Selected quad for the lemma: peace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
peace_n	indictment_n	justice_n	session_n	2,138	5	10.8610	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55452	Reports and cases collected by the learned, Sir John Popham, knight ... ; written with his own hand in French, and now faithfully translated into English ; to which are added some remarkable cases reported by other learned pens since his death ; with an alphabeticall table, wherein may be found the principall matters contained in this booke.	Popham, John, Sir, 1531?-1607.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.; England and Wales. Court of Star Chamber.	1656 (1656)	Wing P2942; ESTC R22432	293,829	228

there ought to be a dislike of the Father also and in the Declaration it is also said that she dis-agreed Doderidge agreed with Jones that ●he Declaration is not good and that it is not warranted by the Covenant and that the breach is not well assigned The case is grounded upon the second covenant which consists upon a contingency which contingency is if there happen any discord between the Father and the Son c. the words are joynt and all ought to disagree True it is that in some cases a conjunctive shall be taken for a disjunctive but this is according to the matter and circumstances of the fact but in our case it shall not be taken disjunctively If the Father the Son and the Wife had disagreed then it is cleer that an Action of covenant lies but this is casus omissus and no provision for it Also it is only alledged in the Declaration that she disagreed whereas a mutuall disagreement between all ought to be alledged and therefore Judgement was given Quod quaerens mil. capiat per bellam But all agreed that the Wife might have boarded with Tooker the Father if she would but her new Husband could not AT thowe Sergeant took divers exceptions to an Inditement of forcible entry upon the Stat. of 8. H. 6. against Ployden and others for expelling one Syms from his Copi-hold and the principall exception was because disseisivit was not in the Inditement and in truth it cannot for albeit the Stat. of 21. Jac. cap. 15. gives power to Iudges and Iustices of Peace to give restitution of possession to Tenants for yeares and Copy-holders in which there shal be an entry or detainer by force yet the Stat. does not give an Inditement of forcible entry of copy-hold Noy a Copy-holder shal now have an Iditement of forcible entry but disseisivit shal not be in it for no Iury will find that because it is not possible because a Copy-holder hath no Frée-hold and yet a Copy-holder shall have a Plaint in nature of an Assize against a stranger but not against the Lord And at last the opinion of the Court was that the Inditement was good UPon a Capias directed to the Sheriff of London to take the body of J. S. the Capias was returnable die Jovis which was the day of All-souls and thereupon the Sheriff took the party but he returned that because the return of the Writ was upon a day that was not Dies Juridicus he suffered the party to go at large And the return was holden insufficient for by Doderidge the Writ was good and the taking and detaining of the party by vertue thereof was lawfull but yet he could not have the party there at the sayd day and therefore the Sheriff was compelled to bring the party into Court which the same day he did accordingly The same Term in the same Court A Man granted a Rent charge of 12 l. to one of his Sons out of the Mannor of D. by Déed and died the Grantée lost his Deed the Land is extended to I. D. by vertue of a Recognizance acknowledged by the eldest Son of the Grantor the Grantée sue for his Annuity before the Councell of York to be relieved in equity for that in respect of the losse of the Déed he could not have remedy at the common-Law and J. D. the Conuzée obtained a prohibition out of this Court upon this surmize that although the Councel of York should make a Decree that he should pay the said Annuity yet it should be no discharge for so much against the Conuzor because their Decrée was no legall eviction Now came Smith of the Temple and prayed a Precedendo for the Grantée to the Councel of York and the opinion of the whole Court was that a Decrée there being no legall eviction shall not be a discharge for so much against the Conuzor Doderidge the Grantée of the Rent-charge having now lost his Déed can have no remedy in equity for in this case Equitas sequitur legem and of the same opinion were Jones and Whitlock but by Doderidge which was not denied if the Grantee had lost the Deed by a casuall losse as by fir● c. in such a case he shall have remedy in equity and he sayd that in the beginning of King James when Egerton was Lord Chancellor there was such a Case in Chancery A Grantee of a rent-seck had seisen of it so that he might have an assize and he devised it to J. S. the Devisée sued in Chancery to have his Rent and seizen of it and he could have no remedy for it in Chancery And this was one Malleryes case The same Term in the same Court ONe Hebborne was indited for stopping a way c. and it was mooved that the inditement was insufficient because it is not layd that it was communis via but only that it was a way to the Church and per Curiam it was good enough and by Jones Iustice the Inditement is good enough although there wants vi armis because he who is supposed to stop the way is owner of the Land The same Term in the same Court AN Action upon the Case upon a promise was brought in the Town of Northampton and the Consideration alledged was that if the Defendant here in the Writ of Errour would discharge Bagnot of Execution c. that then the Plaintiff here in this Writ of Errour promised to pay him eleven pounds and there the Defendant pleaded quod exoneravit illum de Executione relaxavit And Bolstred for the Plaintiffe moved this for Errours that the Plaintiffe in the inferiour Court did not shew by what manner of release it was nor that it was by writing for this being the Consideration upon which the Action is grounded ought to be put in certain Mich. 15. Iac. Staple and King Execution of a consideration ought to be shown 35 H. 6. 19. a discharge ought to be shown in certain 22 E. 4. 43. the Lord Lisles Case and Mich. 16. Iac. in this Court Liverel and Rivets Case which was entred Trin. 16. Iac. Rot. 32● in an Action upon the Case upon a promise upon issue joyned it was found for the Plaintiffe and it was moved in arrest of Judgement because the Consideration was that the Plaintiffe should discharge one Ogle and he declares that he did discharge him and thereupon he brought this Action and because he declared but generally quod exoneravit the Judgement for that very cause was stayed and 36 Eliz. one covenanted to make an assurance and pleaded generally that he had assured and resolved that it was not good and in Rosse and Harvies Case this Term which was entred Trin. 2 Car. Rot. 1408. In Covenant the Defendant covenanted to give security the Defendant pleaded that he offered security and resolved that it was not good per que c. Jermy for the Defendant that the plea is good enough for a Release by Peroll is sufficient I

will remember but one book upon which I will rely 27. H. 8. 24. Jordons Case in an Action upon the Case the Defendant assumed to the Plaintiffe that if the Plaintiffe would discharge I. T. of such an Execution in which he is bound at the suit of the Plaintiffe then if I. T. did not satisfie the Plaintiffe by such a day the Defendant would do it and they were at Issue upon an Assumpsit and there the Count is admitted good and he need not plead it was by writing because the Discharge is good without writing but it hath been resolved that if a man be in execution at my suit and I go to the Sheriffe and command him to discharge the Party this is a good Discharge although it be by Peroll Jones If I say to the Sheriff suffer the party to go at large this is a good release both to the party and to the Sheriffe and by him relaxavit implies a sufficient release and therefore the Plaintiffe in the Writ of Errour shall be barred And if a man be bound to save one harmlesse in an Action brought upon this obligation he pleads that he hath saved him harmlesse and shews not how the Plaintiffe demurres generally he shall not now take advantage of it Doderidge The Cases put by Bolstred are not to this purpose for all those cases are of things in certaine and he agreed that a release by perol was sufficient and the case of 22. H. 8. is a stronger case then this is Whitlock agreed also and therefore Doderidge advised the Plaintiff to be satisfied or otherwise they would affirm the first Judgement Trin 2. Car. in the Kings Bench. Caryes Case IN Caryes case of Grayes Inne where these words were adjudged actionable You a Councellor a Foole an Asse a Hangman a Councellor of Law a Foole in the Profession it was said by Jones Instice it was not sufficient to say that he was eruditus in Lege but he ought to say that he was Homo Conciliarius and he said that in maintainance against Boughton it came in question upon evidence to a Iury whether one who is a Barrister may give advice and it was ruled that he could not albeit he had Letters Patents to inable him as fully as if he had been called to the Bar and in Fleetwoods case adjudged that these words You the Kings Receiver you are his Deceiver are you not were actionable The same Term in the same Court SIr Tho. Savill was indited for breach of the peace within the Pallace to wit for assaulting Sir Fran Wortley and he pleaded his pardon and Doderidge said that to strike in the place was the losse of the right hand by the Law and in this poynt our Law agrees with the Lawes of France and Spain and all other Nations for as the person of the King so his Palace and courts of Iustice are so sacred that such contempts and affronts are judged worthy of such punishments and said that the Book of 24. E. 3. 33. Fitzherbert Forfeiture 22. of which he would have Students to take notice is that where one came into the Palace armed and being brought to the Barre in his compleat armor the cause was demanded and he said that it was in his own defence being in fear of a great man then in Court and he was committed to Prison by the Court during the Kings pleasure and his Lands forfeited during his life Vide for the like matter 41. E. 3. Fitzh Coron 280. Dyer 188. 22. E. 3. 13. Hillar 2. Car. in the Kings Bench. ONe Mathias Wheelhorse was indited at the Sessions of the Peace holden in the Town of Northampton quia Noctivagus and because he divers dayes and nights did frequent the house of c. which was within the liberties of Southampton and was a suspected Bawdy-house and Crawley Sergeant moved that this Inditement was insufficient for three reasons 1. Because it does not appeare in the Inditement that the party knew this to be a Bawdy-house 2. Because it is not said that it was a Bawdy-house but that it was susspected to be a Bawdy-house 3. Because the Inditement is before Iustices of Peace Villae de Northampt and the house is infra libertates Villae de Northampt. and it shall not be intended that the power of the Iustices of Peace extend thither and for it see Co. lib 5. 120. Longs case 13. H. 7. 33. 34. 22. H. 7. Kelleway 89. Co. lib. 9. Mackaleys case And the Court gave no opinion concerning the exceptions But another thing was moved to wit that one could not be indited before Iustices of peace for being Noctivagus but this is to be inquired of in the Leet and in this the whole Court was against him for it is a misdemeanor and it is contrary to the Statute of Winchester and every one may arrest him And at another day he moved this last exception again and sayd that the Iustices of Peace have no power to fine men that are noctivagant yet true it is that a Court-Leet hath such a power Rastol Leet 2. and true it is also as it is in 4. H. 7. 1. 2. that every one may arrest a Night-walker but there it is said that if he appeareth to be a man of good fame the party who arrests him ought to let him go at large and the Inditement here is only that he was Noctivagus it appears not that he is a suspicious Night-walker by Doderidge Whitlock Iustices only present by the Common Law every man may arrest him who is Noctivagus and the word Noctivagus implies that he was a common Night-walker and they sayd that Iustices of peace by their Commission have power to take such Inditements for it is of ill behaviour and albeit the Inditement were nought for the other exceptions yet being good in this it shall not be quasht and therefore Iudgement was given upon it and the party fined 40 s. The same Term in the same Court. Sparrow versus Sherwood IN Trover and Conversion of two loads of Fitches of certain Land c. The Defendant justifie by the command of Hare to whom part of the Land belongs and to one Pots to whom another part in right of the Lady his Wife belongs and shews that part of the Fitches did grow upon the Land of one and part upon the Land of the other and upon this the Plaintiff demurs 1. Because he justifies by the command of two generally and he cannot justifie upon the Land of the one by the command of the other and therefore he ought to have alledged severall commands 2. Because he does not shew particularly upon whose Land the Fitches grew but that part grew upon the Land of one and part upon the Land of the other which is incertain 3. Because the Wife of Pots is called by the name of Lady and the Wife of an Esquire cannot be a Lady Doderidge and Whitlock onely present for the first were of opinion

by my Neighbours means shall be in the same degree as my Neighbours Act for what he does shall be to his own prejudice And upon the Iudgment affirmed the Attorney of the said Hayes made the like Writ of Habere facias seisinam directed to the Sheriffs of London as was done in the Common Pleas wherupon it was affirmed to the Court in Hillary Term next ensuing that the Sheriffs had made their execution by the quantity of the feet comprised in the writ and that in the doing of it there was pulled down the part of another house of the said Allen which was erected two feet upon the land of the said Anne and prayed remedy for it and that this Habere facias seisinam varying from the thing recovered might not be filed To which it was said that this quantity of feet was but a Surplusage in the Writ and that the Writ before this was sufficient and warranted by the Verdict and judgment Sherrey versus Richardson 5. IN Debt upon an Obligation of 50 l. by Lawrence Sherrey against Arnold Richardson the case was this 16 Martii 33 Eliz. the said Richardson was bound to Sherrey in 50 l. with condition to stand to and observe the Arbitrement Award order rule finall end and judgment of one Walter Bolton and Edward Price Arbitrators indifferently elected to arbitrate award and judge of and for all Actions Suits Quarrels and Demands whatsoever betwixt them untill the date of the Obligation so that it be made and done in writing under their hands and Seals ready to be delivered to the parties at or before the last day of this instant month of April and the said Arbitrators the last day of April 33 Eliz. made an Arbitrement in writing under their hands and Seals that within four daies next ensuing the award either of the said parties shall release each to other all Actions Suits and Demands before the date of the said Obligation with this Proviso that if either of the said parties shall be discontented with the said Award or any part of it within twenty daies after the Award that then upon the payment of 10 s. by the party which thinks himself agrieved with the Award to the other within the twenty daies the Award shall be void either of them to be at liberty against the other as before the Award and by the whole Court if the Award shall be said made within the time comprised in the O●ligation where the Proviso had been to be performed after the four daies it had been good and a finall Award because that the Proviso to make the Award void after the time limited for making of Releases is repugnant to that which was to be executed before to wit that either of them shall release each to other vvithin four daies for every Avvard ought to be reasonable and indifferent betvvixt the parties in all appearance and so that the one part of it ought not to impugn or encounter the other and here to what purpose shall it be to make the Award void and to put out at liberty against the other when they have made Releases each to other and vvhat indifferenty or reason should there be that vvhen one hath released the other may dissolve the Arbitrement by the Proviso and hovv may the Obligation vvhich had been once forfeited by the not making of the Release vvithin the four daies be helped and become not forfeited by dissolving of the Arbitrement by the Proviso But by Popham Gawdy and Clench if the Releases had been limited to have deen made at a day to come as ten daies after and that the Proviso had been to have been performed in the mean time before these ten daies then the Avvard had been void because they had not pursued the submission for it vvas no finall end of the controversie in as much as it is not certain by reason of the Condition whether it shall be an end or not But it seems to Popham that the Award here is not made within the time that it ought to have been made by the Condition for the Obligation is alledged to be made the 16 of March 33 Eliz. and then no month can be the instant month but March and therfore this word April is but a meer negation and if it should not be so to what April shall it refer for there is no matter to guide it more to one April then another but the generall intendment which happily shall guide it to the next April for avaiding of incertainty if it had not been for the words this instant moneth and the words within this moneth shall not be said to be frivolous vain where they may have a good and plain intendment but rather the word April which is repugnant to it shall be said to be void and a meer negation but it seems to him that as the Award is the case being that at any time within 20 daies after the Award made the one or the other disliking the Award might have been defeated upon the payment of 10 s. if the 10 s. had been paid within four daies as it might have been and before the Releases made the party by the intent of the Award had not been bound to have made the Releases because that by it within the time before the Releases made the Arbitrement shall be defeated by the Condition if it had been a good Award and therfore it shall not be said to be a finall Award at the time of the Award made because that instantly upon it before the four daies are passed there was power in the said parties to have defeated the Award upon the payment of the said 10 s. and therfore it seems to himself also that the Award was void and by consequence the Plaintiff shall be barred 6. KIng Richard the 3. by his Letters Patents granted to the Burgesses of Glocester and to their Successors that the Town of Glocester c. shall be a County of it self several and distinct from the County of Glocester for ever and no part of that County and shall be called the County of the Town of Glocester neverthelesse saving and reserving to himself and his Heirs that the Iustices of Assise in the County of Glocester the Iustices of Goal-delivery and of the Peace in holding of their Sessions and also the Sheriff of the County of Glocester in holding of his County-Courts and every of them may freely enter into the said Town and keep the said Sessions and County-Courts of and for any thing and matter arising out of the said County of the Town aforesaid and within the said County of Glocester as before time they had accustomed to hold them there the said Grant or any other thing notwithstanding And grants further that they shall have a Major two Sheriffs and one Recorder within the same County of the Town of Glocester and that the Ministers of the Sheriff of the County shall not afterwards enter to do or execute any thing