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
THE REPORTS OF THAT REVEREND AND LEARNED JUDGE SIR RICHARD HUTTON KNIGHT Sometimes one of the JUDGES of the COMMON PLEAS Containing many Choice Cases Judgments and Resolutions in points of LAW In the severall Raignes of King JAMES and King CHARLES being written in French by his owne hand AND Now faithfully Translated into English according to ORDER Major haereditas venit unicuique nostrûm a Jure Legibus quam ab â—is a quibus illa bona relicta sunt Cic. pro Caerin LONDON Printed by T. R. for Henry Twyford and Thomas Dring and are to be sold at their Shops in Vine-Court Middle Temple and at the George in Fleetstreet neer Cliffords-Inne 1656. COVRTEOVS READER THese REPORTS of that Famous and Learned Judge Sir RICHARD HUTTON were intended long ere this to have been exposed to publick View as they were Originally penn'd in FRENCH by his own hand but now in obedience to a late Act of Parliament they are faithfully rendred into ENGLISH And may be of great use and benefit to the Studients and Practisers of the LAWES of these Nations This just Judge as the greatest man once of this Nation was pleased to call him was sometimes Contemporary with the Lord HOBART By reason whereof though they may seem to meet sometimes in Cases yet they part many times in the Points thereof and the Arguments thereupon CICERO and ROSTIUS together make one incomparable Man And here our Learned Author appeares not to justle the Chiefe Justice out of his place but to continue as he was upon the Bench a friendly Associate and a Learned Assistant THE NAMES OF THE PRINCIPALL CASES contained in this BOOKE A. A Andrews and Hacker 3 Agars Case 10 Allaboyter and Clifford 29 Andrews Case 30 Adams and Flemming 34 Allen and Swift 46 Aris and Higgins 65 Aleston and Andrew 128 B. BLands Case 18 Bishops Case 22 Boonton and the Bishop of Rochester 24 Bigg and Malin 27 Brook and Groves 28 Bagshaw and Walker 34 Blackburnes Case 36 Bridgland and Post 44 Bullen and Jevis 52 Bawtry and Scarlet 63 Blemhasset and Humblestone 65 Bickner and Wright 71 Beverley and Povver 79 Baker and Johnson 106 Bill and Lake 106 Babbington and Wood 111 Baker and Hucking 126 C. COmbes and Invvood 1 Cole and Allen 10 Cravvley and Kingsvvell 13 Conesbies Case 22 Cardinalls Case 29 Coppledick and Tansey 31 Coney and Coney 32 Castilion and Smith 35 Clerk and Wood 39 Cartright and Underhil 42 Clanrickards Case 43 Curle and Cook 51 Chittle and Sammon 55 Crane and Crampton 80 Clotvvorthy and Clotvvorthy 82 Crocker and Kelsey 84 Chidleys case 89 Chapman and Chapman 90 Chichley and the Bishop of Ely 96 Conghams case 98 Cook and Cook 110 Cole and Wilkes 121 Champernons case 135 D. DOrrell and Andrevvs 6 Drevvry and Fitch 16 Darcy and Askvvith 19 Davies case 42 Dovve and Palmer 124 Deanes case 125 Davies case 127 Digbies case 131 E. EDmonds case 20 Eire and Banister 24 Easington and Boucher 26 Egerton and Egerton 28 Empson and Bathurst 52 Edwards and Laurence 123 F. FLetcher and Harcot 55 Flight and Gresham 76 Farrington and Arrundel 82 Franklyn and Bradell 84 Farrington and Cagmer 98 Freeman and Stacy 109 G. GIbbs and Davy 8 Green and Harrington 34 Griggs case 59 Goldenham and Some 71 Glasier and Heliar 122 H. HArding and Bodman 11 Heard and Baskerfeld 15 Hall and Woollen 39 Hord and Cordery 49 Hawkins and Cutts 49 Howell and Auger 60 Hickson and Hicson 69 Hitcham and Brook 75 Hearne and Allen 85 Howard Sir Charles 86 Hartap and Cocks 88 Humbeton and Buck 89 Hilton and Paule 93 Holt and Sambach 96 Harbert and Angell 113 Hicks and Mounford 120 Huttons case Just 131 Hugles and Drinkwater 133 I. IUrden and Stone 18 Jennings and Pitman 63 Jones and Powell 135 K. KInd and Amery 23 King and Bowen 44 Knight and Copping 125 L. Leygh and Paine 9 Lamb and Thompson 40 Lightfoot and Brightman 54 Lindleys case 70 Laycon and Barnard 81 Lincoln the Earle 87 Lamb and West 114 Lashbrookes case 127 M. MAson and Thomson 38 Mayes and Sidley 46 Meredith and Bovill 58 Metholl and Peck 73 Mackerney and Ewrin 101 Medcalf and Hodgson 120 N. NOrris and Staples 5 Napper and Sanders 118 P. PIes case 35 Powell and Ward 41 Pitt and Chick 45 Parkers case 56 Poole and Reynold 57 Pleydell and Gosmore 67 Potter and Brown 72 Peto and Pemmerton 94 Paston and Utber 102 Purnell and Bridge 112 R. SIr Walter Rawleys case 21 Reyner and Waterhouse 27 Rugles case 37 Rud and the Bishop of Linc. 66 Ram and Lamley 113 Risam and Gooding 117 S. STeward and Bishop 2 Shaw and Tayler 4 Swain and Holman 7 Speak and Richards 11 Stone and Roberts 13 Smith and Stafford 17 Staffords case 20 Smith and Lindsey 32 Smith and Boucher 33 Sherley and Underhill 41 Suggs and Sparrow 47 Sherwills case 51 Stevens and Oldworth 91 Sandford and Cooper 95 Starkey and Tayler 104 Shervin and Cartwright 109 Strilleys case 122 Smith and Cornelius 123 Souler and Burton 132 T. TIppin and King 44 Treherne and Cleybrook 68 Trevors and Michelborn 77 Townley and Steele 78 Turner and Hodges 101 Treford and Holmes 108 U. UVedall and Tindall 77 W. WOolfe and Heydon 30 Wentworth Sir Tho 42 Wilson and Stubbs 45 Walrond and Hill 48 Whitguift and Eldersham 50 Wades case 81 Winsmore and Hobart 87 Woolfe and Hole 92 Watand Maywell 104 Wilson and Briggs 111 Whittington and Earl of Derby 37 Y. YOung and Young 92 THE NAMES OF CERTAINE CASES Cited Obiter in the PRINCIPALL CASES A. ALbanies case 35 Ashburneham and Skinner 72 Alephs case Sir William 107 Arrows case 113 Arrowsmiths case 83 B. BAker and Hall 3 Bedford and the Bishop of Exeter 4 Brownes case 9 Belcher and Hudson 17 Burnell and Brook 48 Beddinfeilds case 78 Baker and VVilloughby 105 Borman and Bower 115 Bland and Moseley 136 Brooks case 14 Bosdens case 23 Bedforne and Dandy 25 C. CAndish and Savill 7 Coppleston and Langford 23 Craddock and Wenlock 26 Coniers case Crachfords case 97 Capels case Sir Arthur Charter and Hunter 14 Couper and Andrews 58 D. LOrd Derbies case 119 Dunking and Leycroft 125 Dorchester and Webb 128 E. EWer and Moyle 44 F. FLeet and Harrison 26 Farrington's case G. GEorge and Whitlock 14 Greenwood and Beckett 76 Gillinghams case 95 Gerards case Sir John 122 Gonard and Dennet 83 Godhow and Bennet 83 Gittings and Redserne 13 H. HOdges and Balwin 81 I. IOhnson and Barker 35 Johnson Atewood 76 Jone's case 111 K. KEldriche's case 35 M. MIldmore Warlowe 52 Mills and Whitewood 105 N. NEwby and Sag 9 Nowels case Nich and Langford 115 Nichols and Grandie 29 P. PEriam's case 26 Pell and Brown 60 Powell and Vardoffe 76 Potmans case Parker and Parker 84 R. REdforne and Dandy 24 S. SMith and Mopham 136 Skinner and Amery 115 Sabud and R.W.L. 26 Stepney and Woolfe 42 Stanley and Buddens case 52 Somerford
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
without Custom nor the Lord cannot commit during the Minority of an Infant Copyholder without Custom Hil. 15 Jac. Rot. 906. Smith versus Stafford Brownlow Suff. ANdrew Smith and Anne his Wife Case against Richard Stafford Executor of Jeremy Stafford in an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff counts that wheras there was Communication had of a Marriage between the said Anne when she was sole and the said Jeremy Where inter-marriage release a promise made by the Husband to the Wife before marriage the said Jeremy in consideration that the said Anne would take him to her husband promised that if after the Marriage the said Jeremy dyed living the said Anne he would leave the said Anne worth a hundred pounds and aver that she did marry the said Jeremy which died and did not leave her worth a hundred pounds And upon Non assumpsit the Iury found for the Plaintiff and in Arrest of Iudgment it was alledged that this intermarriage had extinguisht the action vide 11 H 7. 4 21 H. 7. 30. Coke 8. 136. there in Sir John Needhams case many cases are put vide Hoes case that a Release do not discharge Bail before Iudgment for it is contingent vide one Iudgment Hil 6. Jac. in the Kings Bench Rot 132. Thomas Belcher and Elizabeth his Wife Belcher and Hudson against Edmond Hudson an Action upon the case in consideration that the said Elizabeth at his request would take one Thomas Mason his familiar Friend to her Husband he assumed and promised that if the said Elizabeth survived the said Mason that he would pay yearly to her forty shillings for her maintenance and shews that therupon she did take the said Mason to her Husband and survived him and then married with the Plaintiff the Defendant pleads a Release from Mason of all Actions Demands c. and it was adjudged no sufficient release But Lord Hobart said that if he had released all promises that would have discharged the Defendant vide 4 Eliz Release of all Actions Suits Quarrels c. doth not release a Covenant before it be broken but otherwise of a release of all Covenants as it appears in Dyer 57. though the principall case was a release of all Covenants untill such a day and Covenants were broken before and not discharged for it being broken before there was no Covenant as to that Vide Lampets case Coke lib 10. 51. the reason of the release in Hoes case was because that it was contingent and uncertain and 17 Eliz a Lease to the Husband and Wife for life the Remainder to the Survivor of them for one and twenty years the Baron grant it over and survive yet it is void because it was contingent And the Lord Hobart said that the promise was released by the inter-marriage and so shall be in the case of an Obligation for Fortior est dispositio legis quam hominis and he held that strongly to be Law but Iustice Winch and Iustice Hutton held the contrary and that the Law will not work a release contrary to the intent of the parties and that the marriage which is the cause do not destroy that which it self creates Trin. 6 Jac. Jurden versus Stone Glocest EIectment upon a Lease made by Alice Remington of a Copyhold in South Corny Walter B. Copyholder in Fee married the said Alice And there was a Custom in the Mannor that the Wife shall have the Copyhold as of Franck-banck during her Widowhood Where a woman may enter in and bring an action tâ—â— beâ—â—â— Franck bank before admittance Si tam diu casta viveret and had used to challenge it and the Lord granted it as appears by divers admittances of women and this Wife after the death of her Husband came into Court and challenged her right of Franck-bank and prayed to be admitted and that the Steward refused and she made a Lease for one year to the Plaintiff and if he might bring this action by reason the woman was not admitted for it was agreed that no Fine was due to the Lord was the question And upon the Evidence it was resolved by the Court that this Estate ariseth out of the Estate of the Husband And as Lord Hobart said it budded forth of the first Estate and it seemed that where Tenant for life is admitted that shal be the admittance of him in remainder Also if the Free-hold of the Copyhold be granted over and the Husband dies there there cannot be any admittance and yet she may enter and in this case if any admittance had been necessary she had done all that she could do and that amounts to an admittance in Law to an Estate created by the Custom and by the act of God and Law A Tenant alieu and the Feoffee tender the services and gives notice the Lord refuse this is sufficient and the Lord shall be compelled to avow upon him Continuall claim amounts to an entry Pasch 16 Jac. Rot. 444. Blands Case Case GEorge Bland brought an Action upon the Case against A. B. the Defendant having some communication with one Eagle said that he was a troublesome fellow and he doubted not but to see him indicted at the next Assises for Barretry or Sheep-stealing as George Bland was Words for George Bland was indicted the last Assises for stealing of Sheep and it was not averred that he was not indicted but that he was of good fame It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that it is not actionable and so was the opinion of the Court for it is not a direct affirmative vide the case of Steward against Bishop before fol. 1. And if one saies I suspect you for stealing my Horse And Iudgment was given for the Defendant Trin. 16 Jac. Darcy versus Askwith Brownlow Ebor. JOhn Lord Darcy of Ashton brought an action of Wast against Robert Askwith now Knight and John Marshall Wast and assigne the wast in Woods viz. In cutting down and selling two Oakes foure Ashes in a Close called Tisley Close two Okes in Parsons croft one Ash in Pinder croft and sixty one Oakes in Preston Lands Wast in cutting of wood to make Cole mines and in divers other Closes in Swillington and Preston The Defendant plead a Lease of the Mannor of Swillington to him for years and also of the Mines and justifie the shrowding of the Trees to make Punchons Poles and Stakes and other Vtensils in and about certain Pits called Cole-mines in one of the Closes without which the Defendants could noâ— dig and take Coles out of the said Pits and aver imployment about of the said Cole-mines justifie the cutting of other trees for the making of Instruments for the extracting of the water out of the said Pits and that without which they could not dig any Coles and they were necessary for the digging of Coles and for supporting the Pits and aver the Imployment And therupon the Plaintiff demurred And we all agreed
Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon a new Statute and after divers terms Hall died and after the Plaintiff was non-suited without mention made of his death Tadcaster brought two Scire facias against Hobs and upon two Nihils had Iudgment Hobs brought an Audita Querela alledging the death of Hallowell before Scire facias and before Capias and it was adjudged that the Audita Querela well say and Hil 4 Jac Rot 975. between Timberley and Calverly Scire facias brought against the Bail and he pleaded that the Principall died before Capias returned against him And Iudgment upon argument given against the Plaintiff The like Iudgment between Iustice Williams and the Sureties of one Vaughan Hil. 19 Jac. Rot. 312. or 3125. Walrond versus Hill London Debt WAlrond brought an action of debt upon an Obligation of three hundred pounds against William Hill with Condition that if Thomas Harris and Elizabeth his Wife One bound to levy a Fine before such a day who shall do the first act before the end of Easter Term next shall levy a Fine before the Iustices of the Common Pleas by due course of Law to the use of the Plaintiff that then c. the Defendant pleaded that before the end of the said Easter Term the Plaintiff did not purchase any Writ of Covenant pro fine leuand wherupon a Fine might be levied according to the course of Law The Plaintiff replyed that the fifteenth of April the said Thomas for money enfeoffed another of parcel of the Land that was to be conveyed by the Fine And that the said Thomas and Elizabeth his Wife have not any Estate or Interest in the said parcell so conveyed wherof they may levy a Fine And upon this Replication the Defendant demurred And upon argument at Bar by Serjeant Harvey for the Plaintiff and Serjeant Henden for the Defendant the first question was If the Bar be good Intant que le Defendent est oblige That Thomas Harris and Elizabeth his Wife shall levy a Fine he ought to procure that to be done at his perill semble al 4 H. 7. 3 H. 6. Condition that John S. a stranger shall take Alice D. to his Wife before Mich. If I. S. refuse the Obligation is forfeited And therfore it was urged that he ought to procure a Writ of Covenant at his perill But the Lord Hobart held that the Plaintiff ought to procure the Writ of Covenant to have made himself capable of the Fine And he put this case if I. S. be obliged that I. D. shall enfeoff I.N. the Obligee such a day I. N. ought to be upon the Land or ought to make a Letter of Attorney to receive the Livery or otherwise the Obligation is not forfeited And when a Covenant is to levy a Fine he which is to do the first act c. vide Palmers case Coke lib 5. fol 127. 4 E. 3. 39. 18 E. 3. 27. 11 H. 4 18. 21 E 4. 2. The second question was whether this Obligation be ferfeited being that the said Thomas Harris had made a Bargain and Sale of part of the Land to another before so that he was disabled at the time to levy a Fine And we all agreed that the Condition was impossible and is all one as if he had disabled himself afterwards as in Maynes case Coke lib 5. 21. where the Covenant was to make a new Lease upon surrender of the former Lease there if he which ought to make the new Lease disables himself to make a new Lease and to accept of the Surrender by granting the Reversion for years he ought not to do the first act viz. Surrender but the Covenant is broken And in this case it is all one as if one who had granted the Reversion for years or for life Covenant that he upon Surrender will make a new Lease he had broken this Covenant being disabled at the time And it was said and agreed by the Court that the Fine to be levied ought to be an effectuall Fine which might operate to convey the Land according to the Covenant Burnell and Brook One case was vouched in this case to be between Burnell and Brook where the Condition was that he should acknowledge a Iudgment and a good Bar that the Plaintiff had not purchased an Originall Writ for he ought to make himself capable of Iudgment acknowledged to him vide 34 E. 1. Fitz Debt 164. A Condition that if he present the Obligee to a Benefice that then c. Though the Obliges taken Wife by which he is disabled to take it put he ought to present and offer him to the Ordinary to refuse him Vide 28 E 4. 6. where parcell of the Land was recovered yet Debt lies for entry Damages recovered in a Court of ancient Demeasn which case was then vouched but it is not much to the purpose And afterwards we all agreed that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment Hord versus Cordery A President was shewn which was thus IN the County of Wiltes Richard Hord Clerk Vicar of Chute Case brought an action upon the Case against William Cordery and Bridget his Wife and Dorothy Cox Conspiracy for one malicious confederacy of charging the Plaintiff with the felonious Raye of the said Dorothy Cox and procured him to be examined before Sir Anthony Hungerford a Iustice of Peace and therupon was bound in a Recognizance to appear at the next generall Sessions of the Peace at Devises and from thence was bound over to the Assises And there the Defendants An 15 Jac before Sir Thomas Flemming and Tanfield Iustices of Assise preferred one Bill of Indictment of their malice aforesaid and by the procurement of the said William and B. the said Dorothy shewed to the grand Inquest whether it were true or false And the Iury perceiving the malice and the falsiâ—y did not find it to be true and gave their Verdict by Ignorance Vpon Not guilty pleaded by William and Bridget and non informatus by Dorothy the Iury found for the Plaintiff and after a Writ of Error An 15 Jac and 20 marks costs for the delay Ego vidi recordum est bien pleivement aver que il ne ravish le feme est ent Hil. 10 Jac. Rot. 92. 1. 1. Trin. 20 Jac. Hawkins versus Cutts HAwkins brought an action upon the case against Cutts Case and declared that he was of good Fame c. and for the space of eight years last past had used the Art and Mystery of a Baker Pandopatoritae and had gained his living by buying and selling the Defendant said of him He is a Bankrupt Knave And not guilty Words it was found for the Plaintiff And in Arrest of Iudgment it was moved that it is not shewn that he was a common Baker neither had used the Trade but used the Art and Mystery of a Baker And there is as Serjeant Hobart said as much skill
brought an action of debt against the now Plaintiff upon an Obligation of a hundred and twenty pounds to which the now Plaintiff appeared by his Attorney and required a Declaration and the now Defendant on the part of the said William Carter his Master gave the said Declaration and required the now Plaintiff to confesse the action and pendente Pl. he the now Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would give order to his Attorney to confesse the action and to suffer the said Defendant to have Iudgment in the said Plea for the said William Carter his Master assumed to the Plaintiff that no Iudgment should be entred untill after Crast Annunciat And that no execution shall be sued out untill after the end of Michaelmas Term next and shew the performance therof by him and the breach of the Defendant And after Verdict it was moved that it is no sufficient consideration and that was impossible for him to perform that Iudgment should not be entred in the Term in which Iudgment is given but that is in the discretion of the Court and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pach. 19 Jac. Rot. 3014. 21 Jac. Jennings versus Pitman RIchard Jennings brought an action of Covenant against George Pitman upon an Indenture of an Apprentiship Covenant of an Apprentiship by which the Defendant had put himself to be an Apprentice to the Plaintiff in Ipswich to the Trade of a Linnen Draper and there were divers clauses in the Indenture according to the usuall form and assigne for breach the wasting of severall summe of money The Defendant pleaded the Statute of 5 Eliz. by which it is enacted That it is not lawfull for any one inhabiting in any City or Towne Corporate using the Trade of a Merchant over the Sea Mercer Pannary Goldsmith Iron-monger Imbroyderer or Clothier to take any Apprentice to be instructed in any of these Trades if it be not his Son or that the Father or Mother of such Apprentice had at the time of the taking of him Lands Tenements or Hereditaments of Inheritance or Freehold of forty shillings per annum to be certified by three Iustices of Peace under their hands and Seals where the Land lies to the Mayor Bayliffs or other head Officer of the City or Town Corporate and to be inrolled entred and recorded there and pleaded the clause of the Statute which makes Obligations and Covenants void which are taken against it And averred that Ipswich was a Town Corporate at the time of the making of the Statute The Plaintiff replyed that his Father had at that time when he was bound Lands and Tenements in great Bealing viz. ten acres to the Value of forty shillings per annum The Defendant by Rejoynder offer to joyn Issue that his Father had not Lands c. wherupon the Plaintiff demurred And the question was If this part of the Statute To be certified by the Justices c. be such an essentiall part therof that the Covenant be void without it It was agreed that it had not been put in use after the Statute but it seems that it is Essentiall and it ought to be so at the time when he is put to be an Apprentice but it may be enrolled afterwards for the Statute in another part provides a penalty for the not Inrolling Like to the Case upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. That they which claim any Estate of them which were Attainted in the Rebellion they brought their Conveyances to the Exchequer to be inrolled within one year if they bring and deliver these Conveyances though they be not inrolled yet they have performed as much as was in them And if the Certificate be not at the time when the party is put to be an Apprentice the Statute was to no purpose If this Bar be good then the Replication is a departure and the Rejoynder also and the Bar being good Iudgment shall be given against the Plaintiff but if the Bar be not good then for the Plaintiff for the Count contains matter certain But the Court moved whether this Covenant lay against an Insant for although it is by the Statute provided that he shall be bound to serve as a man of full age yet that makes not the Covenants good and it is like to a Custom which shall be taken strictly Trin 20 Jac. This Case between Jennings and Pitman was moved this Term And the Lord Hobart was of opinion that this Statute being that it appears that he was within age scil sixteen years will not bind him to any Covenants which are not implyed in the Indenture of serving For the doubt was whether an Infant was an Apprentice out of London though that he put himself to serve And the only matter which binds him in this Statute is that he shall be bound to serve when he is bound by Indenture being within age as well as if he were of full age and if the Covenant be only a Covenant to serve no Covenant lies for Imbeziling of Goods And if the Covenant be to serve him faithfully and diligently that shall not bind him upon this Covenant And I was of the same opinion for it is only made good as to the serving and there are many Covenants and Clauses besides in this Indenture which bind him not As not to play at unlawfull Games c. And a Custom that an Infant at such an age may sell his Land shall be taken strictly viz. that he cannot give it c. But my Brother Winch was of opinion that it was a thing incident and a quasi Consequent viz. That if he shall be bound to serve by consequence he shall be bound to serve faithfully and truly He resembled it to the case of a Fine levied by an Infant and not reversed during his â—onage that shall bind him and by consequence the Indenture which leads the uses of the Fine and when the Law enables to any thing that which is incident and without which the other thing cannot be is implyed Trin. 19 Jac. Rot. 1734. Blemmer Hasset versus Humberstone Norf. JN an Ejectione firmae brought by Ralph Blemmerhasset against William Humberstone for Land in Pucklethorp Ejectione firmae upon a Lease made by John B. upon a speciall Verdict found it was resoved A Copyhold may be extinguisht without an actuall surrender that when a Copyholder bargain and sell his Copyhold to the Lord of a Mannor which hath the Mannor in Lease for years that therby the Copyhold Estate is extinguished And the Lord Hobart said that if a Copyholder come into Court and saies that he is weary of his Copyhold and request the Lord to take it that is a Surrender for between the Lord and the Tenant a Conveyance shall not need to be according to the Custome for the Copyholder hath no other use of the Custome but only to convey the Land to another vide Coke lib. 4. That a Release by him which hath Right to a
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
And the proof therof see Coke lib 6. fol 19. Gregories case and Dyer 236. a. Then the principall and sole point will be if this Offence will be by the act of 33 H 8. cap 10. made presentable and punishable by the Iustices of Peace at their six weeks Sessions and it was unanimously agreed that it is not First because the preamble of the act recite that the Offences recited therin escape punishment and for their more speedy and effectuall punishment and repeat the particulars but therin name not Brewers by expresse words and it cannot be intended that the intent of the Statute was to give them at their six weeks Sessions to intermeddle with things not determinable at their generall Sessions And it was objected by Aâ—tho that Lambert and Crompton had put it as an Article of their charge To which it was answered that it was in some respect inquirable at Common Law viz. Misdemeanors in Bear-brewers Conspiracies and agreements to sell at such prises and the making of wholsome Beer Also it might be that they â—ake the Law to be upon the Statute of 23 H 8. that the Sessions being a Court of Record was within this act that saies in any Court of Record And then if it be not suable by Information before the Iusticeâ— of Peace the consequence is plain that the Statute of 21 Jac. cap 4. extends not therto and the Statute of 37 of H 8. makes not any thing in this case but tolls the six weeks Sessions and makes it inquirable at the generall Sessions Ideo Iudgment for the Informer June 19. An. 22. Jac. MEmorand That upon a Conference at Serjeants Inn in Fleet-street it was resolved and agreed by the Lord chief Iustice Sir James â—ea the Lord Hobart Baron Bromley Baron Denham Iustice Hutton and Iustice Jones That any one may erect an Inn for lodging of Travellers without any allowance or License Resolutions concerning Innes and who may keep an Inne and how they may be suppressed as well as any one before the Statute of 2 E 6. might have kept a Common Alehouse or as at this day one may set up to keep hackney Horses or Coaches to be hired by such as will use them And all men may convert Barley into Mault untill they be restrained by the act of Parliament made for that purpose And as all men may set up Trades not restrained by the Act of 5 Eliz. which directeth no man that hath not been bound or served as an Apprentice by the space of seven years or by restraint of setting up Trades in Corporations by such as be not free by the like reason all men may use the Trade of Inne-keeping unlesse it could be brought to be within the Statute of 2 E 6. which hath never been taken to be subject to that Statute in point of license And vide that an Hostler is chargable to the party which is his Guest for the restoring of that which is lost in his House and that by the Common Law of the Realm vide 11 H 4. fol 45. see also 11 H 4. fol 47. That in an action upon the case brought by the School-master of Glocester for erecting another School to his prejudice adjudged that no action lies and also it is there said that if I have a Mill and another erect another Mill by which I lose my Custom no action lies unlesse he disturb the water And it was said by the chief Iustice that it was so resolved before by the Iudges and that Iustice Doderidge Iustice Haughton and Iustice Chamberlain were of the same opinion and so now was my Brother Crew the Kings Serjeant who went the Circuit of Surrey Kent and Essex but the chief Baron Tanfield was of a contrary opinion And it seemed to him that Innes were licensed at first and Originally by the Iustices in Eire but nothing could be shewne to that purpose But all the Iustices were of a contrary opinion and said that that was the ground that begot the Patent and Commission to Mounperson viz. That the King might licence them if the Iudges might And it was said by the Lord chief Iustice that there was not any such thing in the Eires but because that strangers which were aliens were abused and evilly intreated in the Inns it was upon complaint therof provided that they should be well lodged and Inns were assigned to them by the Iustices in Eire The second question was if an Inn be erected in a remote and inconvenient place so that it is dangerous to Travellers and there harbour men of bad same which are apt to commit Robbery whether that might be suppressed And as to that all agreed that it is a common Nusance and may be suppressed and that to be by Indictment and presentment to which the party may have his Traverse The third question was whether when one which had erected an Inn be a man of bad behaviour and such a person as is not fit to keep an Inn how it should be aided and helped And it was agreed by all that upon Indictment or presentment therof he may have his Traverse and if he be convicted then to be suppressed viz. that he which had so misdemeaned himself should not keep it as an Inn nor use it But that it being an Inn it may be used afterwards by another Fourthly how and by what way or means the multitude of Inns might be prevented by being suppressed or redressed upon complaint or how the number might be stinted This Point seemed to be difficult and to contradict the resolution upon the first question And therfore it was agreed that they should advise concerning it and the best way is that they be strictly inforced to keep the Assise and not to suffer any to tipple in their Inns and by this way they would desist from their Trade Mich. 4 Car. Mackerney versus Ewrin RIchard Mackerney brought an action upon the case against Jeffrey Ewrin and count Case That whereaâ— one I. S. was indebted to the Plaintiff in seven pounds four shillings for pasture feeding and Oates for an Horse kept in the Stable of the Plaintiff Consideration in an Assumpsit The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff at his request would deliver the Horse to him to the use of the said John S. promised to pay the said seven pounds four shillings And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff Serjeant Callis moved in Arrest of Iudgment that it is no good consideration for the Plaintiff had not any property in the Horse and he is not is do any other thing then the Law injoyn him to do As if I lose my goods and another find them and in consideration that he will deliver them to me I promise to pay him two hundred pounds that is not sufficient matter to ground an Assumpsit therupon But if a Taylor had made a Sute of Apparell for I. S. and I. D. request him to deliver it
to him and he will pay for the making therof that is a good consideration vide Coke lib 8. fol 147. And in this case all the Court were of opinion that the consideration was good for wheras he might have detained the Horse untill he had been paid for the pasture and feeding he at the speciall request of the Defendant had delivered the Horse to him to the use of the Owner which is to the prejudice of the Plaintiff and alienest to him to whose use he was delivered And Iustice Harvey vouched a case which was in this Court adjudged which was in consideration that the Plaintiff had promised to pay to the Defendant ten pounds at a day according to the Condition of an Obligation the Defendant promised to deliver the Obligation and adjudged a good Consideration Turner versus Hodges THe Custom of the Mannor of _____ is found to be for the Copyholders without the License of the Lord of the Mannor they being seised in Fee may make any Lease for a year Custom in a Mannor to make aâ— Lease for years or many years and when they dye that â—â—e 〈◊〉 shall cease and that the Heir or Heirs may enter It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that this was a bad Custom and that the Copyholders had by Custom an Inheritance and might by the generall Custom of the Ream make a Lease for one year And that tenor the generall Custom of the Realm but the Custom of every Mannor within the Realm vide Coke lib 4. fol 26. in Melwiches Case Custom creates the Estate and the Custom is as ancient as the Estate and is casuall and upon the Act of God and is reasonable that the Heir who is to pay the Fine should have the Possession And yet a Custom that if the Copyholder had surrendred to the Lord that the Lease should be void had been a 〈◊〉 Custom because that he might subvert and destroy by his own act that Estate that he himself had made and he which took the Lease haâ—ing notice of the Custom takes the Lease at his perill for otherwise he might have procured the License of the Lord and then by this License the Lord had dispenced therwith and that is as it were the Confirmation of the Lord For if a Copyholder makes a Lease for twenty years with the License of the Lord and after dies without Heirs yet the Lease shall stand against the Lord by reason of his License which amounts to a Confirmation And the Plaintiff had Iudgment Hil. 4 Car. EJectione firmae was brought and count upon a Lease made by Husband and Wife Lease by Baron and Feme without reservation of any Rent and that was by Indenture And upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was given in which the sole question was Whether this Lease was made by Baron and Feme being there was no Rent reserved therby It was objected that this Lease could not be made good by the Feme by any acceptance and therfore it is not the Lease of the Feme no more then if the Verdict had found that the Lease was by an Infant and no Rent reserved that had been a void Lease But it is contrary of a Baron and Feme for the Baron had power and the Feme joyning in the Lease it is not void for she may affirm the Lease by bringing a Writ of Wast or she may accept Fealty And so was the opinion of the Court and Iudgment entred accordingly vide Coke lib 2. fol 61. in Wiscots case Count of a Lease by Baron Feme and shew not that it was by Deed and yet good vide Dyer 91. Pasch 5 Car. Paston versus Utber JOhn Paston brought Ejectione firmae against Barnard Utber upon a Lease made by Mary Paston And upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was found at the Bar and the Case was thus Custom that the Lord have a Feild-course over the Lands of his Coppyholders if the Tenant inclose it is no forfeifture Barnard Vtber seised of the said Land to him and his Heirs by Copy of Court-Roll according to the Custom of the Mannor of Binham And that within that Mannor there is such a Custom that the Lord had had one field course for five hundred Ewes in the North-field and the West-field wherof these fifteen acres were parcell from the Feast of Saint Michael if the Corn were inned and if it were not then after the Corn were inned untill the Feast of the Annunciation if it were not before that time sown again with Corn in all the Lands of the Copyholders not inclosed And that it is a Custom that no Copyholder may inclose any Copyhold Land without the License of the Lord And if any be inclosed without License then a reasonable fine should be assessed by the Lord or his Steward for the Inclosure if the Lord would accept therof And it is also a Custom that if the Lord will not accept therof then the Copyholder which so incloseth shall be punished at every Court after untill he open that Inclosure And the said Vtber inclosed the 15. acres with an Hedge and Fence of Quick-set 3. feet deep and 6. feet broad and that he had left 4. spaces of 9. feet broad in the said 15. acres And that the said Vtber was required by the Steward to lay open the said Inclosure and he did it not whereupon there was a command to the Bayliff to seise them as forfeit which was done And the said Mary being Seignoress of the Mannor entred and leased to the Plaintiff and the Defendant entred upon him Serjeant Davenport argued that it is a forfeiture and against the Custom which creates the Feildage for the Lord as well as the Estate of Copyhold for the Tenant and that this leaving of four spaces is a fraud and device and that it is against his Fealty and is to the damage of the Lord and a thing unlawfull vide Dyer 245. 34 E. 1. Formedon 88. 15 A 7. 10. 29 E 3. 6. That if the Tenant inclose the Commoner may break his hedges And though by Littleton an Inclosure which is a Disseisin is a totall Inclosure wherby he which hath the rent cannot come to distrain yet this also is an Inclosure because that it obstructs the feild-course for they cannot come so freely without interuption or damage for the hedges may deprive the Sheep of their wooll And he compared it to the case of 3 H. 7. 4. One is obliged to make an Estate of his Mannor of Dale if he alien part and then make a Feoffment the Condition is broken and vide 5 E 3. fol 58. a Recognizance with Condition to make a Feoffment to I. S. of the Mannor if he alien part therof he forfeit his Recognizance he vouched 42 E 2. 5. and Coke lib 4. that deniall of Services or making of Wast is a forfeiture 22 H 6. 18. 41 E 3. Wast 82. Dyer 364. And though that the Lord may