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
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
and Beaumount 77 Specot and Shere 91 Simpsons case 92 Shudsouth and Fernell 107 T. TImberly and Calverley 47 Tadcaster and Hallowell 47 Thompson and Green 105 Trugeon and Meron 128 W. WIlde and Woolf 41 Wolley and Bradwell Wrotheys Case Sir George Walker and VVorsley 83 VValcot and Hind 14 PASCH 15 JACOBI Combes versus Inwood THE first day which I sate at the Bench after the day in which I was sworn Ejectione suma A Conveâ—ance delivered to be enrolled and yet not inâ—â—lled shall be accounted a Record i. e. Thursday the twenty second of May A Iury was at the Bar from the County of Surrey in an Ejectione firmae brought by Combes against Inwood upon a Lease made by one John Stockwood which was Heir to one Edward Stockwood and was for a Farm in Chertsey called Haylwick And upon Evidence the Case appeared to be thâ—â—s Edward Stockwood was seised in fee and about the 29 Hen 8. this Land was supposed to be conveyed to King Hen. 8. in fee for the enlargement of the Honour of Hampton but no Deed nor any other matter of Record was in being to prove this originall Conveyance and many Arguments were used to prove that there was never any such Conveyance because there was not one of any such conveyance named in the Act of 31 H 8. But of the other part it was proved that this Land had continued in exchange as the Land of H 8. all his life by divers accounts and that it had been enjoyed by divers Leâses made by Edward 6. and Queen Elizabeth and Rent paid for them And that in the year 16 Eliz. she granted it in Fee-farm to the Earl of Lincoln and under that Title the Land had been quietly enjoyed untill of late time And the Court delivered their opinion That it there were a Deed by which Stockwood conveyed the Land to H 8 and that brought into the Court of Augmentation although this Deed be not found nor inrolled yet it is a sufficient Record to intitle the King and it is a Record by being brought into Court and there received to be inrolled And the Report of the case in Lord Dyeâ— fol 355.19 Eliz. was not as it is there reported for it was for Bormiâ— Inne and it was adjudged a good conveyance and in this case the Iury found for the Defendant Trin. 14 Jac. Rotulo 769. Steward versus Bishop Words STeward brought an Action upon the Case for certain words against Bishop because that the Defendant said Steward is in Leicester Gaol for stealing an Horse and other Cattell the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Iury found for the Plaintiff and Damages to thirty pounds And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Serjeant John Moore that the Action doth not lye for the words do not affirm and Deed or Act or Offence but that he was in prison upon suspition of an Offence And it is the Ordinary speech and communication by way of interrogation What is such a one in prison for For stealing And all the Kalenders are such a one for stealing of a Horse such a one for Murther Vide Coke lib 4. he is detected for Perjury is not actionable And to say such words of a Iustice of Peace or an Attorney peradventure it shall be otherwise yet it seems all one if it touch not him in his Profession To say that I. S. was in Newgate for forging of Writs will not maintain an Action and so adjudged in Nowels case and Iudgment was given that the action will not lye Pasch 15 Jac. ONe brought and Action upon the Case and counted that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would take such a woman to his Wife promised to pay twenty pounds when he shall be therto requested after the marriage Request where it shall not be alledged and that the Plaintiff such a day had married the said Woman and the Defendant though often requested did not pay the aforesaid twenty pounds And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgement that he had not shewn any particular request but yet Iudgment was affirmed for the Plaintiff for this action is grounded upon the promise which imports Debt and not upon any collaterall matter which makes it a duty by the performance of a collaterall Act upon the request Trin. 15 Jac. Resolved upon the Statute of 3 H. 7. Cap. 2. VPon divers Assemblies at Serjeants Inne of all the Iudges to consider by the direction of the Star-Chamber whether by the Statute of 3 H 7. cap 2. the taking of any Woman against her will and the marrying or deflowring of her be Felony or only of such a Woman which hath Substance or Goods or Lands or otherwise be an Heir apparent the body of the Act seems to be generall viz. He that shall take any Woman so against her will And it was said that it were a great inconvenience that it shall be Felony to take an Heir apparent of a poor man or to take a Woman which hath but a very small Portion and of mean Parentage and as it was said of a Woman in a red Peticote and that it shall not be felony to do and commit the said Offence in taking the Daughter of an Earl or some other great man of the Realm But it was resolved that the body of the Act was incorporated to the Preamble for it had been adjudged that if one take a Woman with an intent to marry her or deflower her c. and doth it not this is not Felony and this rests only upon the Preamble then it shall have relation as well to such a Woman which is before named viz. Maid Widow or Wife having substance and to an Heir apparent and to no other And so it was taken in a Case in the Star-Chamber by the like resolution 10 Jac. between Baker and Hall and the Lord chief Baron said Baker and Hall that it had been adjudged that no Appeal did lye upon this Statute and all the Presidents in effect warrant this resolution vide Stamford fol. 37. Statute 1 H. 4. Cap. 14. COnsideration upon the Statute 1 H 4. Cap 14. was had how the word Appeals shall be intended before the Constable and Marshall And 26 Eliz. Doughties Case Doughties case Petition was made to the Queen by the Heir to make a Constable and Marshall but she would not Admitting that the King get a Commission of the Office of a Constable and Marshall whether the King may have any remedy before them by Indictment or information by the Attorney generall Mich. 15 Jac. Andrews versus Hacker AN Assise of Darrein Presentment was brought by Andrews against Hacker and the Earl of Salop Assise and against the Arch-bishop of York for the Church of Gothur in the County of Nottingham the Assise was brought to the Bar and when the Iury appeared the Arch-bishop made default and the others appeared and pleaded in abatement of the Writ that the same
to passe without pain then to indite the Offenders of whom great part be flock of the same Country c. And upon Nil debet pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Serjeant Bawtry that the Writ had recited the Statute otherwise then it was for the Writ saies Indicari pro indictari and it ought to be written by this Abbreviation Indicāuri And the word Indictari is a word by it self and he resembled it to Freemans case Coke lib 5. fol 45. Fecit vastum vendicōnem destrictionem for destructionem and not amendable Also Coke lib 4. S. Cromwells case upon the Statute of Rich 2. de scandalis magnatum the word Messoignes is said Messuages and not amendable Harris answered that the Cursitor had a Note drawn which was well and it was only his mis-priston Secondly that there is no such Passive Verb as Indicari and so being insensible shall be amended And for that vouched 11 H 6. 2. 14. adjudged upon the Statute of forging of false Deeds Immaginavit were it should be Immaginatus est and amended 3. This Abbreviation is sufficient Also he said that it is only the preamble of the Statute wherupon the action is not founded but upon the body of the Act. Sir George Wrothies case in Ejectment the word Demisit was amended and made Divisit Brickhead against the Bishop of Yorke and Cooke for the Ticaridge of Leeds the Writ was Vacariam and for that the Cursitor was examined and his Instruction being Vicariam it was amended there An 14 Jac. 1. The Lord Hobart inclined strongly that it should be amended by the instruction which was delivered to the Cursitor but as to that Winch and I differed because that this matter of Instruction is not a thing which ought to be informed by the party as all matters of fact are As whether it be a Vicaridge or a Church or in debt for twenty pounds in the Instruction and he make it thirty pounds that shall be amended But in this case it is matter of skill and no difference between this case and Freemans case And in debt if he had Instruction in the Debet and Detinet and makes the Writ in the Detinet only that shall not be amended 2. The Lord Hobart inclined that this recitall is but in the Preamble and may be omitted to which we disagreed he inclined that the Abbreviation was sufficient to supply all the word This Case being long debated the Court Ex assensu ordered that the Defendants should give 80 l. to the Plaintiff Mich. 10 Jac. Rot. 641. Poole versus Reynold IOhn Poole brought a Prohibition against Richard Reynold Farmer of the Moyety of the Rectory of Colleton Prohibition Prescription to have Deer out of a Park in discharge of all Tithes and after the Park is disparked with the Chappell of Shute annexed to the said Rectory And the Surmise was that of time wherof memory within the Parish of Colleton there was a Rectory appropriate and the Cappell of Shute annexed therto Et una Vicaria perpetua ejusdem Ecclesiae de Colleton dotat And wheras the said John Poole for six years last past had occupied one house a hundred acres of Land twenty acres of Meadow forty acres of Pasture called Shute Park in Shute aforesaid within the Parish of Colleton which said Tenements were anciently a Park and now dis-parked which Park De temps d'out memory c. untill the dis-parking therof was used and filled with Deer and severed from other Land and was dis-parked An. 10 Eliz. and converted into the said house a hundred acres c. And that all the Occupyers of the said Park called Shute Park de temps d'out memory c. untill the dis-parking had paid to the Vicar there his Farmer or Deputy one Buck of the Summer season within that time upon request and one Doe of the Winter season within that time c. in discharge of all Tithes of the said Park untill the dis-parking and after the dis-parking in discharge of all Tithes of the said Tenements which they had accepted for all the time aforesaid untill the dis-parking and after or otherwise agreed with the Vicar for them And traversed this Prescription and found for the Plaintiff And now in Arrest of Iudgment it was moved by Henden that this Prescription extends to the Land quatenus it is a Park and that being destroyed the Prescription is gone for a Tenurs to cover a Wall or Thatch an house if the party destroy or pull it down the Tenure is extinct 32 E 14 Avowry And it shall be presumed that this was by grant when it was a Park which is collected by the thing which is to be paid and if it be to be paid or delivered out of the Park then it is determined vide Lutirels case Coke lib 4 Also this Prescription is against the benefit of the Church and shall not be enlarged And the Wood which is sold out of the Park shall not be discharged 14 Jac. in Conyers case in this Court Conyers case Prescription that the person had two acres of Meadow given in discharge of all Tithes of Hay ground viz. of all the Meadow in the Parish it any arrable Land be converted into Meadow it extends not to discharge that vide Lutirels case Coke lib 4 fol 86. That an Alteration in prejudice of the party determine the Prescription but vide the principall case there adjudged that building of new Mills in the same place and converting of Fulling Mills into Corn Mills alter not the Prescription vide Terringhams case lib 4. He which hath Common purchased part of the Land all is extinct for it is his own act And he cited a case which was in this Court argued at Bar and afterwards at Bench between Cooper and Andrewes Mich 10 Jac Rot 1023. for the Park of Cowhurst vide 32 E 1 Fitz avowry 240.5 E 2. Fitz annuity 44.20 E 4.14.14 E 4.4 But this case was adjudged for the Plaintiff Quod stet prohibitio and that which is by the name of Park is for the Land and is annexed to the Land by the name of Park if the Prescription had been to pay a Buck or a Doe out of the Park then it would alter the case But it is generall and had been paid also after the Park dis-parked viz. the tenth of Eliz. And the case of Cowper and Andrewes was the third shoulder of every Deer which is killled in the Park and two shillings in money and that case was never adjudged Hil. 10 Jac. Meredith versus Bonill Case HUgh Meredith a Iustice of Peace in the County of Monmouth brought an action upon the case against Bonill Words for these words I will have him hanged for robbing on the high way and for taking from a man five pounds and an Horse After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the words were not actionable for they
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
and prayed Iudgment for he said the ancient Books were many for Iudgment conditionally but some to the contrary viz. when the Heir is vouched within the same County and is within age there Iudgment presently against the Tenant with a Cesset executio And when the Heir enter into the Warranty and is taken to render the Dower there is Iudgment against the Heir and that the Tenant shall hold in peace But he said that Mich Ashburnham against Skinner 38 39 Eliz. Rot. 1208. Mary Ashburnham brought Dower against Skinner who vouched the Heir of the Husband in the same County who presently entred en le garranty and said that he had no Assets there the Iudgment was given presently against the Tenant with a Cesset executio And after the Issue was tryed and found that the Heir had not Assets and the Wife had Execution but it was said that Error was brought therupon yet the Feme continued the Possession Henden said that the Tenant otherwise shall lose the benefit of his Warranty vide 13 H 4. Judgment 241. The Court adjudged this case for the Demandant upon view of the said President of 38 39 Eliz. And as this case is the Demandant upon necessity ought to have Execution because that the Tenant which ought to have the benefit of the Warranty made default And if it was so that the Vouchee was dead the Tenant shall not have any other Voucher for the Dower ought not to suffer delay And likewise when Iudgment is given against the Tenant with a Cesset executio all is one as a conditionall Iudgment against the Tenant for if Assets be found then Quia compertum est c. with Iudgment against the Heir and that the Tenant shall hold in peace It was objected that Iudgment ought to be conditionally at first and not to give one Iudgment against the Tenant and afterwards if Assets be found another Iudgment against the Heir but that is no inconvenience Some say that when such Iudgment is given against the Tenant with a Cesset executio there if Assets be found the Demandant shall not have execution against the Heir but against the Tenant and he shall have ad valentiam Quaere Potter versus Browne Case Words NIcholas Potter brought an action upon the case against Browne for these words spoken of the Plaintiff He is as arrant a Theef as any is in England and he broke up the Plummers Chest with other mens Tools which stood in my Lord of Suffolks house and took money out of it The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and Verdict for the Plaintiff And upon the motion of Henden to Arrest and Richardson to have Iudgment The Court resolved that the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment The first reason is because that there is not any affirmative directly that he is a Theef but as arrant a Theef as any is in England And avers not that there is any Theef in England And the Law will not presume any thing that is evill Iniquum in lege non presumitur And as Lacies case was He is as great a Theef as any is in Warwick Goal He ought to aver that there was a Theef there at the time of the speaking of the words And it is the same reason in this case Then the latter words are ambiguous and admit of a double interpretation and the better shall be taken Querens nil capiat per breve Mich. 22 Jac. Methell versus Peck MEthell brought an action upon the Case against Peck and count Case that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff had paid to one Playford forty pounds to the use of the Defendant Where the request of a collaterall thing shall be alledged and by his appointment he assured upon request to deliver an Obligation in which he and another should be obliged to the Plaintiff in a hundred pounds And that the Defendant Licet saepius postea requisitus did not deliver the said Obligation upon Non assumpsit pleaded Verdict for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Hitcharn that the Plaintiff had not alledged any sufficient request by shewing such a day and such a place which is issuable And being collaterall matter the request is part of the substance of the action But where it is upon Debt or Contract and not severed from the duty then a Licet saepius requisitus is sufficient But the Court were of opinion that the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment and yet they agreed the diversity when a Request shall be alledged as part of the thing to be performed and when it is but implyed in the Debt For when it is collaterall there it ought to be alledged and for the time it is sufficient viz. Postea but the place of the Request is omitted And if Issue had been tendred therupon it might be supplyed afterwards where it shall be tryed where the action was brought And Non assumpsit allowes the request as if the Defendant had pleaded concord and satisfaction the Request is not to be proved in Evidence vide 10 H 7. 16. But it is said that this Judgment was reversed in the Kings Bench because that the Request being upon Collaterall matter which was the cause of the Action it is materiall Mich. 22 Jac. Ejectione firmae AN Ejectione firmae brought and counted upon a Lease at Haylesam of Tenements there The Defendant pleads that Haylesam ubi tenementa praedicta jacent is within the Cinque-Ports Ubi breve Domini Regis non currit and plead to the Iurisdiction The Plaintiff reply Town shall be intended al the Town that the Tenements are in the County of Lancaster absque hoc that the Town of Haylesam is within the Cinque-Ports wherupon the Defendant demur and adjudged no cause of demurrer For Haylesam is all Haylesam and the Court will not intend any Fractions in the Town viz. that part shall be in the Cinque-Ports and part without as it was affirmed the truth was but that ought to come upon the shewing of the Defendant an his Bar vide 50 E 3. 5. Sir William Ellinghams case Defend respond oust THE FIRST YEAR OF KING CHARLES Termino Pasch Hitcham versus Brook SIR Robert Hitcham Serjeant at Law and to the King Case brought an action upon the case against one Brook a Iustice of the Peace and which had been Sheriff of Suffolk and count that he for divers years last past had been one of the Kings Serjeants and had demeaned himself well and loyally in the discharge of his duty and had gained good opinion and had acquired by his practice a good Estate for the maintenance of him and his Family The Defendant said Words I doubt not but to prove that the Plaintiff hath spoken Treason Innuendo Treason against the King Verdict was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that these words are not actionable First because no time is alledged
Defendants disturbed her The said Bishop died and the Defendant plead that he is parsona imparsonata ex presentatione Domini Regis nunc And said that Sir Thomas Chichley was seised in Fee of the said Advowson and also of the Mannor of Preston and divers other Lands in the County of Cambridge which Mannors and Lands were holden of King James in Capite by Knights-service and being so seised he died and that this Advowson and the Mannor descended to Thomas Chichley his Son and Heir who at the time of his death was within age And that afterwards by force of a Writ of Diem clausit extremum this matter was found wherby the King seised the body and was possessed of the Mannor and of the Advowson and that the said King James died the King which now is suscepit regimen hujus regni and was possessed and the Church became void And the King by his Letters Patents under the great Seal presented the Defendant Thompson and traversed the Grant made by Sir Thomas Chichley to Thomas East and Edward Anger of the said Advowson as the Plaintiff had alledged The Plaintiff replyed protestandâ— that the Defendant is not Parson Imparsonee and that the Plea is insufficient Pro placito dicit quod non habetur aliquod tale recordum talis inquisionis post mortem praedicti Thomae Chichley militis modo forma prout wherupon the Defendant demurred And after many Arguments at Baâ— by Attho Henden Davenport and Hedley it was adjudged for the Defendant And that the Title of the Plaintiff being traversed brought to have been maintained and not to traverse other matter alledged by the Defendant for Traverse upon Traverse is only when the matter traversed is but Inducement Also it appears fully that the King is entituled to this Presentation though there was not any Office vide 21 E 4. 14 H 7. and then all the Titles of the King should be answered and therfore the deniall of the Office is not materiall for if he dies seised the King may present without Office vide Bendoes case 21 Eliz Rot 1378. Crachford against Gregory Lord Dacren when the King is entituled by Office to an Advowson though the very Title be in a stranger yet if the Church be void and he which hath Title present this is but Vsurpation Vide 17 H 7. Kel 43. 11 H. 8. ibid. fol. 200. vide 21 E 4. 1. 5 E 4. 3. or 13. of things which lye in Grant the King is in actuall possession Crachfords case 20 E 4. 11. Stamf. fol 54. 2. R 3. issue 7. 28. 23 H 8. Kel 97. new Book of Entries fol 130. vide there that Traverse is allowed to be taken upon Traverse vide for that 9 H 7. 9. 10 E â— 49. Dyer 107. 10 E 4. 2. 3. 6 E. 3. â— When two Titles appear for the King as here the dying seised of the Advowson of Sir Thomas C. who also died seised of the Mannor of Preston holden in Capite that is a good Title and the Office found is another Title and â—oth ought to be answered in case of the King vide for that matter 37 H 6. 6. 24 H 3. 27. 46. E. 3 25 9 H 6. 37. 39 H 2. 4. 40 E 3. 11. In case of severall charges to the King although the King be not party yet they ought to be answered Hedley Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that the presentment of the King tolls all the right of the Plaintiff and therfore only ought to be answered and he ought not to traverse the Title of the Plaintiff which by the Plea was toll'd but notwithstanding that he answered not the dying seised of the Advowson and the Tenure by which the King is intituled upon the Office and therfore all is one And the Plaintiff had waved his Title and not maintained it And therfore Iudgment was given for the Defendant Pasch 4 Car. Congham's Case Rescous by the Plaintiff in the primer action IN an action upon the Case against Congham and his Wife That wheras the Plaintiff hath recovered in Debt against one and had a Writ of Capias ad satisfaciendum directed to the Sheriff of Cambridgeshire and the Sheriff had arrested the party and had him in Execution for the Debt the Defendants rescued the party and he escaped Vpon Not guilty pleaded the Feme was found guilty of the Rescous And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment by Aleph that this action lies not because that Debt lies against the Sheriff And the Sheriff shall have an action for the Rescous vide F N B. 102. And properly this action of Rescous lies where it is upon mean processe and that is for the delay by the Rescous and damage may be greater or lesser accordingly And the Rescous is according to the condition of him which is arrested for if he may be easily taken again and that he becomes not more poor that then the damage is the lesse vide 16 E 4. fol. 3. But after divers motions at Bar Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And the Lord Richardson held strongly that it lies And this Tort may be punisht at the Suit of the party who had damage therby viz. the party the Sheriff or Baily And Harvey and Crook agreed but Yelverton and my self doubted therof because that it is an immediate wrong to the Sheriff or Baily and the party had no prejudice in common presumption because that his action is transferred to the Sheriff who hath more ability to satisfie him Farrington versus Caymer LIonell Farrington qui tam pro se quam pro c. brought an Information against William Caymer Information where it shall be brought upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 4. against Ale-brewers and Bear-brewers for selling Bear at higher prises then were assessed by the Iustices upon Not guilty pleaded the Plaintiff had a Verdict at Norfolk Assises And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Information was brought in the Common Bench and yet it was brought and tryed in the proper County where the Offence was committed wheras by 33 H. 8. cap 10. 37 H 8 cap 7. 21 Jac cap 4. it ought to be brought in the Country and not in the Common Pleas. And upon grand deliveration and hearing of councell of either part the Court resolved that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff And first it was agreed that wheras by the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 4 which appoint that the Iustices of Peace assesse the prises of Barrels and other Vessels of Beer and that they which sell against that rate forfeit six shillings c. to be recovered by action of Debt Bill Plaint or Information in any Court of Record in which no wager of Law c. and gives one Moyety to the party which will sue and the other to the King no action may be brought in any Court of Record but onely in one of the four Courts of Record at Westminster
use of the said Robert and Isaac and their Heirs for ever by force therof and of the Statute 27 H 8. they were seised of the said Rent in Fee and after the said Robert died and Isaac survived and is yet seised Per jus Accrescendi and for Rent arrear c. and for the said forfeiture of forty shillings they avow wherupon the Plaintiff demur And upon Conference between the Iudges they all agreed that by this Fine which granted to Brook and Jermy and the Heirs of Brook to the use of Brook and Jermy and their Heirs that they were in by the Statute of 27 H 8. and were Ioyn-tenants of the Rent for otherwise there would be such a Fraction of the Estato that Brook should be in by the Common Law and Jermy by the Statute and that is not according to the Statute And it appears that the use was limited by the Fine it self and not by any Indenture And the principall reason is upon the Statute of 27 H 8. which is where two or three are seised to the use of one or two of them Cestui que uâ—e shall be adjudged to have such Estate in possession as they have in use Iudgment pro Defendent Memorand That in this Term a motion was made for the filing of a Writ of Entry in a Common Recovery suffered by Sir John Smith upon a Purchase and all was well done and the Writ made and sealed Filing of a Writ of Entry many Termes after but by the negligence of the Attorney it was not filed and it was Unanimo assensu resolved that it should be filed and that after the death of Sir John Smith for it is but to perfect a Common Recovery which is a Common Conveyance And this was denied in the case of one Allonson for there Error was brought and Diminution alledged and a Certificate that there was no Writ by the Custos brevium And it is ordinary to file these Writs at any time within a year without motion Mich. 8 Car. Harbert versus Angell CHarles Harbert Plaintiff against Angell Case Words in an action upon the case of words which were Thou art a Theef and hast cousened my Cosin Baldwin of his Land And after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the words would not maintain action And at the first Iustice Crawley and Iustice Vernon were of opinion that the former part of the words were actionable and that they were not extenuated by the subsequent words but they agreed if it had been for thou hast robbed c. it would be otherwise And the Lord Heath and Iustice Hutton were of a contrary opinion and that the words And and For are in this case to have one effect and declare what Theef he intended And they relyed on Birtridges case Coke lib 4. And upon this diversity of opinion the Lord Heath conferred with the Iustices of Serjeants Inn in Fleetstreet and we with the Lord Richardson and they all agreed that the subsequent words explained his intent and meaning viz. the Robbery and cousening of the Land And Verba sunt accipienda in mitiori sensu As to say Thou hast stoln my Corn it shall be intended Com growing so in Arrowes case Arrowes case 19 Jac. Thou art a Theef and hast stoln ten Cart-loads of my Furzes adjudged not actionable for it shall be intended of Furzes growing Quaerens nil capiat per breve Ram versus Lamley Norff. RAm brought an action upon the case against Lamley and declared That wheras he was Bonus legalis homo and free a suspitione feloniae the Defendant maliciously want to the Major of Linn and requested a Warrant of him being a Iustice of Peace against the Plaintiff for stealing his Ropes The Major said to him Be advised and look what you do the Defendant said to the Major Sir Words I will charge him with flat Felony for stealing my Ropes from my Shop Quorum quidem verborum c. And after Not guilty pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff Hitcham moved in Arrest of Iudgment And the Court unanimously resolved that these words being spoken to the Iustice of Peace when he came for his Warrant which was lawfull would not maintain an action for if they should no other would come to a Iustice to make complaint and to inform him of any Felony Quaerens nil capiat per breve Mich. 8 Car. Lamb versus West Trin. 8 Car. Rot. 333. SIr John Lamb Knight brought Replevin against Thomas West and count Replevin that the Defendant took his Beasts at Blisworth in quodam loco vocat Thorny Close The Defendant avowed as Bayliff to Sir William Sheapherd and derived Title by a Lease to Michael West for ninety years if he and Thomas West the Defendant Demand of Rent and one Hutton West should so long live And the said Michael 19. Aprilis An 20 Jac. granted a Rent-charge of ten pounds per annum to the said William Shepheard and his Executors out of the place in which c. for the residue of his Tearm to be paid at the house of Thomas West in S. And the said Mich. granted that if the Rent he arrear by eight and twenty daies being lawfully demanded at the said house he should forfeit twenty shillings for every day that it should he arrear and if it be arrear by six months being lawfully demanded at the said house then he might distrain for that and the Nomine poenae And for Rent arrear by a year after demand due c. he makes Conuzance And therupon the Plaintiff demurred generalls And after many Arguments at Bar the Iustices delivered shortly their opinions severally and all argued that it is a Rent-charge and then a Distresse is incident to a Rent-charge which is in its creation a Rent-charge as well as if one makes a Lease for life or years rendring Rent and if it be lawfully demanded then it shall be lawfull to distrain for it None will deny but that he may distrain for this Rent without any demand And the diversity is between a Penalty and a Rent for if the Avowry had been for any part of the Nomine poenae then without actuall demand at the day he could not have distrained therfore vide Maunds case Coke lib 7. fol 28. And all agreed that when a Distresse is for Homage if it be once tendred and refused he cannot distrain without demand vide Litt 34. 21 E 4. 6. 16 17. 7. E 4. 4. That where a Rent is reserved upon a Lease and an Obligation to pay it yet that alters not the nature of the Rent 22 H 6. a good case Rent is reserved upon a Lease and an Obligation to perform Covenants that extends not to the Rent reserved but if it be to pay the Rent then it shall be demanded there it is said that if Rent be tendred and refused the Lord or Lessor may distrain without demand It was agreed that
shall be indicted shall not have Councell And the Attorney Generall was commanded to report our opinion to the King And this hapned to be demanded upon the generall inconvenience that might after ensue in the Case of the Earl of Bristoll to whom the King had allowed Councell Mich. 3 Car. MEmorand That the fifth of November at Serjeants Inne in Fleet-street there assembled the Lord Hide Lord Richardson Lord Walter Iustice Doderidge Baron Denham Iustice Hutton Iustice Jones Resolves concerning Souldiers Iustice Whitlock Iustice Harvey Iustice Crook Iustice Yelverton and Baron Trevor to consider of a Case which was propounded which was One receives Presse-money to serve the King in his Wars and is in the Kings Wages and with others is delivered to a Conductor to be brought to the Sea-side and with-draweth himself and runneth away without license The Question was if it were Felony And time being given before to advise concerning it all agreed besides Yelverton and my self that it was Felony And the sole question is if a Conductor be a Captain within the 7 H 7. cap 1. and the 3 H 8. cap 5. And they said that it is not necessary that he should be such a Captain as is to lead and command them in the War or that hath skill to instruct But such as hath the leading of them by agreement between the Deputy Lievtenants and them and that ought to provide for the Billeting of them and to carry them to the place of Randesvous And one part of a Captain is to conduct although that Conduxit be properly to hire a Souldier yet this name Conductor with whom it is so agreed by Indenture to conduct the Souldiers is a Captain within the intent of those Statutes and if it should not be so these Statutes which are for the defence of the Realm shall be of little force But it was agreed by them that if these Conductors which are so called of late times be hired to carry them but to one place and there another Conductor to receive them this is not within the Statute And it ought to be such a Conductor that can give license upon just cause to proceed It was said that they used to send Captains into the Country but then they were so chargable to the Country and full of disorder that upon complaint of the Iustices of Peace about 43 Eliz. this course was invented viz. That the Deputy Lievtenants should provide for them that were pressed for Coats and Conduct and they sent their Souldiers to a place appointed to be delivered to certain persons whom the Queen appointed to receive them And it was said that though this Case as it is propounded might be cleer yet there are many Circumstances which ought to be proved and that are loft to the discretion of them before that he should be tryed It was unanimously agreed that if one takes Presse-money and when he should be delivered over he withdraw himself that is not Felony although he is hired and retained to serve But my Brother Yelverton I were of opinion that this new name newly invented is not Captain within these penall Statutes which ought to be taken strictly vide Plowden 86. that penalties which concern life shall not be taken by equity but if they be within the words of the Statute then they shall As to kill his Mistresse is within the words for Mistresse is Master Another reason was that the Statutes provide punishment for Captains which want of their number or which pay not their Souldiers within six daies after they have received their pay upon pain of forfeiting all their Goods And the Statute did not intend other Captains in this point then was in the former and latter part therof But admitting that a Conductor is such a one to whom the Souldiers are delivered by Indenture with all Covenants usuall viz. To pay to them their Wages and to convey them to their appointed place and that he may give license to depart yet they agreed that it is the better and clearer way that they should be made Captains and so named in the Indentures for the King may change the Captain at his pleasure and then it should be no question It was agreed that 7 H 7. cap 1. extends only to them who are retained and pressed to serve the King upon the Sea or upon the Land beyond the Sea And the Statute of 3 H 8. cap 5. adds only the Land here And the Statute makes departure without license from the Captain Felony and the Statute 3 H 8. without license from the Lievtenant And the Statute of 7 H 7. makes the tryall to be in the County where they shall be taken before the Iustices of the Shire as they may try other Felonies within their Commission The Statute of 3 H 8. makes their tryall before the Iustices of the County where they are taken and this being a new Felony and made tryable against the Common Law which appoint tryals by Iurors of the County where the Fact is committed and appoint a speciall Iudge viz. Iustices of Peace that is only tryable before them and not before Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer who cannot try any thing but that which is done in the same County But this if all be not done in that County where they are taken makes it tryable only before the Iustices of Peace of the County where they are taken In this point all were not resolved but required longer-time vide 2 Inst 56. Sir Richard Champions Case A Writ of Covenant is prosecuted Jan 23. returnable Oct. Purisicat A Fine of Oct. Puris where the Caption was Feb. 14. 1. The Dedimus potestatem is tested 23 Jan the Iudge certifie the Concord takes Febr. 14. which is two daies after the Term at which time the Writ of Covenant is not depending the Fine is haec est finalis Concordia facta in Oct. Purif And after it is recorded in 15 Pasch and yet adjudged a good Fine vide the Statute of 23 Eliz. 3. Dyer 220. b. Carels Case Mich. 4 Car. Jones versus Powell JOhn Jones Plaintiff against James Powell Defendant in an action â—â— on the Case for a Nusance count That the Plaintiff 10. August 1 Caroli was and is and for forty years last past hath been possessed for divers years yet during of a Messuage Nusans 1. in which he and his family did by the time aforesaid dwell And by all that time hath been Register to the Bishop of Gloc. and kept his Office there that the said Defendant the tenth day of August and ever since hath held in possession another house over against the Plaintiffs And they being so possessed the Defendant the said 10. of Aug. erected a Brew-house and a Privy in the said house and burned Sea-coles in the said Brew-house so that by the Smoke stench and unwholsome vapors coming from the said Coles and Privy the Plaintiff and his family cannot dwell in the said house