sollicitor of one of the parties was served with Subpoena to testifie in the cause in controversie and the Court discharged him by reason he was solliciter in the cause An. 20. Eliz. The plaintants Bill was for that he being a Coppyholder Leased to the defendant for years and the defendant hath digged gravell and sold the same away whereby the Coppyhold is prejudiced the defendant justified for that the Copyholders are not punishable in waste which cause this Court alloweth not of for though the Copyholders of the mannor are not punishable yet the Leasses of Copyholders of the Mannor are punishable therefore a Supoena is awarded to shew cause why an Injunction shall not be granted for staying his digging of gravell and felling Woods upon the Copyhold Lands Dalton plaintant Gill and Pindor defendants Anno 19. Eliz. Whereas the plaintant exhibited his Bill against the defendant for wilfull perjury the defendant hath demurred which this Court alloweth not of It is ordered a Subpoena be awarded to the defendant to answer Thomas Woodcock plaintant Giles Woodcock defendant An. 19. Eliz. Whereas there was an award in writing exhibited into this Court made between the said parties by Sir Christopher Wray Knight Lord chiefe Justice of England whereunto the Lord chiefe Justice hand as well as the parties are subscribed it was requested by the plaintants the same might be decreed by this Court which this Court refused to grant untill the defendants were made privy therefore processe is awarded Wakefield Vxor Aliis plaintants Hawson Vxor Aliis defendants An. 19. Eliz. The suit was to stay suit in the spirituall Court for a Legacy of 40 l. Ioan Banvill widdow plaintant Guy Banvill defendant Anno 19. Eliz. The suite was for common of pasture and Turbary the defendant demurred for that the plaintant may have remedy at the common law but ordered to answer Lawrence and Moregate Aliis plaintants Windham defendant An. 19. Eliz. Robert Goodwine made oath that at such time as he came to the house of the defendant to serve a Subpoena upon him according to an order of the 10. of May last one of his servants came forth and told him he was within who thereupon delivered the Writ to be delivered to the defendant his Master Goodwine plaintant Sullyard defendant An. 19. Eliz. The defendant made oath that he was served with a Subpoena by the plaintant in the name of one William Web utterly unknown to the defendant and now upon his appearance no Bill in Court against the defendant in the name of the said William Web or of the plaintant therefore 30 s. cost is awarded against the plaintants An. 19. Eliz. Forasmuch as the said Abel one of the defendants appeared and answered the last Terme and his wife did not therefore an Attachment was awarded against them both Monox plaintant Abel and his wife defendants Anno 19. Eliz. Whereas there was this present day exhibited into this Court a certificate under the Seale of the university of Oxford on the defendants behalfe testifying and declaring that the Chancellors of the said university and their successors from the time whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary as well by graunt and consideration of her Majesty as of her Majesties noble progenitors sometimes Kings of this Realme have had the cognizance and finall determination of all manner of Pleas strifes quarrels and controversies whatsoever Felony Maine and Franketenant onely excepted rising and growing as well within the precinct of the said City of Oxford as without within the Realme of England whereas one of the parties within the said suit action or plea is a Master or Schollor or common Minister of the same university or such a person as the Chancellor Vicechancellor Lieutenant or Commissary will certifie ought to enjoy the priviledge of the same university and that the same persons upon the shewing forth of the said certificate in any Court where they are impleaded ought to be discharged out of the same Court forasmuch as it appeareth by the said certificate that the said defendant who is brought up by a Subpoena to answer a Bill exhibited by the plaintant into this Court is a Batchelor of Law in the same university and for that also it appeareth by the plaintants said Bill of complaint that the matter therein contained is onely for certaine promises supposed to be made by the defendant to the plaintant touching certaine Goods Chattels and money therein mentioned and not Franktenement or any matter before excepted It is therefore ordered that the said defendant be of and from the said Bill of complant and matters therein contained from henceforth clearly and absolutely dismissed and the plaintant referred to take his remedy for the same before the Chancellor Vicechancellor Lieutenant or Commissary of the said University of Oxford according to the Tenor of the said Certificate Temple plaintant Foster Doctor of the Civill Law defen. Anno 19. Eliz. Thomas plaintant Mounson defendant produceth a Certificate of the University claiming jurisdiction of the same University therefore the cause is from hence dismissed to be tryed and determined there An. 19. Eliz. The plaintant in the end of Easter Terme by Master Griffeth his Attorney required the defendant to proceed to Commission for examining of witnesses and the defendant was ready to joyne sithence which time the plaintant contrary to the order of this Court as they alleage hath produced one of the Masters of this Court and one of the examinors to travell to the plaintants house in Wiltshire 60 miles distant from London there hath examined witnesses it is ordered that publication be stayed untill the matter be examined after publication is granted Darrall plaintant and Stukey defendant An. 19. Eliz. The plaint Father did purchase in Fee-Farm to him and his heirs the Mannor of Long Eason in the County of Deâ—y of one Kymwelmarch rendring 8 l. rent with a condition of reentry for non payment of the rent deviseth the Land to another for life A ducens tecum for the evidences An. 19. Eliz. Forasmuch as the defendant hath appeared in this court upon an Attachment of priviledge and attended from day to day according to his Bond made in that behalfe and hath also pleaded an issue to the plaintants Declaration therefore the defendant is licensed to depart Dugdell plaint Orrell defend An. 20. Eliz. The defend by his Answer confesseth he was joynt purchasor in trust with the plaintants Father to them two and to the heires of the plaintants Father of the Lands in question and that he never received any profits thereof and that he meant at the plaintants full age to convey the Lands to the plaintant and his heires according to the trust it is ordered and decreed the defendant shall forthwith upon notice to him given convey his Estate in the Lands to the plaintant and the Heires
the said defendant into this court on Thursday next to the end the said Warden may be also charged with the said defendant by this court till he have satisfied or taken order for the payment of the debt due to her Majesty and that then he shall keep him in his custody untill hee answer unto the plaintant this said debt of 133 l. 6 s. 8 d. Ward plaintant Crouch defendant Anno 20. Eliz. Thomas Boulton made oath that the defend was served with a Billet in Paper to appear 15. Trinitat and no Bill in Court against her at the plaintiffes suite therefore the plaintiffe is adjudged to pay the defendant 33 s. 4 d. sustained in sending up the said Boulton who hath made oath that she is so impotent that she is not able to travell up hither thereupon personally Gredlow plaintant Prestwich defendant Anno 20. Eliz. The plaintant is adjudged to pay to the defendant 40 s. costs for want of a Bill for that the defendant made oath the plaintiffe shewed him a Subpoena wherein his name was written but would not deliver him the same for that there were others to serve with the same Writ Symont plaintiffe Pinsonby defendant Anno 20. Eliz. Iohn Clegge was served with a Subpoena by the name of Robert Clegge and Iohn Warberton made oath that he served a Subpoena upon Robert Clegge and an Attachment was served upon Iohn Clegge and ordered that he should be discharged thereof and might exhibite his Bill into this court against the said Iohn Warberton and call him in by processe to answer his perjury Robert Clegge plaintant Thomas Warberton defendant An. 20. Eliz. A Motion for an Attachment against the defendant for breach of a decree and injunction and ordered by the Lord Chancellor Bromley that for that time he stayed the granting of the Attachment and vouchsafed to write his Letters requiring him to performe the same trusting he would have such regard thereunto as no Attachment shall after be required against him Story plaintant Dominus Pawlet defendants 21. and 22. Eliz. A Motion that where the plaintants had exhibited their Bill to be discharged of a legacy the defendant since his suit sued in the spirituall Court and therefore day to shew cause why an Injunction should not be granted Parrré uxor plaintants Tipelady uxor defendant Anno 21. and 22. Eliz. William Smalwood made oath the defendant confessed he was served with a Subpoena at the plaintants suit who not appeared therefore an Attachment is awarded against the defendant to the Sheriffe of Essex Waters plaintaint and Berd defendant Anno 21. and 22. Eliz. The defendant a Master of Art in Oxford pleaded his priviledge of the University under the Seale there and demanded judgement whether he should be driven to answer contrary to the priviledge and the priviledge was allowed and the Attachment discharged Cotton plaintant and Manering defendants Anno 21. and 22. Eliz. A decree is made for the defendant to enjoy certaine Lands as well Coppyhold as Customary Bamborow plaintant Alexander defendant Anno 21. and 22. Eliz. The defendant made oath that he was served with a Subpoena at the plaintants suit to appeare in this Court and that he hath lost by casualty the Subpoena and upon his appearance there was no Bill in Court against him at the said plaintants suite therefore the plaintant is adjudged to pay the defendant 40 s. costs for want of a Bill Domina Edith Metham plaintant Michaell Fayerbanck defendant Anno 21. and 22. Eliz. For that it appeared as well by the plaintants Bill as that Osney one of the defendants hath made oath that the lands in the Bill is not worth 40 s. per annum therefore dismissed generally and not without costs Townly uxor plaintants Osney uxor Parsons defendants An. 21. and 22. Eliz. The defendant made oath that the plaintant and defendant are both dwelling within the jurisdiction of the Marches of Wales and for that it appeareth by the Bill that the Money complained for is under 10 l. therefore the cause is dismissed Eastcourt plaintant Tanner defendant Anno 21. and 22. Eliz. Debt upon a single Bill satisfied and the Bill not delivered was sued and execution gotten and yet retained in Chancery notwithstanding a motion to be dismissed because after Judgement and Execution for it was said the Judgement and execution may stand and this suite for that he formerly paid Owen plaintant Ioanes defendant Anno 21. and 22. Eliz. The defendant maketh oath that one Rock served him with a Subpoena in the name of the plaintant and at his suit as he affirmed but would not deliver neither Writ Labell nor noat of the day of appearance but told him it was to appeare the first day of this Terme and now no Bill in Court therefore costs is granted against the plaintant Parsons plaintant Hilford defend An. 21. and 22. Eliz. An order for a Commission to set out meet wayes and Cawsages moved in presence of Mr. Egerton of Counsell with the defend Custos of all Soules Colledge in Oxford plaintant Everall aliis defendants Anno 21. and 22. Eliz. Upon an oath made for impotency of Ienkin the defend in a former suit by the said Goose by the name of William ap William they procured a dedimus potestatem to take the answer of Ienkin to Iohn Floyd and William Goose himselfe whereas the party was under 50 yeares of age and not impotent hereupon the plaintant exhibits an English Bill of perjury into this Court against the said Goose for perjury and Ienkin for the procuring of it whereupon they being served with a Subpoena to answer the perjury they get a stay of the proceedings from the counsell of the Marches where upon motion Sir Thomas Bromley Lord Chancellor marvelled at such their stay and writ his Letters to the said Counsell and granted a new Subpoena against the defendants to answer the perjury Ioane uxor Griffith plaintant Richard ap Ienkin and William Goose defendants Anno 21. and 22. Eliz. The Bill was to be releived against a Judgement indirectly gotten by Ralfe Cavendâ—sh in the name of Thomas Cavendish his brother by default in an account of waste and because it so appeared an injunction is granted Galley plaintant Ralfe Cavendish and Thomas Cavendish defendants Anno 21. and 22. Eliz. The Suite was to be releived upon a lease made to the defendant in trust to the use of the plaintant and because it so appeared it was ordered that the plaintant should injoy the lands against the defendant and all claiming under him that had notice of the trust and if the lease were sold to such as had no notice of the trust then the defendant shall pay to the plaintant so much mony as the lease was worth Rooke plaintant Staples defendant Anno 21. and 22. Eliz. A Bill to be
Forasmuch as Richard Sâ—odard Justice and Portrive and others his brethren of the Borough of Minxhead have certified under their common Seale that one Nicholas Hooper made oath before them for serving of a Subpoena on the defend who hath not appeared therefore an Attachment is awarded Hooper Hooper plaintants Brace uxor defendants Anno 21. Eliz. Meerefield plaintant Cleverden defend upon certificate made by the Major of Torrinton of serving a Subpoena that Affidavit was made before him for serving it upon the defendant who hath not appeared therefore an Attachment is awarded Anno 21. Eliz. A decree was made for the plaintant for a Coppyhold tenement and yet the defendant put the plaintant out of possession notwithstanding the said decree and the Lord Keeper did write his Letters to the defendant to suffer the plaintant to enjoy the same Tenement according to the decree Lane plaintant the Lord Howard Viscount Bindon defendant Anno 21. Eliz. The defend was examined upon interrogatories upon the breach of an order of this Court and departed without lycense therefore an Attachment Boyle uxor plaintants Vivean defendant An. 21. Eliz. The defendant being served with a Subpoena the last Terme and coming up out of Cornwall to London heard by common voyce the Terme was adjourned and therefore did goe back againe and the plaintant got an Attachment against him who hath appeared gratis and put in his answer and therfor he shall be discharged of the Attachment paying 10 s. to the plaintant for his costs Strangman plaintaint Vivean defendant Anno 21. Eliz. The question was for a liberty of common Fishing and ordered for the plaintant and upon Affidavit made the defendants have broken the same ordered an Attachment shall goe against them Bayliffes Burgesses and Commonalty of the Town of Yarmouth plaintants William Paston aliis defendants An. 21. Eliz. The plaintant and his Father were bound to the defendant in 500 l. to stand to the award of Sir Iames Dyer Knight and Lord chiefe Justice who arbitrated that the plaintant who had the reversion in Fee and the Father who had the Estate for life should make such assurance as the defendant should reasonably devise The defendant did tender an assurance to the Father to be sealed who being old and blind desired time to confer with his friends the plaintant upon request sealed the assurance and his father afterwards sent word to the defendant he was willing to seale it but the defend answered he did not passe whether he did or no because he had but an estate for his life and the defend had his bond to enjoy it during his life which he did accordingly and yet neverthelesse the defendant put the bond in suite upon his Fathers said refusall but stayed by Injunction Knight plaintant Hartwell defend Anno 21. Eliz. A Commission of Rebellion for not payment of costs was awarded against the defend to one Iohn ap David who did thereupon apprehend the defend and for his more safe keeping delivered him to Thomas Moston Esq. High Sheriffe of the County of Flâ—nt who took charge of the prisoner accordingly and now refuseth either to deliver the prisoner to the Commissioner or to bring him himselfe into the Court at the day day is therefore given to the said Thomas Moston the late Sheriffe to bring into this Court the body of the said defend by Thursday next upon paine of 10 l. Evans Clerke Deane of Saint Asaph plaintant Ap Rees ap Bennet defendants Anno 21. Eliz. The defendant was served with a counterfeit Subpoena at the plaintants suit but answered not because he was told the Subpoena was counterfeit thereupon an Attach issued against him ordered that as well the defendant be discharged of the Attachment awarded against him as the said Baily who as the defendant made oath delivered the countefeit processe to him to shew where and of whom he had the Subpoena Baily plaintant Hawle defend Anno 21. Eliz. The Suit was to cause the defendant to performe an award of Arbitrators chosen by themselves contrary to which award the defendant hath put in suite an obligation of 100 l. wherefore an Injunction was granted for stay of the suit and upon the defendants shewing his readinesse to perform the award ordered that the said award shall be duly performed by both the said parties Reignolds plaint Latham def. A. 21. E. Mathew Carew one of the Masters of this Court plaintant Thomas Burfâ—am defend The defend appearing this Terme upon an Attachment of priviledge at the plaintants suit hath put in baile and answered to the Declaration of the plaintant therefore the defend is licensed to depart till 15. Paschae next An. 21. Eliz. Richard Champion a Commissioner in a Commission of rebellion returned a Rescue against Guy Bonvill which being examined and his examination referred to two Masters of the Court was found to have confessed the rescue whereupon he was committed to the Fleet and yet afterwards brought his action upon the case at the common law against the said Champion for his false returne ordered that a Subpoena be awarded against the said Guy Bonvill to shew cause why an Injunction should not be awarded against him for stay of his action upon the Case but afterwards viz. 21. Eliz. the defendant was allowed to goe forward in his action upon the case at the common Law because either of the parties there may plead his matter Ioan Bonvill widdow plaintant Bonvill and Mary Billinghay defendants An. 21. Eliz. The plaintants exhibited a frivilous Bill without a Counsellors hand and got an Injunction for stay of any suit to be commenced in any of her Majesties Courts but in this which Subpoena and Injunction being served seemed to be counterfeit therefore ordered a Subpoena be awarded against the plaintants as well to shew of whom they had the said Writ and to answer their misdemeanors as also to pay the defend costs for his unjust vexation Iohn ap Edward Ap Hugh and David ap Howel ap Ienkin plaintants Ralfe Ienkin defendant An. 21. Eliz. The defendants made oath they were served with Billets of Paper at the plaintants suit and upon their appearance no Bill in Court against them therefore the plaintant is adjudged to pay the defendants 40 s. costs Edmund Williams plaintant Evan Williams David Morgan and Merrick Granâ—owe defendants An. 21. Eliz. Brown alias Garris alias Pawdy plaintant Stuit defendant made oath that he was served with a Billet in Paper and upon his appearance no Bill in Court and the defendant hath lost the billet of Paper and yet costs is awarded Anno 21. Eliz. The defendant put in a demurrer to the plaintants Bill without shewing any cause of his demurrer it is therefore ordered that a Subpoena be awarded against him to make a better answer Offeley plaintant Morgan defendant Anno 21. Eliz.
precedent before the Judgements and not matter of agreement aâ—â—â—â— 8. We find in the said cases not onely the Bill preferred but motions orders injunctions and decrees thereupon for the discharging and releasing of the Judgements or abiding the possession thereupon obtained and sometimes for the meane profits and the release of the costs c. 9. We find in some of the cases in this very point that Judgement hath been given hath been stood upon by the defendants and alleadged by them by way of demurrer and overruled 10. We find that the Judges themselves in their own Courts when there appeared unto them matter of equity because they by their oath and office could not stay the Judgements except it be for some small time have directed the parties to seeke reliefe in Chancery 11. We find that this hath not onely been in the times of the severall Chancellors but by the Judges themselves and that without difficulty when they sate in Chancery in the vacancy or absence of the Chancellor 12. We find the hands of sundry principall Councellors at Lawâ— whereof divers of them are now Judges â—â—d some in chieâ—e place in Bills of this kind 13. Lastly here were offered to have beene shewed unto us many other presidents whereof we heard some read and found them to be of like nature with those contained in the note Francis Bacon Randell Crew Henry Mountague Hen. Yelverton And whereas also our said Attorney received one other Letter from our said Chancellor with a case there inclosed written likewise by our expresse commandment dated the 27. of March 1616 directing requiring him and the rest of our learned Councell together with the Attorney of our deare sonne the Prince to confer together upon the said cause and to consider advisedly of al the parts thereof and thereupon to peruse all the the Statutes of Praemunire or Provisoes and all other Statutesâ— as they shall conceive to be necessary to be considered of for the resolving the question propounded in that case and thereupon to report unto us their opinions in writing concerning the same which Letter and Case there inclosed follow in these words MAster Attorney His Majesty hath perused this case inclosed and hath commanded me to send it to you and his will and pleasure is that you call unto you Mr. Sarjeant Mountague Mr. Sarjeant Crew Mr. Sollicitor and Mr. Walter the Princes Attorney and you confer together thereupon and conâ—ider advisedly and deliberately of all the parts thereof and thereupon to peruse all the Statutes of Praemunire or Provisors and all other such Statutes as you shall conceive to be necessary to be considered of for the resolving the question propounded in this case this his Majesty would have be done with mature deliberation and yet with as much speed as conveniently you can and when you have sufficiently informed your selves therein then to report to him your opinions in writing and so I committ you to God and rest Your very loving friend T. Ellesmore Canc. At York house the 27. of March 1616. A. hath Judgement and execution in the Kings Bench or common Pleas against B. in an action of debt of 1000 l. And in an ejectione Firmae of the Mannor of D. B. complaines in the Chancery to be relieved against those Judgements according to conscience and equity allowing the Judgements to be lawfull and good by the rigour and strict rules of the common Lawes and the matters in conscience and equity such as the Judges of the common Law being no Judges in equity but bound by their oathes to doe the Law cannot give any remedy or reliefe for the same either by error or attaint or by any other meanes Questio Whither the Chancery may relieve B. in this or such like cases or else leave him utterly remedilesse and undone and if the Chancery be restrained by any Statute of Praemunire c. Then by what Statute or by what words in any Statute is the Chancery so restrained and conscience and equity banished excluded and damned and whereas according to our said commandment our said learned councell and the Attorney of our deare Son the Prince returned unto us a Certificate of their opinions upon the said Statutes under all their severall hands concerning the same case which Certificate followeth in these words According to your Majesties Commandment we have deliveratly advised of the case sent unto us by the Lord Chancellor and of the Statutes as well those of Praemunire as others as far as we take it may concerne the case and for our better information therein wee have thought fit to send for and peruse the originall Records themselves remaining in the Tower of London of those Statutes not onely appearing upon the Roll of Parliament with the Kings answers which is the warrant to the Roll of Parliament We have also taken into consideration as well Booke Lawes as divers other Acts of Parliament which may give light unto the Statutes whereupon the question properly growes together with such ancient Records and presidents as we could find as well those which maintaine the authority of the Chancery as those which seeme to impeach the same and upon the whole matter we are al of opinion that the Chancery may give reliefe to the case in question and that no Statute of Praemunire c. or other Statute restraines the same And because we know not what use your Majesty will be pleased to make of this our opinion either for the time present or future we are willing to give some reasons of the same not thinking fit to trouble your Majesty with all those things whereupon we have grounded our selves selecting out some principall things which moved us to be of this opinion to the end this same may be a fuller object of your Majesties Princely Judgement whereunto we alwayes submit our selves And first we must lay for a sure foundation that which was contained in our former Certificate concerning the continuall practise by the space now of six score yeares in the times of King Hen. the 7. King Hen. the 8. King Edward the sixt Queene Mary and Queene Elizabeth of this authority and that in the time when the same authority was mannaged not onely the Bishops which might be thought lesse skilfull or lesse affectionate towards the Lawes of the Land but also divers great Lawyers which could not but know and honour the Law as the meanes of their advancement Sir Thomas More and the Lord Audly the Lord Rich Sir Nicholas Bacon Sir Thomas Bromley and Sir Iohn Puckering and further that most of the late Judges of the Kingdome either as Judges when they sate in Chancery by Commission or as Councellors at Law when they set their hands to Bills have by their judgement and councell upheld the same authority and therefore for as much as it is a true ground That optimus legum interpres consuetudo especially when the practise or custome passeth not amongst vulgar persons but
is ordered the plaintant shall between this and Friday next bring into this Court a certificate from the officers of the Queens house or otherwise whereby this Court may credibly understand that his attendance in Court is necessary and that he cannot conveniently be absent or if he cannot so doe then the matter is remitted to the determination of the Commissioners in the marches of Wales Phillip Mannering plaintant Henry Smallwood and Alice defendants Anno 1. Eliz. fol. 51. Mannering plaintant Smallwood and Alice defendants for want of a certificate that the plaintants attendance in Court is necessary the cause is dismissed into the marches of Wales Anno 1. Eliz. fol. 62. The plaintants husband was bound in a Statute of 160 l. to pay 160 l. and after by Indenture the defendant did grant unto the plaintants husband that if he failed in the payment of the said 160 l. the same should be levyed of certaine lands then the said plaintants husbands lands called Stirbeck and some other lands specially named lying in Hawthorne in the County of Lincolne the husband dyed and the defendant sued execution as well of other lands in the occupation of the plaintants late husband as of the said lands mentioned in the Indenture And Sir Nicholas Bacon Lord Keeper of the great Seale of England granted an injunction against the defendant immediately to remove from the possession of all the other lands except of those onely contained in the Indenture and that he should quietly suffer the plaintant to enjoy the same Margaret Pulvertost widdow plaintant and Gilbert Pulvertost defendant Anno 1. Eliz. fol. 51. An Injunction was granted to the plaintant upon the surmises of his Bill with this clause si ita sit that the plaintant be in possession by good conveyance in Law as he alleadgeth Nota it was then usuall to grant Injunctions upon surmises with a proviso si ita sit Fodringham Christopherus plaintant Richard Chomeley defendant Anno 1. Eliz. fol. 67. Forasmuch as the defendant is under age and by inspection not above the age of fifteen yeers therefore George Wyat is by this Court named and appointed Gardian to the defendant Hugh Langley plaintant and Philip Mark defendant Anno 1. Eliz. fol. 73. A Commission is awarded to the Sheriffe of Nottingham and â—erby to put the plaintant in possession of certain lands for which he formerly had an Injunction against the defendants which they have disobeyed William Boles plaintant Richard Walley and Alice defendants Anno 1. Eliz. fol. 84. The defendant is enjoyned in open court upon paine of 200 l. not to proceed any further in an action upon the case by him commenced in the Kings Bench against the plaintant nor that he procure the Jury to be sworne in the issue but onely to record their appearance untill to morrow at which time further Order shall be taken by the Court George Riche plaintant Edmond Foard defendant Anno 1. Eliz. fol. 88. Upon information the defendant disobeyed a writ of subpoena brought to be served against her and that they which should have served the said writ were beaten and wounded therefore an Attachment was granted against the defendant and a subpoena against Edmond Pirton returned immediate William Rove and Rose his wife plaintants Agnes west widdow defendant Anno 1. Eliz. fol. 90. and 97. Where the said Edward Pyke hath of long time been aâ—d yet is in execution upon a Statute at the suite of the late King Edward the 6. Forasmuch as upon the examination of the matter befoâ—e the Lord Keeper of the Great Seale of England in open Court it manifestly appeareth that there was not just cause why the said Pyke should remaine in execution as Gâ—lbert Gerrard and Rosewell Esquire the Queenes Majesties Attorney and Solliciter Generall being present did confesse and agree It is therefore now ordered that a Writ of supersedeas be directed to the Warden of the Fleet in whose custody the said Pyke now is commanding him by the same forthwith upon the receipt thereof to deliver out of prison the body of the said plaintant provided alwayes before his deliverance he be bound to her Majesty by Recognizance in 100 l. not onely to make his further appearance to answer her Highnesse any thing hereafter shall happen to be laid to his charge concerning the said execution but also to stand to and obey all such order and determination as the said Lord Keeper of the Great Seale and this court shall hereafter take in the matter in variance between him and the said Graunt Edward Pyke plaintant Robert Graunt defendant Anno 1. Eliz. fol. 166. Pakine the Husband onely appeared and put in a demurrer in both their names without oath of impotency or otherwise for non appearance of Ioan his wife whereupon an Attachment is awarded against the defendants Thomas Spicer and Katherine his wise plaintants Iohn Pakine and Ioanâ— his wife defendants An. 1. Eliz. fol. 170. Thomas Hodge plaintant William Smith defendant the defendant demurred by his Counsell not appearing in person therefore a Subpoena was awarded against him to make a direct answer An. 1. Eliz. fol. 230. Iohn Iackson Attorney for the defendant at the common Law is in open Court enjoyned that neither he nor any other by his means do further proceed in an action of tresp commenced against the plaint and depending at the coÌ„mon law nor call for Judgement untill further order shall be therein taken by the Lord Keeper of the great Seale of England and high Court of Chancery Iohn Sedgewick and Alice plaintants Will Redman defendant An. 1. Eliz. fol. 212. The plaintant served the defendant with a Subpoena to appear in Chancery whereof he made oath and because the defendant did not appear and Injunction was awarded against the defendant his Councellors and Attorneyes upon paine of 200 l. not to proceed in Judgement in an action of debt of 40 l. in the common Pleas against the defendant An. 1. Eliz. fol 213. Thomas Knot plaintant Thomas Iackson defendant David Eyre was served with a Subpoena ad testificandum for the plaintant in a cause depending in this Court and Thomas Eyre made oath that the said David Eyre was at the serving of the said Subpoena upon him and yet is so sick that he is not able to travell hither to testifie therefore a Commission is granted to such Commissioners as the plaintant will nominate to examine him Iohn Wade plaintanr Gwye and Alice defendant An. 1. Eliz. fol. 240. An Attachment was awarded against the defendant for his not appearance upon oath he was served with a Subpoena who now appeared gratis and would have excused himselfe that he had no notice of the Subpoena but he that served the Subpoena deposed he did hang the same upon the defendants doore and within halfe an houre after saw him abroad with a writ in his hand which he supposed to be
names come to his knowledge which formerly he had not knowledge of therefore ordered he may examine them before the examinor ad informanduÌ„ conscientiam Iudicis The plaintant comming to the defendant shewed him a Writ but did deliveâ— him neither note of the day of his appearance neither did the same appear unto him by the Schedâ—le labell or any other paper and the defendant appearing found no Bill It is ordered the defendant be allowed good costs and an Atâ—achment against the plaintant for such serving Brightman plaintant Powtrell defendant Anno 19. Eliz. The plaintant called the deâ—endant dwelling in the County Palatine of Châ—â—ter by processe to anâ—â—er a Bill for lands lyiâ—g in the said County Palatine contrary to a generall order lately certified into this Court by her Majesties appointment touching the said County Palatine according to the said generall order Willoughby plaintant Brearton defendant An. 19. Eliz. The plaintants Bill is that he leassed a house to the defendant and did covenant to build and repaire it before a day which being at hand and shewed that he had prepared Timber and workmen to performe the same but the defendant as well to have him breake his Covenant as to free himselfe from his Covenant to keep it in reparations did interrupt and threaten the workemen whereby they durst not proceed to repaire and so the houses are decayed and the plaintant hath no remedy to force the defendant to suffer him to repaire the defendant demurred upon the Bill alleadging the plaintant hath sufficient remedy by Law which kind of answer this Court alloweth not therefore a Subpoena is awarded against the defendant to answer Wood plaintant Tirrell defendant Anno 19. Eliz. Where it appeared by a Booke heretofore presented to the Queenes Highnesse under the hands of Sir Iames Dyer Knight Lord chiefe Justice of the commou Pleas Mr. Justice Weston late a Justice of the same Court Mr. Justice Harpar late another Justice of the same Court and Mr. Justice Carus late a Justice of her Majesties Bench and remaining by force of her Majesties Warrant of Record in the Court of Chancery touching the Jurisdiction of the County Palatine of Chester that before the raigne of King Henry the third all Pleas of Lands and Tenements and all other causes and contracts and matters residing and growing within the said County Palatine of Chester are pleadable and ought to be pleaded and heard and judicially determined within the said County Palatine of Chester and not elsewhere out of the said County Palatine and if any be heard pleaded or judicially determined out of the same County then the same is void and coram non Iudice except it be in case of error Foraign Plea or forraigne voucher and also that no inhabitant within the said County Palatine by the Lawes liberties and usages of the same be called or compelled by any Writ or processe to appear or answer any matter or cause out of the said County Palatine for any the causes aforesaid as by the said Book among other things more at large appeareth and where now of late the plaintant hath exhibited a Bill of complaint into this Honourable Court for and concerning certaine lands and tenements lying within the said County Palatine and hath taken processe against the said defendant in that behalfe who hath thereupon appeared and by his Councell made request to this Court that for the causes aforesaid the matter here exhibited against him might be from henceforth dismissed wherefore forasmuch as William Sayler hath made oath that the said lands doe lye within the said County Palatine and that the said defendant is inhabiting and dwelling within the said County therefore the said cause is from henceforth dismissed and remitted to the Chamberlaine of Chester and other her Majesties Ministers there according to the Tenour of the same Booke Wllloughby Miles plaintant Brearton defendant An. 19. Eliz. Iearvise Wheatly made oath for the serving of a Subpoena upon the defendant to testifie on the behalfe of the plaintant at the Guildhall in London who hath not thereupon appeared therefore an Attachment is awarded against him Batt plaintant Rookes defendant An. 19. Eliz. A Bill was exhibited by the plaintant against Roger Haule supervisor of the last will of Thomas Clifton and one Roger Haule was served with processe that was no supervisor of the said Cliftons will and alleadged that the said Roger Haule who was the supervisor was dead and ordered the defendant shall put in his allegation upon oath by way of Answer and then desire Judgement whether he shall be compelled to answer the said Bill or not and therein pay his costs for his wrongfull vexation which shall be thereupon allowed to him Harrison plaintant Haule defendant An. 19. Eliz. The plaintants are adjudged to pay to the defendants 20 s. costs comming upon processe of Subpoena to testifie on their behalfe and having no charges tendered unto them nor any interrogatories put in for them to be examined upon Pearce and uxor ejus plaintants Crawthorn and White defendants Anno 19. Eliz. Lawrence Hide gentleman being called upon by processe by the plaintant to testifie informed this Court that he was ready to depose so that he might first have his costs to him allowed which this Court thought reasonable Belgraâ—e plaintant Edward Earle of Hertford and William Drury deâ—endants An. 19. Eliz. Thomas Hawtry gent was served with a Subpoena to testifie his knowledge touching the cause in variance and made oath that he hath been and yet is a Sollicitor in this suite hath received severall Fees of the defend which being informed to the Master of the Rols it is ordered that the said Thomas Hawâ—ry shall not be compelled to be deposed touching the same and that he shall be in no danger of any contempt touching the not executing of the said processe Berd plaintant Lovelace defendant Anno 19. Eliz. The plaintant exhibited his Bill as well in his own as in his wives name concerning a promise made by the defendants to the plaintant and his wife to make them a Lease of the Mannor of Appescourt during their lives the defendants demurre for that the plaintant ought to have a Bill of Revivor against them for that his wife is dead since the Bill exhibited which cause of demurrer this Court alloweth not for that the promise was made during the Coverture and the plaintant claimeth not the same in right of his wife therefore the defendants are ordered to answer directly to the Bill Thorne plaintant Brend Wilkinson and Alice defendants Anno 19. Eliz. Austen plaintant Vesey defendant the defendant is served with a Subpoena to testifie and for that it appeared by Affidavit that he was Sollicitor in the same cause to one of the parties he was discharged and not admitted to be examined An. 19. and 20. Eliz. Hartford plaintant Lee and Alice defendants the
The matter complained of by the Bill is for 5 l. debt for Fish therefore dismissed Foord Foord plaintants Richards defendant Anno 21. Eliz. Symonds Brocebridge made oath that the said Elizabeth and Anne two of the defendants are above the age of 70. yeares a peece and that the said William was comming up to London in his company and they were both robbed and William his horse taken from him whereby hee could not come to make his appearance therefore a Commission is granted to take all the said defendants answers in the countrey Hill plaintant Elizabeth Worley widdow William Stapleton and Anne his wife defendants Anno 21. Eliz. Memorand that the 20. day of February last Sir Nicholas Bacon Knight Lord Keeper of the Great Seale of England dyed at York house and the Seale being the same day sent for by the Lord Treasurer remained with the Queenes Majesty till the 12. day of April last on which day the same was delivered to Sir Tho. Bromly Knight Lord Chancellor of England Paschae 21. Eliz. Whereby an order of the 10. of Feb. last a Subpoena was awarded against the defendant to shew cause wherefore an award therein mentioned should not be ratified Now Mr. Flowerdew of councell on the defendants behalf informeth that the said award was not made by any order of this court and therefore desired that the said defend may not be compelled to performe the same It is ordered that Councell on both sides shall attend the morrow sevennight and then order shalll be taken Barkley Miles plaintant Moore defendant Anno 21. Eliz. The plaintant exhibited his Bill as a priviledged man to Sir Francis Kempe Prothonotary of this Court for Lands lying in the County Palatine of Chester and for that it appeared by Letters Patents openle shewed in Court under her Majesties Great Seale of England that this Court by any priviledge should not hold plea of any Lands lying within the said County Palatine It is therefore ordered to be dismissed if the plaintant shew not good cause William Lomley plaintant Thomas Greene Thomas Marlow Robert Taylor and Iames Wagge defendâ—nts An. 21. Eliz. The plaintant was adjudged to pay the defen. 37 s. 6 d. costs for that he being served with Subpoena in Hillar Terme appeared and by his answer disclaimed and yet after the plaintant served him with a Subpoena to rejoyne but afterwards the same costâ— were discharged by motion for that the defendant had before the costs put in his rejoynder but upon a disclaimer no costs is to be allowed Read plaintant Hawstead alias Lane defendants Anno 21. Eliz. The defendant was taken upon a Commission of Rebellion at the plaintants suite required his costs to be allowed him the Court asking the opinion of the Clerkes it was agreed with one consent that he should have his costs allowed therefore ordered accordingly Morgan plaint Ap Iohn Gowge defendant Anno 21. Eliz. The defendant maketh oath that he was served with a Billet in paper at the plaintants suit which Billet he lost by misfortune and upon his appearance no Bill is in Court against him therefore costs is awarded Brown alias Garris alias Pawdy plaintant Stoyck defend Anno 21. Eliz. The plaintant exhibited his Bill to examine witnesses in perpetuall memory touching a lease of Lands which hee and those by whom hee claimeth hath enjoyed 40. yeares the defendant by answer claimeth the Lands as Coppy-hold of inheritance to Mr. Sowthwell who is owner of the inheritance and within age and therefore prayed that no witnesses might be examined till Mr. Southwell be of full age and yet because the witnesses being old and may dye in the interim therefore a Subpoena is awarded against the defend to shew cause why a Commission should not be granted Hearing plaintant Fisher defendant An. 21. Eliz. Iohn Budden maketh oath that the defendants confessed unto him they were served with a Subpoena at the plaintants suite and have not appeared therefore an Attachment is granted Perry Ar plaintant Gatter alias Sharde and Cole defendants An. 21. Eliz. Upon the hearing of the matter for the Mannor of Laughtor and the Advowson of the Church of Laughton in the County of Bucking it appeared that the defendants and they from whom they claimed have beene in possession 100 yeares with divers discents therefore the defendants are dismissed Kinston plaintant Pigot aliis defendants Anno 21. Eliz. The defendant in Hillar Terme made oath that he could not answer without sight of evidences in the Country and having day given him he now hath put in no answer but a demurrer contrary to the orders of this Court therefore an attachment is awarded against the defendant Farmer aliis plaintants Fox defendant Anno 21. Eliz. Iohn Harry made oath for the serving of a Subpoena on the defendants to rejoyn therefore Munday next is given to the defendants to rejoyne or else to lose the benefit thereof Ioanes aliis plaintants Whitney Miles aliis defendants An. 21. Eliz. Whereas a Commission issued out to examine witnesses on both parties which is returned executed upon oath made by Giles Brever that he served precepts from the Commissioners upon W. S. Tho. Lin T. C. and Io. Peers to be examined on the defendants behalf before the said Commissioners who appeared not it is therefore ordered that a new Commission be awarded to the former Commissioners at the defendants charge as well to examine the said four witnesses as any other Shepheard plaintant Shepheard aliis Defendants An. 21. Eliz. The Duke of Northumberland acknowledged a Recognizance of 1000 Markes to the Lord Crumwell and after granted certaine Lands to the defendant afterwards both the Duke and the Lord Cromwell were attainted of Treason whereby the Recognizance came to the Queen and in her name was put in suit by one Lane to whom her Majesty had granted the same recognizance who sought to extend the defendants said Lands alone whereas there are divers other Lands to a great valew in other mens hands lyable to the said Recognizance therefore it is ordered that no Liberate goe out upon the said extent untill the Court order the same The Queenes Majesty plaintant Colborne defendant Anno 21. Eliz. The plaintant sought to be relieved upon an Obligation of 300 l. which he entred into to make a joyneture unto his wife in consideration of 174 l. promised to him by the defendant in marriage which was never paid unto him therefore an Injunction is awarded if cause be not shewed Osborne plaintant Havers defend An. 21. Eli. The plaintant and defendant both joyned in Commission to examine witnesses and the plaintant having the carriage of the Commission did not execute the same but did examine witnesses here in Court therefore ordered the defend should have a new CoÌ„mission to the former Commissioners wherein the plaintant might also examine if he list and