Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
lord_n james_n john_n robert_n 24,334 5 8.6937 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A35627 The case of Mr. Benjamin Leech, brick-layer at the Old-Baily, the fourteenth day of October, 1682. Leech, Benjamin.; England and Wales. Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace (London) 1682 (1682) Wing C953; ESTC R36277 4,376 8

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

divers the Liege People and Subjects of our said Lord the King Citizens of the City aforesaid publish That Prichard the aforesaid Sir William Prichard Knight meaning should not be Lord Maior Lord Maior of the City aforesaid meaning unless he would be Lord Maior unlawfully and by stealth as the Sheriffs the aforesaid Dudley North and Peter Rich Sheriffs of the City and County aforesaid meaning were Sheriffs of the City and County aforesaid To the great disturbance of the Peace of our said Lord the King to the great disparagement of the Governours and Government of the City aforesaid and also the Scandal Disparagement and Defamation of the aforesaid Sir William Prichard and the aforesaid Dudley North and Peter Rich in due manner Elected Sheriffs of the City and County aforesaid to the evil example of all others in the like Case offending and against the Peace of our said Lord the King that now is his Crown and Dignity c. Whereunto the Defendant offer'd the Plea following Leech at the Suit of our Lord the King ANd the aforesaid Benjamin Leech in his proper Person doth come and defend the Force and Injury when c. and all Contempt and whatsoever c. and Prays Judgment of the Indictment aforesaid because he saith the Jurors for our Lord the King aforesaid who that Indictment made and presented were thereunto Returned and Impannelled by one Dudley North Esquire and one Peter Rich Esquire as Sheriffs of the City of London which Dudley and Peter at that time of the Pannel and the Return thereof by them so made were not nor either of them was Sheriffs of the said City of London by which the said Indictment so made and presented by such Jurors so as aforesaid Impannelled and Returned by Persons then not being Sheriffs of the City aforesaid by force of the Statute in the like Case made and provided is void in Law and of none Effect and this he is ready to verifie whereupon he Prayes Judgment of that Indictment and that that Indictment might be quashed c. W. Thompson Which said Plea being ingrossed in Parchment and Signed by William Thompson of the Middle-Temple Councellor at Law was on Saturday morning deliver'd into Court by the Defendant who pressed that the Plea might be received and he and his Bail dismissed from further Attendance for that time Whereunto it was Answered that the Court would consider thereof till the Afternoon In the Afternoon the Defendant attended with Mr. Thompson his Councel and Mr. Osborn of the Inner-Temple Councellor at Law attended for the King the Court being Sate the Plea was read and then Mr. Osborne moved that the Plea ought not to be received for that it was a new Plea without a precedent and that it could not be Tryed or determined there that it was a frivolous Plea and ought not to be received and so left it to the Judgment of the Bench. Upon which Mr. Thompson allowed that such a Plea had rarely been made use of because the like Case had rarely or never happened but the reason thereof did justifie its Legality and therefore pressed that the Plea might be accepted that it never was hitherto denyed to any-man to Plead to an Indictment of this nature what he thought fit in his own Defence especially when he offers the same under Councels hand that this was a ready way to determine who were legally Sheriffs if the Plea was not good in Law the Attorney General or the Kings Council might demurr to it that if the matter alleadged in the Plea was false Issue might be taken thereon which might soon be Tryed by a Jury but if the matter should appear to be true there was not so much as any colour in Law for those worthy Gentlemen Mr. North and Mr. Rich to take upon them to Return Juries and therefore in the behalf of his Client demanded again that the Plea might be received the truth or validity thereof being not to be determined till some Answer should be made thereunto by Replication or Demurring in Writing In Answer thereunto Mr. Justice Levinz being the only Judge then present was pleased to express himself to this effect That he desired to see the Statute mentioned in the Plea whereupon it was read viz. The 11 H. 4.9 Then Mr. Justice Levinz spake to this effect That this Statute was made to prevent the nomination of Juries to the Sheriffs and though it be thereby provided that Pannels should be Returned by the Sheriffs without denomination of any yet he was of Opinion that it could not extend to the Case in hand seeing the worthy Persons that attended there were owned as Sheriffs by Lord Maior Mr. Recorder and several Aldermen there present and that he made no difference between Sheriffs de facto and de jure and that these persons being there so allowed he must look upon them as Sheriffs de jure That a Gaol-delivery had been held wherein above forty Prisoners had been tryed and that if this Plea should be allowed all the proceedings against them would come in question And then asked Mr. Thompson What if all the Felons at an Assizes should insist upon the like Plea must all further proceedings stop till the Sheriff goes home and fetch his Letters Patents Whereupon Mr. Thompson said That he thought in that Case such stop could not be prevented the Law being plain Then Mr. Justice Levinz said further to this effect That he had considered of this matter and that in his Judgment the Plea was a frivolous Plea and ought not to be received but yet he being the only Judge then present he should advise my Lord Maior and the rest of the Bench to take Advice of all the Judges before an absolute Determination whether the Plea ought to be refused or not Upon this Sir John Peak said We will not receive the Plea with whom agreed Sir James Edwards Sir James Smith Sir Thomas Beckford and Sir Robert Jefferies and the Lord Maior also Sir George Treby the Recorder said That he was of Opinion with Mr. Justice Levinz Upon this Leech was pressed to Plead Not Guilty which he refused saying several times He would plead no other Plea than what he had offered Then the Court gave him half an Hours time to advise with his Councel who withdrew and advised accordingly and returned with the same Resolution not to alter his Plea and tendered his Plea again to the Court who again rejected it And because he would plead no other Plea he being first asked Whether he would Submit to the Court and ask Pardon and refusing so to do having as he apprehended done no wrong was Fined Twenty Marks and committed to Newgate till he should pay the same which was done that Night and Leech thereby discharged Printed for A. Green