomas Stanhop 8. GIlbert Earl of Shrewsbury brought a Scandalum Magnatum against Gilbert Earle of Shrewsbury against Sir Thomas Stanhop in a Scandalum Magnatum Sir Thomas Stanhop Knight and it was upon the Statute Tam pro Domina Regina quam pro seipso c. For that communication was had between the said Sir Thomas and one Francis Fletcher of divers things touching the said Earl the said Francis at such a day and place said to the said Thomas My Lord the said Earl meaning is a Subject innuendo that the said Earl was a Subject of the now Queen the said Sir Thomas then and there said of the said Earl these slanderous words to wit he intending the said Earl is sorry for that meaning that the said Earl was sorry that he was then a Subject to our said Soveraign Lady the Queen that is his grief meaning that it was grief to the said Earl that the said Earl was Subjâ—ct to the Queen to the damage of the said Earl of 20000 l. To which the said Sir Thomas Stanhop said that a question was formerly moved between the said Earl and the Defendant touching the subversion and drawing away of certain Weares heretofore erected by the said Sir Thomas at Shelâ—ord in the said County of Nott. where the Action was brought to oust the River of Trent there that for the subversion therof a Petition was exhibited to the privy Councell of the Queen before the speaking of the said words by certain Inhabitants of the County of Lincoln and divers other places not known to the Defendant with the privity allowance and knowledge of the said Earl which Petition at the time of the speaking of the said words depended before the said Councell not determined wherupon at the day and place comprised in the Declaration there was Communication between the said Defendant and the said Francis Fletcher concerning their purpose to have the said Wears subverted and touching the said Petition upon which the said Francis said to the said Defendant the matter meaning the Petition aforesaid hanging undetermined before the Councell aforesaid is to be heard before the privy Councel meaning the aforesaid Councell of the Queen and what their Honours meaning the Councell aforesaid determine my Lord the aforesaid Earl meaning will willingly obey To which the said Francis then there answered saying My Lord the aforesaid Earl meaning is a Subject upon which the said Defendant they then having speech as well of the said Petition as of the order therupon to be taken by the said Councell answered saying the words comprised in the Declaration meaning that he was sorry and grieved that he was subject to the order to be made upon the Petition aforesaid by the said Councell and averred that this was the same speech upon which the Action was grounded upon which it was demurred in Law and for cause shewn according to the Statute it was alledged that the bar was defective because it is not alledged at what place nor by whom nor against whom the Petition was exhibited and also because that by the Bar the matter of the Declaration is not confessed avoided or traversed and also that the Bar was insufficient And it seemed to Fennor that the matter of the Bar had been sufficient if it had been well pleaded but the Plaintiff alledgeth the words to be spoken in one sence in the Affirmative and the Defendant shews matter also in the Affirmative which proves the words to be spoken in another sence then the Declaration imporrs and two Affirmatives can never make a good Issue and therfore the Defendant ought to have taken a traverse to that which is comprised in the Declaration and for want of this traverse the plea in Bar is not good Gawdy said that the Bar is not sufficient neither in matter nor form not in matter because that wheras Fletcher said that the said Earl was a Subject this can have no other sence but that he was a Subject to the Queen in his Allegiance and her Soveraignty and so much is drawn out of the course of their former speech and therfore the answer which the Defendant made to it refers to his subjection of alleagiance and not to the matter of obedience which he owed to the order of the said Councell and if it cannot have any other sence in good understanding he cannot help himself now by an Innuendo which is in it selfe according to common intendment contrary to that which the nature of the words
thing that is uncertain certain but shall serve as a Predict yet the words import that he had a Master and that his Master had a Cook to which all the Court agreed and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And another Action was brought for these words Scil. Thou hast sacrificed Thou hast sacrificed thy child to the Devill thy Child to the Devill and adjudged that the words were actionable Mich. 15. Iac. In the Kings Bench. Lee versus Brown IN an Ejectione firmae brought by Lee against Brown the Case was this Whether copyhold Lands may be intailed Tenant in Tail of Copyhâ—ld Land surrendred the same into the hands of the Lord to the use of I. S. wherupon two points did arise 1. Whether Copyhold Land be within the Statute of Donis conditionalibus so that iâ— may be intailed 2. Whether the Intail may be cuâ— off by the surrender Doderidge Iustice said as to the first point that it hath been a great doubt whether it may be intailed but the common and better opinion was that by the same Statute co-operating with the custom it may be intailed and with this agrees Heydons case in my Lord Cokes 3. Report and so was the opinion An Intail of copyhold lâ—nd nâ—t to be cut off by â—urrender unlesse by speciall custom of the Court. And for the second point their opinion also was that it could not be cut off by surrender unlesse it were by speciall custom and they directed the Iury accordingly And it was said to maintain this custom it ought to be shewn that a Formedon had been brought upon such a Surrender and Iudgment given that it doth not lye yet it was agreed that it was a strong proof of the custom that they to whose use such Surrenders had been made had enjoyed the Land against the Issues in Tail And it was said by the Counsell of the Defendant that there was a Verdict for them before in the same case which they could prove by witnesses but the Court would not allow such a proof because it was matter of Record which ought to be shewn forth In the same Term in the Common Pleas. May versus Kett. AN Action upon the Case was brought for these words viz. Thou hast Words Thou hast stoln my Corn out of my Earn stoln my Corn out of my Barn And it was moved in Arrest of Iuâ—gment because he had not said how much he had stoln and perhaps it was of small value and yet it was adjudged that the Action would lye for it is at least petit Larceny But if he had said that he had stoln his Corn generally it had not been actionable for it might have been growing and then it had been but a Trespasse The same Term in the Star Chamber Riman versus Bickley and others IOhn Riman exhibited a Bill in the Star Chamber against Thomas Bickley and Anne his Wife Dr. Thorn Mr Goulding and others Defendants the said Anne was first married to Devenish Riman the Plaintiffs Son and between them were many â—ars and disâ—greemâ—nts and the said Devenish was much given to drinking and other Vices and divers times did beat and abuse his Wife and was also jealous of the saiâ— Thomas Bickley and his Wife being at a certain time at Supper with Dr. Thorn Goulding and others spake such words as these having communication thâ—t her Husband did beat and abuse her to wit That she heard that his Father had that quality and being once whipt for it was the better ever after and that if she thought it would do her Husband any goâ—d she would willingly bestow 40 s. on some body to give him a whipping wherupon Gâ—ulding said that he would give him a Medâ—cine for his Mâ—lâ—dy and within two daies after he came in the night in womâ—ns apparrell with a Weapon under his Cloak and with a Rod and wenâ— into the House and Chamber of the said Devenish and would have whipped him and in striving together there was some hurt done on either side but Gâ—ulding not being able to effect his purpose fled and this was conceived to be by the procurement of Anne his wife And not long after Devenish fell sick and sent to his said wife for certain necessaries which she would not send him and presently after Devenish died and she refused to come to his buriall And although it were much disliked that Devenish should abuse his Wife in such uncivill manner as to strike and beat her and as Coke late chief Iustice said it is not lawfull by the Act Military for one man to strike another in the presence of Ladies yet it was resolved by the whole Court that it was a great misde meanor in the Wife and uncivill and undutifull carriage in her to do so to her Husband as they use to do to Children or fools to wit to give them the Whip and so to disgrace and take away the good name of her Husband which viz. A mans good name and his Childrens are the two things which make a man live to Posterity as was said by Sir Francis Bacon Lord keeper and the Court fiâ—ed the Wife 500 l. and it was said that Thomaâ— Bickley her noâ— Husband well deserved to pay this Fine because he was too familiar with her in the time of his Predecessor and as the Bishop of London said Devenish Rimon lay upon her hands and Thomas Bickley upon â—eâ— heart And to aggravate this matter a Letter was shown whiâ—h Devenish Rimon wrote to his Wife in which he called her Whoor and told her somwhat roundly of her faults and she wrote back to him in the Margeâ—t that he lyed and wished him to get a better Scribe for his next Lâ—â—ter for he was a Fool that wrote that wherin she called him Fool by craft And Goldings offence was accâ—vnted the greater because he was a Minister so that he was fined 500 l. also And Coke said that the course of this Court was that if any were fined who is not able to pay it Respondeat superior he that is the principall and chief agent therin must answer it for otherwise poor men might be made Instruments of great mischief who are not able to answer and the greater Offenders shall escape which the Lord Keeper confirmed And as to Doctor Thorn he was acquitted by all And the Bishop of London said that they had thought to have troad upon a Thorn and they gat a Thorn in their foot And by Coke if Devenish Rimon had died upon it it had been capitall in the Wife who procured it for it was an unlawfull Act. The same Term in the Kings Bench. Wescot versus Cotton THe case was this An Infant Executor upon an Action brought against Where an Infant Executor may declare by Attorney but not defend by Attorney but by Guardian him appeared by Attorney where he ought to appear by Guardian and it was resolved by the Court that this was Error for this
Co. lib. 8. Baspoles case and 7 H. 6. 40. accordingly The same Term in the same Court Vaughans Case THomas Dedham had to Apprentice one Holland who got his Main with Child and afterwards departed from his Masters Service and staid a whole night with Vaughan his Kinsman and Dedham procured a Warrant from S. Stephen Soame a Iustice of Peace that the Constable should bring the said Apprentice to order according to Law and because that Vaughan perswaded him to withdraw himself so that he should not be taken by virtue of the Warrant he was indited And it was agreed that it was lawfull for Vaughan to lodge and relieve him albeit he knew his misdeeds they being no Treason or Felony But Haughton Iustice took exception to the Inditement because no place appeared where he perswaded him to withdraw himself from the Warrant or in truth that he did hide himself from the Warrant for if he did not so the perswasion was nothing And Doderidge took another exception to the Warrant because the Statute saith that two Iustices of which one of them shall be of the Quorum shall proceed in such cases against the Malefactor and that they shall compell the party to allow means for the education of the Infant or otherwise the Offendor shall suffer corporall punishment and so this Warrant not being speciall according Pasch 16. Jac. In the Star Chamber Wrennums Case SIr Henry Yelverton Attorney-generall exhibited an Information in the Star Chamber against one Wrennum Ore tenus because he had divers times petitioned the King against Sir Francis Bacon Lord Chancellor pretending that the said Lord Bacon had done great Injustice to him in granting an Injunction and awarding Possession of Land against him for which he had two decrees in the time of the former Chancellor And also he made a Book of all the proceedings in the said cause between him and one Fisher and dedicated and delivered it to the King in which he notoriously traduced and scandalised the said Chancellor saying that for this unjust decree he his Wife and Children were murthered and by the worst kind of death by starving And that now he having done unjustly he must maintain it by speaking untruths and that he must use his authority Wit Art and Eloquence for the better maintenance therof with other such like scandalous words And the Attorney cited a president 2 Jac. Where one Ford for an offence in the like manner against the late Chancellor was censured in this Court that he should be perpetnally imprisoned and pay the fine of 1000 l. and that he should ride upon a Horse with his face to the tail from the Fleet to Westminster with his fault written upon his head and that he should acknowledge his offence in all the Courts at Westminster and that he should stand there a reasonable time upon the Pillory and that one of his ears shall be cut off and from thence shall be carried to Prison again and in the like manner should go to Cheapside and should have his other ear cut off c. And because they conceived that the said Wrennum had wronged the said Lord Chancellor in the said suggestion they all agreed in his censure according to the said President See for such matter 19. Ass 5. 9 H. 8. Sir Rowland Heywards case and 21 H. 8. Cardinall Wolseys case The same Term in the Kings Bench. Mingies Case AWrit of Annuity was brought by Mingy which was granted Pro Consilio impenso impendendo the Defendant pleaded in Bar that he carried a Bill to the Plaintiff to have him set his hand to it and because he refused Annuity pro Consil impenso c. he detained the said Annuity And per Curiam this is no plea for he is bound to give advice but not to set his hand to every Bill for this may be inconventent to him The same Term in the same Court THe Case was this A Lessee for years was bound in a Bond to give up the possession of the Land demised to the Lessor or his Assigns at the end of the Term the Lessor assigns over his Interest and the Assignee requires the Lessee to perform the Condition who answers that he knew not Notice where requisite whether he were the Assignee and therupon refuseth And the question was whether he had broken the Condition and it was adjudged that he had for he hath taken upon him so to do and it is not like a Condition annexed to an Estate as Co. lib. 5. Mallories case or Co. lib. 6. Greens case where the Patron presented his Clark to a deprivation yet the Ordinary ought to give the Patron notice of the deprivation for it is a thing Spirituall of which a Lay-man shall not be bound to take notice It was moved that a man riding upon a Horse through the water was Dead and. drowned and by the Coroners Inquest it was found that his death was caused Per cursum aquae and the Horse was not found a Deodand and per Curiam they did well for the water and not the Horse was the cause of his death The same Terme in the same Court. Wooton versus Bye THe case was this A man made a Lease for years rendring Rent and upon payment of the Rent the Lessor made an Acquittance by a release of all Actions Duties and Demands from the beginning of the World to Release of all Demands bars a future Rent the day of the date And whether the Rent to come were released by it was the question And it was moved by Crook at the Bar that it was not for a Covenant in future shall not be released by such words yet a release of all Covenants will be good in such a case as the Book is in Dyer 57. so Hoes case Co. lib. 5. 70. b. such a release will not discharge a Bail before Iudgment But it was answered and resolved by the Court that such a Release will discharge the Rent to come for this word Demand is the most large and ample word in a Release that may be as Littleton saith and in Co. lib. 8. Althams case and in Hoes case Co. lib. 5. one was Bail for the Defendant the words wherof are conditionable Scil. Si contigerit predict defendent debit damna illa prefat Quer. minime solvere c. So that before Iudment it is altogether incertain and therfore cannot be released but in the case at the Bar he hath Jus ad rem though not in re as Crook Iustice said The same Term in the same Court. Bret versus Cumberland IN a Writ of Covenant the case was thus Queen Elizabeth by her Letters Patents made a Lease of certain Mills rendring Rent in which Lease were these words to wit That the said Lessee his Executors Administrators and Assigns should from time to time repair the Mills and so leave them at the end of the Term the Lessee assigns over his Term the Queen also
Living And Mountague chief Iustice said that this word Bribing doth not import that he took a Bribe and therfore this word and all the other words but corrupted Knave are idle but these words impeacheth him in his Office for it hath reference to that and therfore is actionable And Iudgment was given accordingly The same Term in the same Court Sir Baptist Hickes Case in the Star Chamber SIr Baptist Hickes having done divers Pions and Charitable Acts to wit had founded at Camden in Glocestershire an Hospitall for twelve poor and impotent men and women and had made in the same Town a new Bell tunable to others a new Pulpit and adorned it with a Cushion and Cloath and had bestowed cost on the Sessions House in Middlesex c. one Austin Garret a Copyholder of his Mannor of Camden out of private malice had framed and writ a malicious and invective Letter to him in which in an ironicall and deriding manner he said that the said Sir Baptist had done these charitable works as the proud Pharisee for vain-glory and oftentation and to have popular applause and further in approâ—rtous manner taxed him with divers other unlawfull Acts And it was resolved by the Court that for such private Letters an Action upon the case doth not lye at Common Law for he cannot prove his case to wit the publishing of it but because Where a private Letter is punishable as a Libell it tends to the breach of the Peace it is punishable in this Court and the rather in this case because it tends to a publike wrong for if it should be unpunished it would not only deter and discourage Sir Baptist from doing such good Acts but other men also who are well disposed in such cases and therfore as the Arch-bishop observed this was a wrong 1. To Piety in respect of the cost bestowed on the Church 2. To charity in regard of the Hospitall 3. To Iustice in consideration of the Session House and these things were the more commendable in Sir Baptist because he did them in his life time For as Mountague chief Iustice observed they who do such acts by their Will do shew that they have no will to do them for they cannot keep their Goods any longer And he only took a diversity where such a Letter concerns publike matter as they did or private in which case it is not punishable But the Lord Coke said that it was the opinion of the Iudges in the Lord Treasurers case when he was Attorney that such a private Letter was punishable in this Court and therupon he had instructions to exhibit an Information but the Lord Treasurer Jacens in extremis was content to pardon him and so it was resolved between Wooton and Edwards And Sir Francis Bacon Lord Chancellor said that the reason why such a private Letter shall be punished is because that it in a manner enforceth the party to whom the Letter is directed to publish it to his friends to have their advice and for fear that the other party would publish it so that this compulsary publication shall be deemed a publication in the Delinquent and in this case the party was fined at 500 l. The same Term in the same Court. Bernard versus Beale AN Action upon the case was brought for these words viz. That the Words That the Plaintiff had two Bastards 36. yeaâ—s since Plaintiff had two Bastards 36. years ago upon the report wherof he was in danger to have been divorced And it was resolved that for Defamation there was no remedy but in the Spirituall Court if he had no temporall lesse therby and therfore it is not sufficient to ground an Action to say that he was in danger to be diverced but thâ—t he was De facto divorced or that he wâ—s to have a presentment in marriage as it is in Anne Devies case Co. lib. 4. The same Term in the same Court. Brabin and Tradums Case THe Case was That the Church-wardens of D. had used time out of mind to dispose and order all the Seats of the Church wherupon they disposed of a Seat to one and the Ordinary granted the same Seat to another and his A Prohibition for a Seat in the Church Heirs and excommunicated all others who afterwards should sit in the Seat and a Prohibition was prayed and granted for this grant of a Seat to one and his Heirs is not good for the Seat doth not belong to the person but to the house for otherwise when the person goes out of the Town to dwell in another place yet he shall retain the Seat which is no reason and also it is no reason to excommunicate all others that should sit there for such great punishments should not be imposed upon such small Offenders an Excommunication being Traditio diabola In the same Term in the same Court. Fulcher versus Griffin THe Parson of D. covenanted with one of his Parishoners that he should A Parson covenant that his Parishoners shall pay no Tithes pay no Tithes for which the Parishoner covenanted to pay to the Parson an annuall summ of money and afterwards the Tithes not being paid the Parson sued him in the Court Christian and the other prayed a Prohibition And it was agreed that if no interest of Tithes passe but a bare Covenant then the party who is sued for the Tithes hath no remedy but a Writ of Covenant And the better opinion of the Court in this case was that this was a bare Covenant and that no interest in the Tithes passe The custody of a Copyholder that was a Lunatick was committed to Darcies case in the Common Pleas. I. S. and for Trespasse done upon his Land it was demanded of the Court in whose name J. S. should bring the action and their opinion was that it should be in the name of the Lunatick Trinity 16. Jac. In the Kings Bench. The Earl of Northumberlands Case THe Earl of Northumberland being seised of the Mannor of Thistleworth in which he had a Leet to be holden twice a year to wit within a moneth after Easter and a moneth after Michaelmas and Henry Devell being a Free-holder of the said Mannor erected a new Dove-coat at Heston within the Precinct of the said Leet which was presented at the Leet for a common Nusance for which Devell was amerced 40 s. and was commanded to remove it upon pain of 10 l. for the which a Distresse was taken by Henry Sanders and others as Bailiffs to the said Earl wherupon Devell brought a Replevin and they made Avowry and justified as Bayliffs and prescribed that they used to make by-laws to redresse common Nusances and also prescribed in the Distresse And the point in question was whether the new erecting of a Dove-coat by a Free-holder were a common Nusance punishable Whether the erecting of a Dove-coat be a common Nusance in the Leet And it was resolved by the whole Court upon
in his custody and offered to the said Sheriff to put him in the Indenture amongst his other Prisoners delivered to the new Sheriff but would hâ—ve had the said old Sheriff to have sent for the said new Sheriff to have taken him into his custody but the new Sheriff refused to receive him unlesse Dabridgecourt would deliver him into the common Gaol of the County which was in the Town of Warwick wherupon afterwards the Prisoner escaped And Dabridgecourt was charged with this Escape and not the new Sheriff for he is not compellable to take the Prisoners of the delivery of the old Sheriff but in the common Goal of the County and the old Sheriff remains chargeable with the Prisoner untill he be lawfully discharged of him and if the Sheriff dies the party shall be rather at a prejudice then the new Sheriff without cause charged with him And in such a case the party who sued the execution may help himself to wit by the remaining of the body by a Corpus cum causa wherby he may be brought to be duly in execution and this under a due Officer And Anderson Periam and other Iustices were also of opinion that the said Skinner and Catcher are to be charged with the escape in the principall case wherupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff which was entred Hillar 34 Eliz. Rot. 169. in the B. R. Fulwood versus Ward 2. IN a Writ of Annuity brought in the Common Pleas by George Fulwood Plaintiff against William Ward Defendant the Case was thus The Queen was seised of a Barn and Tithes of Stretton in the County of Stafford for the life of the Lord Paget and being so seised demised it by Letters Patents dated 21. June 29 Eliz. to the said William Ward for 21. years wherupon the said Ward by Writing dated 30. Iune 29 Eliz. granted to the said Plaintiff an Annuity or yearly Rent of 10 l. out of the said Barn and Tithes for 15. years then next ensuing payable yearly upon the 8. day of November with clause of Distresse The Lord Paget died the first day of March 32 Eliz. and for the Arrearages after his death the Plaintiff brought this Writ of Annuity and for the difficulty therof in the Common Pleas the Case came this Term to be argued before all the Iustices and Barons at Serjeants-Inn in Fleetstreet where it was agreed by Walmsley Fennor and Owen that the Annuity was gone by the determination â—â— his Estate in the Land who made the Grant for they said that presently upon the Grant made as before it was a Rent-charge for by such a Rent granted in Fee the Fee shall be in his Heirs albeit the Grantee dies before any Election made and such a Rent is payable from the beginning at the Land as appeareth by 12 E. 4. And by grant of Omnia terras tenementa hereditamenta such â— Rent will passe ergo it is a Rent-charge and not an Annuity untill the Election made and by the determination therof in the nature of a Rent the Election is gone as by Babington and Martin 9 H. 6. by the recovery of Lâ—nd charged with such a Rent by elder Title the Annuity is gone as it seeâ—s by their opinion and by them and by Littleton upon a Rent-charg◠〈◊〉 with Proviso that he shall not charge the person of the Grantor 〈…〉 exclude the charge of the person which proves that the Land is charâ—â—â— Originally and not the person for otherwise the Proviso would be void for the repugnancy And if so whensoever the Land is discharged as by 〈…〉 â—â—â—cent or the like the person therby is also discharged and therfore â—he Iuâ—gment here shall be that the Plaintiff shall be barred But by the chief Iustices chief Baron and all the other Iustices and Barons the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgment in this case to recover the Annuity for the Law gives him at the beginning an Election to have it as a Rent or an Annuity which matter of election shall not be taken from him but by his own Deed and folly as in case where he purchase part of the land charged in which case by his own Act he hath excluded himself of his Election But if a Feoffee upon condition grant a Rent-charge and presently break the Condition wherupon the Feoffor re-enter shall not the Feoffee be charged by Writ of Annuity surely it shall be against all reason that he by his own act without any folly of the Grantee shall exclude the Grantee of his Election which the Law gives at the beginning And they denied the opinion of 9 H. 6. to be Law But if the Disseisor grant a Rent-charge to the Disseisee out of the Land which he had by the Disseisen by his re-entry before the Annuity brought the Annuity is gone for this was his own act yet in effect all of them agreed that Prima facie it shall be taken as a Rent-charge of which the Wife shall be endowed as hath been said which passe by grant of Omnia hereditamenta and which is payable at the Land but the reason is because it is expresly granted out of the Land and also for the presumption of Law that it is more beneficiall for the Grantee to have it in such a degree then in the other But neither the presumption of Law nor the expresse Grant therof as a Rent shall not take away from the Grantee the benefit of his Election where no default was in him but that upon his Election he may make it to be otherwise as ab initio And therfore by Popham If a Rent-charge be granted in tail the Grantee may bring a Writ of Annuity and therby prejudice his Issue because that then it shall not be taken to be an Intail but as a Fee-simple conditionall ab initio And if a Termer for two years grant a Rent-charge in fee this as to the Land is but a Rent charge for two years and if he avow for it upon the determination of the Term the Rent is gone but by way of Annuity it remains for ever if it be granted for him and his Heirs and assets descend from him who granted it And if a Rent-charge be granted in fee and doth not say for him and his Heirs if the Grantee brings his Writ of Annuity the Heir shall never be charged therwith yet if he had taken it as a Rent-charge the Land had been charged with it in perpetuity And by him the cause why the Proviso that he shall not charge the person of the Grantor upon the grant of a Rent-charge is good is because the person is not expresly charged by such a Grant but by operation of Law But in such a case a Proviso that he shall not charge his Land is meerly void for the repugnancy because there the Land is expresly charged by precised words and therfore if it be expresly comprised in such a Grant that the Grantee may charge the Land or the person of the
E. 6. with the assent of the Dean and Chapter and by Writing indented demised the said Prebend to the said William Sydall for 43. years from the Feast of the Annunciation of our Lady in the year of our Lord 555. at the yearly rent of 361. William Sydall assigned over his term and died making the said Thomas his Executor Henry Sydall also died and afterwards the Plaintiff was made Prebend and for the rent arrear in his time and after the assignment this Action is brought against the Executors in the Debet and Detinet And it was alledged that in Hillary Term 36 Eliz. Rot. 420. in the case between Glover and Humble it was adjudged in the Kings Bench that the Grantee of the Reversion shall not maintain an Action of Debt upon a Lease for years against the Lessee himself for any arrears of Rent incurred after that he had made an assignment of his Term over to another and alledged also that in Hillary 29 Eliz. in a case between it was adjudged that an Action of Debt lyeth for the Lessor himself against the Lessee for arrearages of Rent reserved upon the Lease and accrued after the Lessee had assigned his Term over and both these cases were adjudged accordingly in the Kings Bench and the reason in the first case was because that by the Grant of the Reversion over the privity of contract which was between the Lessor and the Lessee is dissolved and the Grantee of the Reversion as to it but a stranger But in the last case the privity of contract is not dissolved between the Lessor and the Lessee notwithstanding the Lessee hath passed over his Term neither is the contract therby determined between the parties But Fennor said that in this case the privity in Deed is gone by the death of the Lessee and therfore the Executor who is but privy in Law is not subject to this Action unlesse in case where he hath the Term in which case he shall be charged as he who hath Quid pro quo which is not in the case here And he said further that a Lease made by a Prebend is good no longer then his own life but is meerly void by his death and therfore shall not be said to be a contract to bind further then his life and therfore also he said that the Action will not lye in the said case for the Successor But Gawdy said that here the Lease is confirmed and therfore good during the Term but it seemed to him that the Executor who is but in privy in Law shall not be chargable with this action for the arrearages due after the assignment over and yet he agreed that the Heir the Successor and the Executor of the Lessor shall have debt against the Lessee himself for the arrearages which accrues to be due after the assignment over of the Lease But he said that the Action of Debt against the Executor upon a Lease made to the Testator and for the arrearages due in the time of the Executor ought to be in the Debet and Detinet and that for the occupation of the Term wherby he hath Quid pro quo which is not in this case Popham said that for the time that the contract shall bind in nature of a Contract there is not any difference between thâ— Heir the Successor and the Executor of the Lessor and the Executor or Administrator of the Lessee for the one and the other are equally privy to the Contract and a Contract or Covenant especially being by writing binds as strongly the Executor or Administrator as the Testator or the Iâ—testate himself who made it For these are privies indeed to the Contract and as to it represent the person of the Testator or Intestate himself And he agreed that the Action of Debt against the Executors for the arrearages of Rent of a Lease which he occupies as Executor and accrued in their own time shall be in the Debet and Detinet The reason is although they have the Land as Executor yet nothinâ— ther of shall be â—mpâ—â—yed to the Execution of the Will but such Prâ—fits as are above that which wâ—s to make the Rent and therfore so much of the Profits as is to make or answer the Rent they shall take to their own use to answer the Rent and therfore they having Quid pro quo to wit so much of the Profits for the Rent the action ought to be brought against them in such cases where they are to be charged in Debt for Rent upon a Lease made to the Testator and have not the Profits of the Lease it self nor means nor default in them to come to it the action of Debt ought to be against them in the Detinet only and this is the case here and therfore the action being in the Debet and Detmet doth not lye And further he agreed in this case to the opinion of Fennor that the action here doth not lye for the Successor of the Prevend who made the Lease for no more then the Successor in this case shâ—ll be bound by the Contract of his Predecessor no more shall he take advantage by this Contract for it is the consideration which makes him to be bound and not only the Câ—ntract and so the Successor in such cases is but privy in Law and not in Dâ—ed tâ— the Contract of his Predecessor But otherwise it is â—f the Successor of a Bishop and the like which Leases are not void against the Successor but voidable Case of Armes 2. VPon an assembly of all the Iustices and Barons at Sergeants-Inne this Term on Munday the 15. day of April upon this question mâ—ved by Anderson chief Iustice of the Common Bench Whether men may arme themselves to suppresse Riots Rebellions or to resist Enemies and to endeavour themselves to suppresse or resist such Disturbers of the Peace or quiet of the Realm and upon good deliberation it was resolved by them all that every Iustice of Peace Sheriff and other Minister or other Subject of the King where such accident happen may do it And to fortifie this their resolution they perused the Statute of 2 E 3. cap. 3. which enacts that none be so hardy as to come with force or bring forcâ— to any place in affray of the Peace nor to go or ride armed night nor day unlesse hâ— be Servant to the King in his presence and the Ministers of the King in the execution of his Precepts or of their Office and these who are in their company assisting them or upon cry made for Weapons to keep the Peace and this in such places where accident happen upon the penalty in the same Statute contained wherby it appeareth that upon cry made for Weapons to keep the Peace every man where such accidents happen for breaking the Peace may by the Law arme himself against such evill Doers to keep the Peace But they take it to be the more discreet way for every one in such a case