Plaintiff had before brought a Quare impedit against the Defendants for the same Church which Writ was returned and that they did appear to defend it First we must know that this Assise shall be taken only in the Common Bench vide Mag Char cap 13. Assize of Darrein presentment abate by a Quare â—â—pedit then the Arch-bishop making default and the Assise being awarded against him by default if the other Defendants plead to the Assise yet the Assise shall not be presented because an Assise shall not be taken by parcels and therfore a Resummons shall be awarded against the Arch-bishop and the same for the Iury. But the other Defendants pleading their Plea to the Writ the Court was of opinion that it was a good Plea in abatement of the Writ for the Quare impedit is a Writ of a higher nature vide Regist fol 30. That if he against whom an Assise of Darrein presentment is brought brings a Quare impedit the Darrein presentment shall abate And the Statute of West 2. cap 5. saies it may be in the Election of one whether he will have an Assise of Darrein presentment or Quare impedit ergo he cannot have them both And if an Assise of Darrein presentment be brought and after that a Quare impedit for one avoidance the Assise shall abate for the Quare impedit is higher in his nature that is for the right and for the possession And Iustice Warburton vouched 10 Ed 3 Statham in Darrein presentment 3. If a man shall have a Quare impedit and also an Assise of Darrein presentment of one and the same Advowson pending at one and the same time the Darrein presentment shall abate and the Quare impedit shall stand because that it is of an higher nature By Hank and Hill it was urged that the Quare impedit was not depending untill he had appeared and it is not pleaded that he did appear but vide 2 Ed 4. fol that it is depending when it is returned And in a Quare impedit by the Earl of Bedford against the Bishop of Exeter Bedford versus the Bishop of Exeter it was adjudged Pasch 15 Jac. that he could not have two Quare impedits of one Church and for one avoidance And in this Case the whole Court agreed that the plea was good in abatement of the Writ and awarded that the Assise should abate Mich. 14 Jac. Rot. 3297. Shaw versus Taylor Wigorn. Replevin Where the Lord shal lose his Heriot when the Tenant have not any Beasts BRidget Shaw brought a Replevin against George Taylor for the taking of an Horse at Northfield in a place called Little falling the Defendant makes Cognizance as Bayliff to Sir Thomas Gervas because that one Richard Shaw was seised of an House and divers Lands of which the place where c. was parcell in his Demesn as of Fee and them held of the said Sir Thomas Gervas as of his Mannor of Northfield by Fealty and Rent of twenty pounds and rendring and paying after of every Tenant dying therof seised one Heriot and alledged Seisin and that he died seised And that for one Heriot so due and not delivered he distrained in the place in which c. as within the Fee The Plaintiff plead in Bar to the Avowry and takes the whole Tenure by protestation and for Plea saies that the said Richard Shaw at the time of his death had no Beasts wherof a Heriot might or could be rendred upon which the Defendant demurrs And upon the matter it seemed to the Court that if he had not any Beasts than the Lord must lose it for it is a casuall thing if he have it unlesse the Custom or Tenure be to have the best Beast or such a summ And if he had conveyed it away and so prevented him by any fraud then the Statute of 13 Eliz. had provided remedy but where there is nothing of any such thing which may be rendred at the time of the death there the King must lose his right And it was resolved by the Court that the Cognizance was not good for it ought to be certain i. e. for the best or two best Beasts and not generally for one Heroit and not shewing what thing in certain vide 3 Eliz Dyer 199. A Heriot is Quaedam prestatio c. and see there the Plea that there was no Beast at the time of his death And the opinion of the Court was also that the Bar to the Avowry was not good because the Issue is tendred to a thing not alledged for in the Avowry he made not mention of any beast but generally of one Heriot which is not certain And therfore it was awarded that the Plaintiff should recover and should have a return c. and Damages Pasch 14 Jac. Rot. 907. Norris versus Stapes Goldsborough Berk. RObert Norris and Thomas Trussells Wardenâ— and the Society of Weavers in the Burrough of Newbury Deâ— 1. By lawes in the County of Berkshire brought an Action of Debt for five pounds against John Stapes and Count that Queen Eliz. by her Letters Patents 14. of Octob An 44. at the request of the Inhabitants there using the Art of Weaving and to the intent that Corruption therin might be taken away and avoided c. did grant to all Weavers within the said Town to be a Body Politick by the name of the Wardens and Society c as before and to have perpetuall succession power to purchase to plead and to be impleaded And also power to make Laws and Ordinances agreeable to reason and not in any wise contrary and repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm for the well Government of the Society Apprentices and Servants and all using the Trade of weaving or selling of any thing therto belonging within the same Burrough and power to inflict punishment by Imprisonment Fine or Amercement upon the Offenders And granted further that the said Wardens and Society shall have the survey of those Lawes and the benefit of the Forfeitures And that no other person born within or without the said Burrough shal exercise the Art of weaving within the said Burrough if he shall not be admitted therto by the Wardens and Society And they recite the Act of 19 H 7. cap 7. of not putting of any Law or Ordinance in execution before it shall be allowed by the Lord Chancellor Treasurer and two chief Iustices or three of them or before both the Iustices of Assise in their Circuits upon pain of forfeiting forty pounds And shew that one Cuthbert Goodwin and John Hame Wardens of the said Society with the greater part of the said Society 1. Maij 45 Eliz. at the Guildhall within the said Burrough made divers Lawes and Ordinances for the Government of Weavers and that the 18 Novemb. 1 Jac. the said Orders were confirmed by the Lord Chancellor Lord Treasurer and Lord Anderson one of the chief Iustices among which one
was that none should use the Art of Weaving within the said Burrough or should have any Loom in his house or possession to have any benefit therby unlesse he had been an Apprentice to the said Art within the said Burrough for the space and term of seven years or had used the said Art within the said Burrough for five years before the making of the said Ordinance or shall be admitted therto by the Wardens and Society upon pain of forfeiture for every month twenty shillings And they further shew that after the said Ordinance made and confirmed the Defendant such a day before his inhabiting in the said Burrough and after such a day that one William Godwin being then Warden of the Weavers gave notice to the Defendant of the said Ordinance and that he afterwards c. during five months continued using the said Trade there and that he had two Looms in his possession where he had not been an Apprentice nor used the said Art for five years as before c. by which he forfeited to them five pounds viz for every month twenty shillings The Defendant pleaded Nil debet and after Verdict for the Plaintiffs it was moved by Arrest of Iudgment that this Ordinance was not reasonable and upon Arguments and Conference without arguments at the Bench it was agreed that the Ordinance was against Law and Iudgment against the Plaintiffs And Lord Hobart in Hil 15 Jac declared that we were all of opinion that Iudgment should be given against the Plaintiffs And he repeated the Case and the reasons of this Iudgment because the Ordinance was that none should use the Trade of Weaver nor have any Loom in the Town unlesse he had served c. before the making of this Ordinance so that all Apprentices which serve after shall be excluded unlesse they shall be admitted by them which is unreasonable And the Plaintiffs do not convey to themselves any good Title to be Wardens but as to the principall point of making such a restraining Ordinance the Court did not deliver any opinion Mich. 15 Jac. Rot. 2327. Dorrell versus Andrews SUsan Dorrell brought an action of Debt against Sir Eusebius Andrews London Debt The Visn of a Town within a Parish and John Cope for eighty five pounds and count upon a Lease made by her to the Defendants by Indenture by which she demised one Capitall Messuage Mannor or House called Causton within the Parish of Dunchurch in the County of Warwick and all the Stables c. in Causton aforesaid The Defendant protesting that the Rent was not behind for Plea saies that before any Rend arrear the Plaintiff entred into severall parts of the house and him dispossessed and upon that they were at issue and the Venice facias was de vicineto de Causton within the Parish of Dunchurch And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Venire facias should be of the Parish only and not of Causton for Causton is not alledged as a Town but the name of a house And the Court resolved that the Ven. fac was good for Causton is alledged as a Town in the Parish of Dunchurch and that by the addition and generall words in the Demise in which also there was an exception of part of the House as Mannor-house at Causton aforesaid so that the house is alledged to be in Causton in the Parish of Dunchurch if all be considered And if it appear that Causton is a Town or Village in the Parish of Dunchurch it will be without any doubt good And my Lord Hobart said that it had been divers times adjudged that on the Allegation of a thing done at the Town of Dale in the Parish of Sale that the Ven. fac of the Parish is good for though the Parish may contain more Towns yet it is not to be presumed but that it is of one Continent if the contrary appear not by the Record vide for that Pasch 9 Jac. between the Lord Candish and Sir George Savill c. There was another exception taken to the pleading Candish and Savill which I have not transcribed Trin. 14 Jac. Rot. 755 Swaine versus Holman RIchard Swaine Plaintiff Brownlow Dors. Wast against Thomas Holman and Elizabeth his Wife brought Wast and declared of a Lease made Anno the 8. of Eliz by the Queen under the Exchequer Seal to William Jolliff Thomas Jolliff and Elizabeth Jolliff for three lives and that William and Thomas were dead and convey the remainder to the King that now is and from him to the Plaintiff and that the Defendant Elizabeth took H. to Husband which did wast c. The Defendants confesse the Lease death and marriage as above c and say that the said Holman and Elizabeth his wife 2. Feb 40 Eliz. surrendred as well all their Estate of the said Elizabeth as the Letters Patents to the intent that the Queen should make a new Lease to the said Elizabeth and to Humphrey Holman and to Roger Holman for their lives successively which surrender the Queen accepted and the third of Febr next made such Demise and this they are ready to aver c. The Plaintiff replies and joyns Issue upon the Surrender and Demise in manner and form and the Issue was tried by a Venue which came from Westminster and the Iury found this speciall Verdict viz. the new Lease made the third of Felic in which it is recited that she had surrendred the Estate and the Letters Patents and the Queen as well in consideration of the surrender of the Letters Patents as in consideration of the payment of twenty Nobles made by the new Lease and the Iury found that the Demise made the third of Febr was with the consent of the said Thomas Holman and that the said Thomas Holman and Elizabeth his wife agreed therto and held in claiming by the said Demise And it was adjudged by the Lord Hobart and others the Iustices that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment First the consideration which procured the new Lease is the Surrender and the Surrender is not absolute but defeisable if the wife survive or if the Husband will disagree and therfore the Lord Hobart said that if Feme Lesses for years takes Husband and after the Feme takes a new Lease of the Queen for life this extinguisheth the term but if the Husband disagree then the Lease for yeers is revived And as in Barwicks Case the surrender of all the Estate where he had made a Lease for years before or where the Lease which he surrendred was void the new Lease made 〈◊〉 consideration therof is vein for the Surrender which is the consideration ought to be a good surrender of the former Estate And therfore if Lessee for life of the Blemise of the King surrender conditionally and the King reciting that he had surrendred all his Estate makes a new Lease this shall be intended an absolute Estate for a conditionall surrender within three years of
and Iudgment against the Plaintiff 8 E 4. 3. 21 E 4 2. Lit. 264. b. 20 E 4. 17. If the Debtee makes the Debtor and others his Executors the Debt is discharged Mich 9 Car. Banco Regis Rot 373. Anne Dorchester Executrix of Anne Row Dorchester and Webb Plaintiff against William Webb in Debt upon an Obligation of five hundred pounds the Defendant demanded Oyer wherby it appears that the Defendant and one John Dorchester were obliged joyntly and severally in the said Obligation The Defendant plead in Bar that the said John Dorchester made the Plaintiff his Executrix who proved the Will and had Goods sufficient in her hands to pay the said Debt The Plaintiff reply that before the death of the said Anne Row the Obligee she had fully Administred all the Goods of the said John Dorchester Demurrer and Iudgment for the Plaintiff And in this case it is not shewn that the said Francis and Peter or any of them proved the Will of the said Obligee or that they administred his goods or that they had any goods of the Obligor to administer at the time of the death of the Obligee as it ought to have been shewn And the said Francis Executor of the Obligee and also of the Obligor refused to be Executor to the Obligee and never Administred and never meddled with the Goods of the Obligee and so the Debt is not released in Law as by the said Case and former Iudgment appears This case had been often argued by Serjeant Hedley and of the other part by Serjeant Hitcham and affirmed that once Iudgment was given for the Defendant but it yet depends Trin. 12 Car. MEmorand Vpon Petition exhibited to the King by the Prisoners of quality which were in execution in the Fleet Liberty may not be given to Prisoners by force of a Habeas Corpus Kings Bench and Marshalsey to have liberty in the time of Infection and for preservation of their lives to have liberty by Writs of Habeas Corpus to go into the Country upon security to be given to the Warden and Marshall for their return The King out of his great care of their safety referred their Petition to the Lord Keeper Coventry and that he with the advice of the Iudges should consider by what way it might be done And the eighteenth day of June we attended the Lord Keeper at Durham-house And therupon conference and consideration of a former Resolution which was at Reading in Mich. Term last before the said Lord Keeper where were present all the Iudges besides my self That these abusive Habeas Corpus were not lawfull and that the Warden and Marshall were then called and warned that they should not suffer their Prisoners to go into the Country as they had used to do by colour of such Writs This which followes was subscribed WEE are of Opinion that the Writ of Habeas Corpus is both Ancient and Legall But as the Writ doth not so no Rule can Authorize the Keeper of the Prison to give liberty to his Prisoner by colour of such Writ but the same is an abuse against Law and an Escape in the Keeper if he let the Prisoner go by such Writ We find that neither in the twenty fourth year of Eliz. when the Term was Adjourned to Hertford Nor in the 34. of Eliz. in which year it was Adjourned to Hertford Nor in the 35. of Eliz. in which year it was Adjourned to St. Albans Nor in 1 Jac. in which year the Term was Adjourned to Winchester Nor in the first of King Charles in which year it was Adjourned to Reading In all which years there were great and dangerous Infections of the Plague there was no such course to set Prisoners out of Prison by Habeas Corpus but we find it a Novelty begun of late years But We think that if the danger of Infection shall grow so great as it shall be found necessary to provide for the safety of the Prisoners who may at all times provide for themselves by paying their Debts and yeilding obedience to Justice then a course may be taken that some certaine house may be assigned for the Warden of the Fleet in some good Town remote from the Infection and the like for the Marshall of the Kings Bench in some other Town where they may remove such Prisoners as have been Petitioners to his Majesty and there keep them as Prisoners Sub arcta salva Custodia as they should be kept in their proper Prisons and not to be as House-keepers in their own houses and by this means they will have the like to avoid the Infection as other Subjects have and not make the Infection a cause to abuse their Creditors or delude the course of Justice John Bramsion 1. Richard Hutton 2. George Crooke 3. George Vernon 4. Francis Crawley 5. Humph. Davenport 6. William Jones 7. Thomas Trevor 8. Robert Barkley 9. Richard Weston 10. To Sir John Bramston Knight Lord chief Justice of England My very good Lord I Have acquainted his Majesty with your resolution and your Brethren about Writs of HABEAS CORPUS his Majesty doth exceedingly approve the same And hath commanded me to let you know that his Majesty would not recede from that which you have certified And praies you and the rest of my Lords the Judges to observe it constantly attending to that resolution under your hands Hampton Court 19 June 1636. Your Lordships assured Tho. Coventrey C. S. Mich. 14 Car. MEmorand That 28. Aprilis 14 Car. Iustice Hutton argued in the Exchequer Chamber in the Case Adjourned thither upon a Scâ—re facias by the King against Hampden for Ship-money in which he was of opinion that as well for the matter as for the form upon divers exceptions to the pleading Iudgment should be given against the King Afterwards viz. 4. Maij. Thomas Hanson Batchelor of Divinity and Parson of Creake in Northamp came to the Court of Common Bench Iustice Hutton and Iustice Crawley then being there giving Rules and Orders and said Words against Justice Hutton I accuse Mr. Justice Hutton of high Treason for which he was committed to the custody of the Warden of the Fleet by Iustice Crawley and after by the direction of the King he was indicted in the Kings Bench and convicted and fined to five thousand pounds to the King And Iustice Hutton preferred his Bill against him there and recovered ten thousand pound Dameges Lord Digbies Case MEmorand That in the Parliament holden primo Car. It was resolved by the Iudges upon conference concerning the Lord Digby That when any Peer shall be proceeded against for Treason that ought to be by Indictment and that being done Where tryall of Treason by the Statute of 3 Jac. cap. 4. shall be and how then the King is to appoint a Peer to be Steward for the time and then to proceed to Arraign him or otherwise to transmit this Indictment by Certiorari to the Parliament and there
it is not deminâ—tion of his Honor to be sworn concerning that which he would not have to be put upon his Honor. Also it is a good Rule Testi non jurato non est credend in judicio And Princes are sworn to all their Leagues and Confederacies which is called Jeramâ—ntum confirmationis Hil. 2 Car. Winsmore versus Hobart Trin. 27 Eliz. Rot. 850. Wilts IN an Ejectione firmae brought by Thomas Winsmore against Michaâ—l Hobart upon a Lease made by Edward Long the Iury gave a speciall Verdict Habendum to parties not named in the Deed. William Lord Sturton seised of the Tenements in the Count in Fee by Indenture demised them to Thomas Hobart habendum to the said Thomas Hobart and to the said Michael Hobart Iohn Hobart and Henry Hobart Sons of the said Thomas for their lives and the life of the Survivor of them successively By vertue wherof the said Thomas entred and was seised for life And the Lord Sturton granted the Reversion to Thomas Long in Fee to whom Thomas Hobart attorned Thomas Long devised it to Edward Long in tail Edward Long died seised and the Reversion descended to Edward his Son the Lessor of the Plaintiff Thomas Hobart and Henry died Michael and Iohn survived Michael entred Thomas Long entred upon him and made a Lease to the Plaintiff who entred and was possessed untill the Defendant ousted him And Judgment was given for the Plaintiff The Habendum was void as to all them which were not parties to the Deed. Pasch 3. Car. Hartox and Cock's Case Entred Pasch 2 Car. Rot. 1761. Hertf. A Quare Impedit was brought by George Hartox and Cocks against the Bishop of Lincoln Advowson in grosse for life Lord Keeper of the great Seal Mary Hewes and David Dublin Clark for the Church of Essington The Issue being joyned by the Incumbent upon the Appendancy the Evidence given to the Plaintiff to prove it was such Henry 6. was seised of the Mannor in Fee and granted it to Mary his Consort for life Habendum una cum advocatione of the said Church The Queen Mary presented and after there was a Presentment by Laps then the said Queen presented again And afterwards Edward the fourth seised of the said Mannor presented and then Henry the seventh and Henry the eighth And the King Edward the sixth granted the Mannor and other Mannors and the Advowson to Sir Iohn Pawlet in Fee reserving Tenure in Capite for the Maonnrs and Socage Tenure for the Advowson And the said Sir Iohn Pawlet granted the Mannor and the Advowson to William Tooke in Fee who presented the last Incumbent and under this Title the Plaintiffs entitle themselves The Defend said that the said Wil. Took was seised of the said Advowson and it defended to William Tooke the Son and granted the next avoidance and it came to Mary Hâ—wes who presented the Defendant Dublin and the Evidence to prove that it was in grosse was Henry the third being seised in Fee of the Mannor of Essinton made a Lease therof to his Brother for life and excepted the Advowson and then upon the expressing of the Advowson upon the Grant of Edward the sixth and the reservation of severall Tenures And this was their Evidence And Serjeant Henden maintained that by this exception of the Advowson when it was granted for life made it to be in grosse for ever And he vouched 38 H 6. 13. Quare Impedit by the King against the Abbey of Sion and the Incumbent there by the Exception of the Advowson it was become in grosse and there one said at least during the Estate for life and that is all which is implyed by the Book for the Iudgment is for the King because that it being not appendant is passed not by the Grant by the Habendum una cum c. And though that the Court unement agreed that it is but in grosse for the Estate for life and that it is all one as if the King had granted the Advowson which is appendant for life and the Grantee dies and the Advowson is appendant again and yet he insisted and persisted to have a speciall Verdict found therupon And I moved my Brother Yelverton that before we admit of a speciall Verdict as it hath been used in former times to go to the Iudges of the Kings Bench and to put the case to them to know their opinion and when he came again and declared it we put it upon the Iury to try the matter and they came in and found for the Plaintiff And after that the Demurrer which was joyned for the other Defendant Mary was by consent entred for the Plaintiff vide Dyer 34 in appeal vide 7 H. 6. 37. Chidley's Case CHidley brought a Quid juris clamat and had Iudgment against the Defendant and the Plaintiff had made a Warrant to his Attorney for the receiving of his Attornment Quid juris clamat and the Defendant would have attorned but would not do his Fealty And the Presidents were that he ought to be sworn in Court and the entry of the Iudgment is that he did attorn And fecit fidelitatem and so he was sworn in Court vid. 37 H 6. 14. If he refuse to attorn being in Court he shall be committed for contempt Moyle said that that is Attornment but Prisot said that he should not have a Writ of Wast nor arraign an Assise untill he assent Trin. 3 Car. Rot. Humbleton versus Buck. Lincoln SImon Humbleton brought an action upon the case against Buck Case Assumpsit in consideration of defending Suit in maintenance of a Title of Common and counted that wheras a Controversie was between the Inhabitants and Tenants of Fletam and one Palmer for and concerning the having of Common in one parcell of Land which was a Sea-bank in which they had Common of Pasturs for taking by Cattell and also by taking and cutting the Grasse And wheras the said Palmer had brought an action of Trespasse against the now Plaintiff for entry made by him in the said close and for taking his Grasse pretending that the said Land in which he claimed Common was his severall and free from their claim of Common the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff had given to him a Iugg of Beer and that he at the request of the Defendant would prosecute and defend â—he said Suit for the maintenance of their Common against the said Palmer untill the determination therof he promised to pay to the Plaintiff one moyety of his charges and over and besides twenty pounds and that therupon he defended the said Suit and pleaded Not guilty and at the tryall therof Palmer was non-suited and that that was for the maintenance of the Common and that he expended in defence and prosecution of the said Suit forty pounds The Defendant confessed all the Inducement and also a promise sub modo and sayd that the said Palmer had brought Trespasse to which the Plaintiff had
if Rent he reserved at the time of the Distresse and it be refused and a Distresse taken that is Tortious 30 Ass 36. 20 H 6. 31. 48 E 3. 9. 2 H 6. 4. And in this case it was said that Reddenda singula singulis that the demand shall be used when the Penalty of the Rent comes in question and not for the Rent And though it be reserved payable at another place thal changeth not the Rent but it is issuable out of the Land and distrainable upon the Lands And lastly it hath been divers times adjudged that the Rent is payable upon the Land 1 Jac Rot 1818. Nich and Langford Skinner and Amery Borman and Bower In Replevin between Nich and Langford Trin 16 Jac. Rot. 954. Between Skinner and Amery vide before between Crawley and Kingswell Trin 3 Car Rot 2865. Rent reserved payable out of the Land And although that the Iudgment is by confession after demurrer yet it was for the reason afore recited Iudgment for the Defendant The Lord Audley's Case Wilts JUratores pro Domino rege super sacramentum suum present Quod Martinus Dominus Audley nuper de Fountell Gifford in Comitatu Wilts Aegideus Broadway de Fountell Gifford praedict in Comitatu praedicto generosus timorem Dei prae oculis suis non habentes Indictment for Rape sed Instigatione Diabolica moti seducti vicessimo die Junii Anno regni Domini nostri Caroli dei Gratia Angliae Scotiae Franciae Hiberniae fidei defensoris sexto Apud Fountell Gifford praedict Comitatu praedicto vi armis c. in super Annam Dominam Audley Uxorem praefati Domini Martini Audley in pace Dei dicti Domini Regis ibidem Existent insult fecerunt Et praedictus Aegidius Br. praedictam Annam Dominam Audley vi armis contra voluntatem ipsius Annae ad tunc ibidem violenter felonicae rapuit ac ipsam Annam ad tunc ibidem contra voluntatem suam violenter felonice carnaliter cognovit contra pacem Domini Regis nunc coron dignitat suas contra formam statuti in hujusmodi casu edit provis Et ultim Juratores praedicti dicunt super sacramentum suum praedict Quod praedictus Martinus Dominus Audley praedicto vicesimo die Junii An. sexto supradicto Apud Fountell Glifford praedictam in Comitatu praedicto felonice fuit presens auxilians Confortans abettans procurans â—adjuvans manutenens praedictum Egidium Br. ad feloniam praedictum in forma praedicta felonice faciend perpetrand contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc Coronam dignitatem suas ac contra formam statuti praedicti Wilts IUratores pro Domino Rege super sacramentum suum present Quod Martinus Dominus Audley nuper de Fountell Gifford in Comitatu Wilts Deum prae oculis non habens nec naturae ordinem respiciens Indictment for Buggery sed instigatione Diabolica motus seductus primo die Junii An. Regni Domini nostri Caroli c. sexto Apud Fountell Gifford praedictam in dicto Comitatu Wilts in domo Mansionali ejusdem Martini Domini Audley ibidem vi armis in quendam Florence Fitz-Patrick Yeoman insult fecit cum eodem Florente F. ad tunc ibidem nequit Diabolice felonice contra naturam rem veneream habuit ipsumque F. ad tunc ibidem carnaliter cognovit peccatumque illud Sodomiticum detestabile abominandum Anglice vocat Buggery inter Christianos non nominandum ad tunc ibidem cum eodem Florence F. nequit Diabolice felonice contra naturam Commisit perpetravit in magnam Dei Omnipotentis displicentiam ac totius humani generis dedecus ac contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc Coronam dignitatem suâ—s contra formam statuti in hujusmodi casu edit provis The like Indictment for the same Offence with the same person 10 June the same year at new Sarum in the Mansion house of the said Martin c. Memorand That these Indictments were sound 6 April An. 7 Car. at new Sarum by vertue of a Commission before Edward Lord Georges Nich. Hide Knight chief Iustice ad placita c. Thomas Richardson chief Iustice de Banco John Denham Knight one of the Barons c. Edward Hungerford Knight Walter Vaughan Knight Laurence Hide Knight Thomas Fanshaw Knight by Letters Patents Ipsius Domini Regis pro eis quibuscunque tribus vel pluribus eorum inde Confect ad Inquirendum c. Memorand That the 25. day of April An. 7 Car. A Commission was made for the Arraignment of the said Lord Audley upon the said severall Indictments by his Peers in which the Lord Coventry Lord Keeper of the Great Seal was made high Steward And the Peers were in number twenty seven And he pleaded Not guilty And one question was propounded to the Iudges which did attend viz. The Lord chief Iustice of the Kings Bench the Lord chief Iustice of the Common Pleas the Lord chief Baron Baron Denham Iustice Jones Iustice Whitlock Iustice Harvey and Iustice Crook If the Wife might be produced as a Witnesse against her Husband Where a Wife may give Evidence against her Huâ—band And it was resolved that in case of a common person between party and party she could not according to the opinion in Cokes first Institutes fol 6. but between the King and the party upon an Indictment she may although it concerns the Feme her self as she may have the Peace against her Husband Buggary sans Penetration Also it was reported to the Lords by the Lord chief Iustice when they were demanded whether this matter of Fact being as it was proved that Pollution and using of a man upon his Belly Sodomitically without penetration was Buggery by the Statute of 25 H 8. the Lord Richardson was of a contrary opinion upon the Conference yet his opinion was involved in the generall But as he said to me their opinions we delivered only upon this case and upon these examinations if the Lords gave credit to the matter in fact that it was Buggery but they gave not a generall opinion that may be a rule in other cases but upon the foulnesse and abominablenesse of this Fact And afterwards the Lords were not unanimously resolved that it was Buggery but this Point was resolved that they ought to believe and give credit to the Law as the Iudges had declared it And it seems that they could not give a speciall Verdict upon this tryall for it never was seen Also the Commission determines after Iudgment given And the Staff of the high Steward shall be broken And after long debate they seriatim laying their hands upon their hearts as the Mannor is said that he was guilty of Rape beside the Lord North. And for the Buggaries twelve of the Lords acquitted him and fifteen found him guilty and so he had Iudgment And at