cannot be imparted to another It is true that the personal view cannot be lent to another or divided from the person no more can the personal touch or act of my hand be imparted to another and yet express Livery which is the deed and act of the hand may be done per auter maine Sir Francis Englefields Case in the seventh Report of Sir 7. Reports Englefields Case Edward Cook gives us a pretty difference where the act to be done is unseparably tied to ones person and where not as in the Case of Thomas Duke of Norfolk where upon conveyance of divers Mannors to Philip Earl of Arundel his Son there was a Proviso That the Duke might revoke the same upon signifying of his minde under his own proper hand in writing c. This power of Revocation was not transferred to the Queen by the Attainder of the Duke because it was inseparably tied to his own proper hand But the principal Case there of Englefield where the Canc. in Combs Case Lands were setled upon his Kinsman with power That upon tender of a Ring by him he might revoke the uses and this was forfeit by his attainder and the Queen by a Letter of Attorney made to two did tender the Ring for this was not precisely or literally tied to Englefields person no more then payment of Money or such like And so in our Case though by the Law I take it that Livery within the view must be in the view of both the parties yet this may be done by Attorneys for as my own hand is not precisely tied by the Law to an express Livery no more is my own eye expresly tied to this view And we see in views in an Assize the under Sheriff or 36. H. 8. Dier the Sheriffs Bailiffs by his direction may make the view and yet the Writ is direct to the Sheriff to do the same Morse Penningtons Case and in those Cases an intellectual view will serve as if the Jurors know the Land but such an intellectual view will not serve in a Feoffment but there the view must be actual Yet I take this difference that if a Letter of Attorney be directed to A. B. to make Livery and Seisin he cannot do the same within the view for therein he doth not pursue his warrant but if the Letter of Attorney be special to give or take Livery within the view I am of Opinion then the Livery may in such a Case be given and taken by Attorneys within the view as well as in Combes Case in Sir Edwards Cooks 9. Report where it is affirmed that a surrender of a Copy-hold may be given and taken by Attorneys which is as personal as this is in the taking part because Fealty ought to be made Some things may in this Case be further aleaged in this third point which I now have in hand that is Who must make the Letter of Attorney on the Feoffees part whether the Lessee for years or he in the remainder or both of them For Lessee for years it is to be noted that his Estate hath not any perfection thereby and he seems himself but a Deputy and if so then a Deputy cannot make a Deputy but yet he is not meerly a Deputy for if there be two Lessees the Remainder in Fee to I. S. one of the Lessees may take the Livery and Seisin yet if a letter of Attorney be made to two joyntly one of them cannot take it and if in our Case the Lessee had dyed before entry the Livery might have been made to his Executors and powers and authorities cannot be apportioned and come to Executors in such maner Ergo It is more then a power of a Letter of Attorney for the reasons aforesaid and for these insuing For the Lessee for years cannot be prohibited from taking his Livery by the Lessor but a Letter of Attorney may be countermanded yet the Lessee alone cannot make this Letter of Attorney neither can he in the remainder make the same because he could not himself accept of the present Livery neither can he meddle with the present possession which a Livery and Scisin yields But I am of Opinion That Lessee for years and he in remainder must joyn in the Letter of Attorney for these Reasons First they were both one party to the Deed so ought they to be to the Letter of Attorney which is to give life thereunto Secondly they be but in Law one Tenant Thirdly they should joyn in Advoury And in many Cases the Lessee shall have ayd of him in remainder for the privity between their Estates and although the Lessee gets no Estate by the Livery yet he assists himself thereby with the ayd and strength of him in the remainder and the Livery goes through his Estate and so passeth into the remainder Therefore my conclusion is that they shall joyn in this Letter of Attorney and hereby I suppose I have conveyed a good Estate in the maner to I. S. in the remainder to maintain my position for him in the end of my Case and here I end my three Common Law points and now am come to the Statute The Readers Argument upon the Statute and Commission The Sea within the Realm of England FIrst touching our Mare Anglicum in whom the interest therein is and by what Law the Government thereof is is a fit question and worth the handling And in my Argument therein I hope to make it manifest by many proofs and precidents of great worth and esteem that the King hath therein these powers and properties videlicet 1. Imperium Regale 2. Potestatem legalem 3. Proprietatem tam soli quam aquae 4. Possessionem Proficuum tam Reale quam Personale And all these he hath by the Common Laws of England in the 6. R. 2. Fitz. Prot. 46. it is said That the Sea is within 6. R. 2. the Legiance of the King as of his Crown of England This proves that on the Seas the King hath Dominationem Imperium ut Rex Angliae and this by the Common Law of England The Charter of the Admiral of England hath these words Admirals Charter in it Quod habeat potestatem in causis maritimis ac omnia bona waviata Flotsan Ietsan Lagan ac omnia bona Mercimonia catalla in mare depordita seu extra mare projecta ac omnia singula casualia tam in vel super mare vel littora crecas vel coster as maris quam in vel super aquas dulces portus flumina rivos aut alios locos superinundatos quoscunque inter Fluxum refluxum maris ceu aquae ad plenitudinem à quibuscunque primis pontibus versus Mare per totum Regnum Angliae Imprimis this Charter is under the great Seal of England quod est Lex Angliae The King grants to the Admiral thereby power in Maritine Causes which proves the Kings legal power and jurisdiction on
is not of sufficient power to supercede a Court of higher power Yet if one sue a Replevin which afterward in Bank was abated and a return of the Cattel there awarded another Replevin did lie by the opinion of the Book of 34 H. 6. fol. 37. and so it appeareth by the Statute of Westminster cap. 2. but these new Replevins came out of the 34 H. 6. said Courts where the former was for it is not likely that the Sheriff could make deliverance by his warrant of Cattel contrary to the award and return of a Court of Justice in a Retorno habendo and therefore by the same Statute of Secunda deliberatione is now to be awarded out of the Rolls of the Court whence the Retorno habendo came And if one would resemble this case with other authorities and with the reason of other Book cases of the Law it will be made thereby apparant that the higher Court may take or remove a cause out of the inferior Court but not Econtra neither can the inferior Court supersede the superior For if one be impleaded in the Kings Court at Westminster and in coming towards London he is arrested in a Corporation Court he may be delivered thence by the power of the superior Court to the which he was attendant the power of the inferior Court shall be superceded thereby as the Law is declared in divers of our Books By the which it is plain that ones person being in the priviledge and protection of the Kings Court could not justly be Imprisoned by the power of an inferior Court And in Stringfellows Case in 3 Ed. 6. Dier fol. 67. The goods of one were seized by the 3 Ed. 6. Sheriff by processe out of the Chancery for a Subject and after seisure and before delivery thereof was made a Writ of Prerogative came out of the Exchequer rehearsing thereby that the King was to be served before any other and command the Sheriff to levy the same on the goods of the same Debtor And whether these goods that lay under the power of a Processe in one Court might be taken from thence by the power of another Court was the question and the better opinion therein as I take it was that they could not for that by the former Processe they were priviledged from all other Jurisdictions Powers and Authorities especially if they were of an inferior degree Yet there be two cases which not being curiously looked into make shew as if the Law were otherwise the one is in the 11 H. 4. fol. 2. where the goods of I. S. were taken in Execution by the Sheriff by a fieri facias which came out of 11 H. 4. the Kings Court of Westminster and the Sheriff sold them to I. D. and there was a Replevin sued in that case but no deliverance made of the Cattel in Court and the other case is in 7 H. 4. fol. 28. goods were taken by a Levy which issued out of a Court Baron and they were sold by the 7 H. 4. Bailiff there was also a Replevin sued but no deliverance made of the Cattel in Court neither would the Court order the Defendant to gage deliverance so that by these two cases it may seem what a Replevin did lie though another Court had formerly the Jurisdiction of the Cattel taken by the Distresse But under favor I hope I shall easily reconcile these books and shall make it to appear that they do not make against my opinion formerly delivered upon this diversity That when the goods were seized or taken by Processe and remained by the vertue thereof in the hands of the Sheriff or of his Bailiffs during that time no Replevin did lie in the Case but after such time as the goods or cattel were sold away as in the said two Cases formerly alleaged they were then against the party that bought them or any other a Replevin did lie in the Case for after the sale they were out of the protection of the former parties and then a Replevin might well take hold of them being out of all other Jurisdiction And the same difference I take in this Case of the Sewers that is That so long as goods distrained by Warrant and Process out of this Court of Sewers remain in the custody thereof they be not replevisable by the Warrant of the Sheriff or of his Deputies but after they be sold away then by the sale thereof they are out of the protection and priviledge of the Court of Sewers and then the Sheriff may cause them to be delivered by Replevin Yet it may be objected unto me that in Rooks case a Replevin was taken against him which detained the distresse by Warrant of the Commissioners of Sewers it is true the Book is so which case I admit and that the Replevin was well granted there yet I take it it doth not contradict my said opinion because there Carter was assessed but the goods of Rooks were taken and detained for the Sesse and Rooks did sue the Replevin which he might well do because against him or his goods there was not any Law of Sewers extant or in force neither was he or his goods within the priviledge or jurisdiction of these Laws of Sewers But if Carters Cattel had been taken who was the very party sessed he could have had no Replevin from the Sheriff or his Deputies to deliver his Cattel But although a Replevin doth not lie in the case aforesaid from the Sheriff or his Deputies Ex officio to deliver a Distresse of Sewers yet out of the Kings Courts at Westminster a Replevin doth lie in those cases And the Charter of Romney Marsh pag. 18. doth afford us in this Ch Romney Marsh case a very good president for there complaint was made to the King setting forth thereby That whereas his Highnesse had appointed and authorized Henry de Bathonia to be his Justice and to determine the differences depending and touching the repairing of the defences of the said Marsh he had ordained that Distresses might be taken according to the 24. Jurators It a quod nullus vicecomes aut alius balivus noster intromittat in districtionibus illis tu tamen meaning the Sheriff of Kent nihilominus districtiones illas propter hoc factum per vigint quatuor Juratores in prejudicio considerationis eorundem reluxasti tibi igitur precipimus quod districtionibus illis in nullo te intromittas and in the same Charter the like matter is there also so determined of pag. 7. By the which may be collected that the Sheriff Ex officio might not meddle with such Distresses and in the same Charter pag. 8. the words be further Quod siquis de consideratione predict ' districtionis se injuste gravat ' sentiret inde conqueri vellet ad ipsum Dominum Regem querelam suam deferret ipse in Curia sua justiciam fieri facere reservasset whereby it is manifest that a Replevin lay
the charge for the erecting maintaining of the new ones are to be laid on the Level So that it behoveth Commissioners to be careful in these affairs else things in the conclusion may fall out contrary to their expectations for it is well said That Rerum progressus ostendunt multa quae in initio nec praecaveri aut praevideri possunt In making new Laws and Ordinanes these things are also considerable First what the matter of the Law is which is to be Enacted Secondly when the matter is known then to weigh it well whether if it be made if then it will prove necessary and behoofful for the good of the people and this necessary point is to be scanned by the counsel and advise of the most discreet and experienced persons and of the best tryed judgements in matters of this native And thirdly to consider what charge the work will cost for the which this Law must be made for in Scriptures he is not counted sapient that before he build a house will not first count the charge of it And fourthly what persons must bear this charge least it prove too burthensome and this must be directed by the ability of the people which are to be charged and by the the safety and commodity they are to have by the work I observe also that this Statute useth three words which are all powerful in signification and operation videlicet Laws Ordinances and Decrees and I think it fitting for me so near as I can both to deliver the definitions of them and the differences between them A Law A Law is properly a matter which hath taken his essence and power by a Custom time out of memory as the Common Laws have done Or else is a matter Acted and Enacted in Parliament by the King and the great Counsel of the Realm and by the Authority thereof for the ordering of mens Bodies Lands and Goods and such a Law is hereby intended because the Laws which the Commissioners shall make have the power of an Act of Parliament to strengthen and assist them and they are to receive life and perfection from this Statute I read on Ordinance AN Ordinance is a word having a more private and less powerful signification then the word Law hath for it is a Law but of a secundary power enacted by a Corporation Company or Commission proceeding meerly out of the Power and Prerogative of the King by Charter Grant or Commission warranting the same as those Corporations Societies and Companies which have power by Charters or Patents to make the same as is set forth in the cases of the City of London and of the Chamberlain of Londons Case in Sir Edward Cooks Reports Also Ordinances may be made by the power of a Court as in a Court Baron to make Orders or by the Inhabitants of a Town by Custom for the ordering of their Commons Repairing of their Churches and Highways And these are more properly by-Laws then Laws for a Law is either the Common Law Customary Law or an Act of Parliament all which are of greater force then any Laws made by these secundary means which of themselves are of little or no strength but as they are assisted by other primary powers Decree A Decree is neither a Law nor Ordinance in proper definition but is only a Sentence or Judgement in a Court of Justice delivered or declared by the Judges there by and through the power strength of a general former Law for Decretum est Sententia lata super Legem So that a Law is a general direction for a multitude An Ordinance is a subordinate direction proceeding out of a more general power And a Decree is a Sentence delivered for or against a particular person grounded upon the said Laws and Ordinances Continuance of Laws IT comes now fitly for me in turn and course to declare the continuance of these Laws Ordinances and Decrees for it is to be observed that some of them be but temporary though others perpetual The words in our Statute are That every Statute and Ordinance made before the Statute of 23 H. 8. concerning the things and matters therein mentioned as well in the time of H. 8. as of any of his Progenitors not being contrary to this Statute or heretofore repealed shall stand in force for ever and are commanded to be put in due Execution But this clause is intended of all Acts of Parliament made touching the Sewers and be not intended or meant of Laws and Ordinances made by the Commissioners of Sewers themselves Laws and Decrees made for sale of Lands by the Powers and Authorities of this Statute are to be made and ingrossed into Parchment and certified under the Seals of the Commissioners into the Chancery and the Kings Royal assent had thereto under the Privy Seal shall also stand good and effectual And all Laws and Ordinances written in parchment and indented and under the Seals of the Commissioners whereof the one part shall remain with the Clerk of the Sewers and the other part to remain in such places as the Commissioners should appoint notwithstanding the same be not certified into the Chancery nor the Kings Royal assent be had thereto shall continue in force till the same shall be altered 13 Eliz. cap. 9. repealed or made void by another Commission of Sewers although the former Commission by the which these Laws were made were determined by Supersedeas The Commission is to continue for ten years from the date thereof by force of the Statute of 13 Eliz. yet notwithstanding 13 El. all Laws and Ordinances which are written in parchment indented and sealed by the Commissioners of Sewers without certifying into the Chancery or the Kings Royal assent had thereto shall notwithstanding the determination of the Commission by the expiration of the said ten years continue in force for one whole year next insuing to be put in execution for that time by six Justices of the Peace whereof two to be of the Quorum but then the power of the Justices of the Peace is ceased by the corning of a new Commission of Sewers All other Laws and Ordinnces of Sewers which are but made and writ in paper or which be but in parchment and not Indented or which be indented also if not sealed continue in force no longer then that Commission continueth by the power whereof they were made And so by this short declaration I have made the Commissioners may the better observe how long time Laws and Ordinances of Sewers are to continue in force yet though they lose their vigor they may notwithstanding be revived by the power of a new Commission or remain for presidents for after ages to imitate Repealing of Laws IN this last place I intend to deliver my opinion what Laws Ordinances and Decrees may be repealed altered or made void by the Commissioners of Sewers Therefore it is first to be considered what grounds are to be observed in repealing or
altering former Laws It appears in Esther that the Laws of the Medes and Persians were so perdurable as they could never be changed And in my opinion there is required as great foresight judgement and as sound discretion and mature deliberation in repealing of old Laws as in making new ones For Quae preter consuetudinem morem major ' fiunt neque placent neque recta videmur I have noted how carefully and constant the Lords of the Parliament House were in the 20 year of H. 3. when they all cried out aloud Nolumus leges Angliae mutare Seeing therefore there ought to be great care in making Laws so must there be great heed taken in repealing of Laws And because Commissioners of Sewers have power herein I will therefore deliver my opinion how far that power will extend And if one note this Branch of the Statute well he shall well perceive the Judicious care taken by the Parliament in penning of it For the words be That the Commissioners of Sewers should have Power and Authority to make constitute and ordain Laws Ordinances and Decrees and the same Laws and Ordinances omitting the word Decrees to alter repeal and make void for a Decree is a Judgement and is Finis operis and a Judgement cannot be reversed without a Writ of Error Neither can a Sentence or a Decree in Chancery be reversed without a Bill of Review neither can the Commissioners of Sewers reverse a Judgement or Decree of Sewers Judiciously pronounced which is a Judgement upon a Tryal betwixt the King and the party or betwixt party and party without a Bill of Reversal for it is truly said Quod naturale est unum quodâ— dissolvi eo ligamine quo ligatum est A Writ of Error lay at the Common Law for to reverse a Judgement given by Commissioners of Sewers when the Commission was in Latine as is set forth in the Register being then one of the special Commissions of Oyer and Terminer but since the Commission was put into the English frame the Writs of Error ceased A Law for sale of Lands ingrossed into parchment and certified into the Kings Court of Chancery with the Kings Royal assent had thereto is not reversable without an Act of Parliament but then the said sale must be made according to the form frame and power of this Statute For put the Case that A. B. holdeth his Lands of I. S. by the payment of Twenty shillings yearly towards the repair of such a Bridge Bank or Wall it fortuneth that A. B. paid the Twenty shillings yearly to his Lord for that purpose who neglecteth to pay it though he be thereto Ordered and Assessed to pay the same to the said repairs by the Commissioners of Sewers the seigniory of Twenty shillings yearly is to be decreed and not the Land for that the fault was in I. S. and not in A. B. the owner of the Land If any persons be by Prescription Custom Tenure Covenant or otherwise bound to repair Walls Banks or other defences of Sewers the Commissioners have not any power by their Commission to repeal alter or make void any of these because these are establisht by the Common Law and Customs of the Realm and not by the power of the Commission of Sewers But their power is to repeal alter or make void Laws and Ordinances made by themselves or by the power of their Commission And so the words of their Commission plainly describe it For thereby they have power to make Laws and Ordinances and the same to repeal alter and make void so they must be the same and no other And herein I end all my Arguments and discourse upon this Statute for I accompt all the rest which remaineth unspoken of not to be worthy of a Readers dialect because I have fully handled all the materials of this worthy Law And therefore I may justly â—â—â—clude my Argument with this That Finitum est hoc opus â— consumatum FINIS
dispose of them Fourthly the Commissioners have a Clerk proper to themselves to Register their Laws Fifthly the Commissioners have power to make Orders and Decrees which are Judgements in effect and some of them cannot be reversed but by Act of Parliament And lastly Writs of Error have been brought to reverse Judgement given in that Court For all which causes I do conclude That the Commissioners of Sewers have a Court of Record although it be not holden in aliquo loco certo So was the Kings Bench a Court of more Eminency then this But ubicunque fuerimus in Angliae and for express Authority in the point of Gregories Case in the 6 Report of Cook chief Justice that the Sewers is a Court of Record Imprisonment imposed by the Commissioners of Sewers IT is a point of high consequence whether Commissioners of Sewers have power by these Laws to Imprison the body of a man for any thing touching the same for that Imprisonment of the body seemeth to sway somewhat against the grand Charter of England and against the liberty of a free-born Subject and it is said in Bonhams case 28 H. 8. in Dyer that liberty is a thing which the Law much favoreth and I finde in our Books of Law That the Judges have been very careful and curious in not extending words contained in Charters to the Imprisonment of mens bodies unless they were express in the point And therefore in Clerks case in Sir Ed. Cooks 5 Report fol. 64. Clarks Case The case is That the Term was to be kept at St. Albans and the Major there and his brethren did assess every townsman towards erecting and building of the Courts of Justice and made an Order That he which should refuse to assist and pay should be imprisoned and one being Arrested and imprisoned brought his Action of false imprisonment against the Major who pleaded in effect That they were incorporate by King Edward 6. and had power granted to them in their Major of St. Albans Charters to make Ordinances by reason whereof they made the said Order and so justified the imprisonment But it was adjudged against the Major for that by the said Charter they had not any power to make an Ordinance to imprison a mans body for that were against the grand Charter in Magna Charta cap. 29. Quod nullus liber homo imprisonetur Magna Charta nisi per legem terrae But by that Book they might have inflicted a penalty and have distrained or brought an Action of Debt for it In Doctor Bonhams case in the 8. Report King Hen. 8. incorporated the Physitians of London and gave them power by Charter to examine the Imperites to finde out the defects Et pro delictis suis in non bene exequendo faciendo utendo illos per punitionem eorum delinquentium per fines amerciamentum imprisonomentum corporum suorum So hereby it appears that by the Kings Letters Patents they had power to imprison the Body but I finde their Charters confirmed by Act of Parliament Yet in 2 Eliz. Dier fol. 175. the Case is That the Queen did award a Commission directed to certain Commissioners to Hear and Determine the controversies betwixt Scrogs and Colshil touching the Office of the Exigenter and that if Scrogs should refuse to obey to make answer before them they should commit him to Prison but the validity of this last Commission I much doubt of I am of Opinion That the Commissioners of Bankrupts and charitable uses have no power to commit any man but if any abuse or misdemeanor be committed in contempt or derogation of their Authorities they may make Certificate thereof into the Chancery and refer the punishment thereof to the will and discretion of the Lord Chancelor or Lord Keeper for the time being In Godfreys Case in the 11 Report there is a discourse what Godfreys Case Courts have power to Imprison and which not and there it is said Some Courts may Fine but not Imprison as the Courts Leet and Sheriff turn some others could neither Fine nor Imprison as Courts Baron and County Courts and some could neither Fine Imprison nor Amerce as Ecclesiastical Courts And some may Imprison and not Fine as chief Constables at their Petty Sessions for an affray done in disturbance of them And other Courts there were which might Fine Imprison and Amerce as the eminent Courts of Westminster So that Imprisonment is not incident to every Court nor to every offence Yet I am of opinion that the Commissioners of Sewers may Imprison the body for it is not only a Court of Record but is authorized by Act of Parliament and I suppose that there be words in the Commission and Statute which will bear this construction which are as follow viz. And all such as ye shall finde negligent gainsaying or rebelling in the works reparation or reformation of the premises or negligent in the due execution of the Commissioners That ye Compel them by Distress Fines and Amerciaments and by other Punishments ways or means c. Which words are strong and large enough to authorize the Commissioners of Sewers upon just Cause to Imprison the body But here they are to be careful and not to think that they may Imprison Fine or Amerce in any case because the words be generally put together But this construction must be thereof made That they may Imprison where Imprisonment is due and Fine in cases Fineable and Amerce in cases Amerciable and Distrain where a Distress properly lyeth by the Rules of Law and they may not Imprison where by the Laws Imprisonment is not due but every one of the said punnishments is to be used in its proper kinde for these words promiscuously put together must be ordered by a just and legal construction according to the Rules of Law and Reason And I have known the words of a Statute generally and promiscuously put together have been marshalled according to their distributive operations as the Statute of 1 Rich. 3. which is That all Feoffments Gifts Grants Releases and Confirmations of Lands made by Cestui que use should be good Yet though these words were generally put together notwithstanding the wise and discreet Sages and Expositors of our Laws have so Marshalled the words of this Statute that they made construction thereof according to the Rules and reason of the Laws That is That Cestui que use in Possession might make a Feoffment and that Cestui que use in Reversion or Remainder might grant the Land and Cestui que use of a discontinued Estate might release or confirm and yet the words of this Statute were general howsoever Reason must be the Expositor that every thing be done in due form of Law and not in preposterous maner And these matters being thus passed over I shall endeavor my self to declare in what cases Commissioners of Sewers may Imprison Fine and Amerce and where not Imprisonment Fine and Amerciament Fines IF one
give evil Language to Commissioners in Court or disturb the peace there or hinder the business of the Court in a Turbulent fashion he may be by them Fined or committed to Prison or both at the discretion of the Commissioners for by 34 H. 6. fol. 24. in every case when a man is fined he may be imprisoned and by 19 H. 6. fol. 67 in every case where one is Imprisoned he may be Fined and 34 H. 6. our Law in express words gives the Commissioners power 19 H. 6. to set fines and then by the opinion of the said Books ex consequenti they may Imprison If one oppose against a Law of Sewers not legally in questioning the same but refractory contemning thereof or by disswading persons assessed not to pay such or not to obey the Law I am of opinion that a person is both Fineable and Imprisonable and if this be done in facie Curiae it aggravates the contempt and this is the Rebelling which this Statute speaketh of If one do refuse to obey the Decree Rule Order of the Court especially if it be done in affront of the Commissioners when they be in execution of their Commission This is a contempt and he is to be imprisoned for such his disobedience and this agreeth with 37 H. 6. fol. 14. In Termino Pasche 12 Jac. in the Kings Bench the Case 37. H. 6. there was in debate between Hitley and Carier where certain 12 Jac. Commissioners of Sewers in the counties of Huntington and Northampton made a Law That certain Townships in those counties were assessed to a work of Sewers and one town was rated to Five pounds and because the same was not paid the Commissioners caused a Warrant to be directed to the said Carier to distrain for it and he distrained the cattel of Hetley one of the Inhabitants and Hetley brought an Action of Trespass in the Kings Bench against Carier and arrested him thereupon and upon complaint made to Sir Anthony Mildmay and Sir John Boyer Knights and other the Commissioners of Sewers they caused Hetley to be attached by their Warrant and committed him till he should release his Actions brought against Carier and until he should be delivered out of the Prison by Warrant to be granted by them But afterwards Hetley procured a Habeas corpus cum causa out of the Kings Bench and was removed where all the said matter appeared and thereupon Attachments were awarded against the said Commissioners and Sir John Boyer appearing was by Cook chief Justice Crook Dodderidg and Houghton Justices committed to the Kings Bench Prison and was fined Two hundred pounds but was after delivered Ex favore Regis sed non ex Rigore Legis And in my opinion The said Commissioners in this case in making a Warrant to attache Hetley and in imprisoning of him for the said causes did exceedingly erre and the rather because they took upon them to overrule the Justices of the Kings Bench being of a higher and greater authority then they were of But this is no president to impeach the power of the Commissioners of Sewers for committing persons offending their authorities to Prison if their proceedings therein be consonant to the Laws of this Realm but they were punished in this Case not for executing their power but for exceeding their limits and the bounds of their Commission If a Collector or Expenditor or other Officer of Sewers have been negligent in the execution of his Office and place he his fineable therefore though his offence be but neglect because he was an Officer and was also sworn to execute the same duly But I take it a neglect in another ordinary person is not to be punished And if one be rated to pay towards repairs and he neglect to pay the same at the days and times appointed he is not fineable therefore but is to be Amerced in this Case If a Collector or Officer of Sewers do distrain a man or do any other act contrary to an Inhibition of Sewers to him directed by the Commissioners of Sewers he may be fined and imprisoned simile factum fuit in 7 H. 4. fol. 33. 7 H. 4. If a Purpresture be committed in the Kings streams as in fixing Piles or Stakes therein or in stopping straitning or diverting the course of the waters from their ancient chanels or courses these offences being presented the offenders are fineable therefore if in the Presentment they be found to be done vi armis or be presented by the name of Purprestures for by 19 H. 6. fol. 8. if the offence be done 19 H. 6. with force and so presented then the offender is fineable Beechers Case but otherwise it is if the offence be not found but omitted for then an Amerciament is onely due And it is said in Dier 7 Eliz. fol. 240. That for a Purpresture one is fineable and a Purpresture may be committed in aquis Regiis as well 1 Eliz. fol. 240. as in viis Regiis by the opinion of Glanvil And in Keleways Report fol. 141. And a Purpresture is taken to be an offence done to the King imediately or to His possessions But if the like offence Purpresture be done to a Subject or to his Lands it is termed a Nusans Nusans The Abbot of Mellefont was fined for erecting a Were in the royal River of Boyne in Ireland which is expressed in the Irish Reports in the Case of the Royal Pischary of the Ban in Ireland and this was a Purpresture If one do refuse to accept an Office of Sewers being thereto duly elected by the Commissioners he is fineable therefore for in Greslies Case 8. Report One being elected Greslies Case and chosen Constable did refuse to take the Office and he was fined And if an Officer do misdemean himself in his Office he is fineable for in 10 H. 6. fol. 6. A Tythingman did refuse 10. H. 6. to make Presentment being thereto required and he was fined therefore So in case of the Sewers if one of the Jury or which is a Surveyor refuse to make Presentment when he is required by the Commissioners he is to be fined So if a Juror depart after he is sworn on the Jury or before he be sworn after his appearance be recorded he is to be fined And if an Expenditor or Collector Officers of Sewers be required by the Court to accompt for the moneys received and laid out by them and they refuse they may be punished by fines And if the Sheriff upon Writ or Warrant directed to him to return a Jury before the Commissioners and he make no return thereof nor doth not attend when he is required he is to be fined by the Commissioners Also an Officer of this Court is fineable for falsities done by him in his Office for these are a violation of his Oath and is a breach of that trust which the Court reposed in him at his election and entrance
by the Tenure of his house or lands bound to avoid the waters there needed no Prescription to have been alleaged Also in 5 H. 7. fol. 3. there is a like Presentment made 5 H. 7. against an Abbot Quod ipse predecessores sui ought to repair a gutter ratione tenurae terrar ' suar ' but because in that case the Presentment did not set forth where those Lands lay which were charged the Presentment for that cause was holden to be void So that there is a great difference between a Tenure charge and a charge imposed upon Land by Prescription For in the case where a Tenant holdeth his Land to repair a Bridge Wall or Bank of the Lord of the Fee The Lord in this case may distrain the Tenant of Common right by the Common Laws of England But where ones Land is charged by Prescription and Custom there is no remedy to force and compel the Tenant to do the repairs but by Presentment and upon a Presentment process may be awarded against him to distrain him to make the repairs And if upon a Presentment made by the Laws of Sewers I. S. is charged to repair a Sewer and a Distringas ad reparandum be awarded against him the Sheriff may distrain the party in any place within the power of the Commission of Sewers But this being a judicial Distress which issueth out of the Rolls the Justices are tied to the limits and bounds of the Commission Yet in 19 H. 6. fol. 7. the 19 H. 6. Case was That the Admiral of England hath jurisdiction in causes arising onely on the Seas and he hath no jurisdiction or power to meddle with any thing done upon the Land Yet upon a Presentment made in the Admiral Court one was Presented and Amerced and a Distress for this Amerciament was taken on the Land and exception was thereto taken that the Distress was taken out of the jurisdiction of that Court But there Newton chief Justice and the rest of the Iustices said That the power of the Admiral to hold plea was restrained by Statute to matters arising on the Seas but Executions were not so And I have further observed by the Book of 8. R. 2. Fitzher 8. R. 2. Avoury 253. that where no place is certainly prescribed to distrain in that in such a case the Distress may be taken in any place within the power and jurisdiction of the Court out of which the Writ or Warrant of Distress doth issue As if one be amerced in a Court Leet or in a Court Baron he may be distrained for these Amerciaments in any place within the jurisdiction of these Courts and for an Amerciament set and imposed in the Sheriffs Turn a Distress may be taken for it in any place of the county for so far the power of that Court doth extend it self But in the case of a sess rate or tax imposed by the Commissioners of Sewers a Distress for any of those may be taken in any place within the Realm of England for in this case the Distress is meerly grounded upon the Statute and is bounded by the same limits which is as large as the Realm of England And hereupon by this construction made in this legal maner all the words in the said clause of this Statute have their full operation And although in Rooks case the Distress was there taken on the ground charged yet that doth not prove but that a Distress might have been taken in any other place for I verily take it that the place where the distress was taken in that case was not intended any material point though in my succeeding argument for another purpose I shall make it one So that my opinion touching distresses to be taken in cases of Sewers appears to stand upon these three distinctions First that the Lord of whom the grounds be holden to make the repairs must distrain on the the grounds so holden and not elswhere Secondly that upon a Distringas ad reparandum or Amovendum upon a Presentment which issueth out of the Rolls of that Court and is a judicial process a Distress must thereupon be taken within the bounds of the Commission of Sewers Ex congruitate Thirdly a Distress for a rate or sesse or tax assessed and imposed by the Commissioners of Sewers may be taken in any part or place within the Realm of England for this is a Distress grounded upon the Statute and is as large as the extent thereof And so the difference appears where the Distress is guided by the Commission and where by the Statute Whose goods may be distrained IT comes now in turn to be handled whose goods may be distrained and taken within these Laws For the words of Distress be put so generally in this Statute that they must receive their exposition by the Rules of the Common Law in regard these Laws do give no special direction therein and therefore the Distress mentioned in Rooks case may in this place be questioned For there Carter was assessed but the goods of Rooks were distrained and taken for the said Assess and no challenge or exception was there made of it and no marvel for it was specially found that the goods were taken and distrained on the grounds charged for otherwise that Distress had been tortious wherein I take this diversity That where grounds are chargeable to repairs of defences and a Sess is thereon imposed by the Commissioners of Sewers the goods of a Stranger may be taken therefore on the grounds Sessed and this is warranted by Rooks Case But Rooks being a Stranger his goods could not in any sort have been taken for the Sess imposed upon Carter but on the grounds charged and the like Law for Rents and Services issuing out of Lands the goods of a Stranger Levant and Couchant on the grounds so holden may be distrained for Rents and Services by 7 H. 7. 2. and 11 H. 7. 4. 7 H. 7. 11 H. 7. But put the case a little further that in the Sessions Court of the Sewers A. B. is amerced for Non-payment of his Sesse towards the repairs of a work of Sewers and in this case I am of opinion that the proper goods of A. B. are to be distrained for this Amerciament and not the goods of a stranger going on his grounds charged to the said assess because this Amerciament is a collateral charge which falls on the person of the offendor who was to pay the Assels and doth not in any sort charge the grounds and this opinion hath warrant from the Case in 41 Ed. 3. fol. 26. Br. Leet 4. for there A. B. was amerced in a 41 Ed. 3. Court of Leet for receiving and keeping one in his house which was not sworn to the King in which Case it was holden that no goods could be distrained for this Amerciament but only the proper goods of the party amerced although the goods of others were Levant and Couchant on his ground And
decree of the sale must be directed by and depend upon the sesse But if after the general sesse be laid the same be after assessed upon particular persons by particular sums by the said Commissioners then upon default of payment their Lands making default may be decreed from them by the power of this Statute If an assesse or charge of payment be laid upon certain Lands without mentioning the Owner the Lands cannot be decreed from him by this Law for the words of the Statute be That if any person or persons assessed to any Lot or Charge do not pay So that I shall take it that no decree for sale of Land can be made but where there is a person certainly assessed by name Lands cannot be decreed away from the owners for default of payment of Fines Amerciaments or Pains for though these be sums of money or charges imposed by the Commissioners of Sewers of persons certain for matters touching these Laws yet because they were not sessed or rated towards the repairs of any works of Sewers but be set upon the parties as mulcts and punishments and be due to the King therefore no decree of Lands can be made for any of them Now the second part of this clause is what Lands may be decreed by the authority of the said Statute and thereby it appears they must be such Lands as lie and be within the power of this Commission of Sewers and herein rests a difference between the case of a Distresse for a sesse which may be taken in any place within this Realm and the decree of sale of Lands for Non-payment of a sesse which must lie within the bounds and extent of the Commission for this Distresse is circumscribed to the extent of the Statute which is over the whole Realm and the sale is tyed to the limits of the Commission And I am also of opinion that no Land can be sold away by the decree of the Commissioners of Sewers but such as were charged with the sesse If one hold his Lands in Comitat ' Eborum to repair a Sea-bank in the County of Lincoln and the Owner is assessed therefore and makes default of payment the Commissioners of Sewers in the county of Lincoln may give warrant to distrain for this sesse in the county of York but they cannot decree away by sale those Lands lying there which were charged with the sesse A Copyholders Land cannot be decreed against him by this Law for if it might then these customary Lands should be transferred from one to another contrary to the Customs of the Manors whereof they be parcel and it would infringe that rule which is delivered in Heidons Case Heidons Case in Cooks 3 Report which is when an Act of Parliament doth alter the service Tenure and interest of the Land or other thing in prejudice of the Lord or of the Custom of the Manor or of the Tenant there the general words of such a Statute doth not extend to Copyholds And in this case if any sale should be made by the Commissioners all the said rules should be infringed for it were contrary to the Custom to passe these Lands without surrender it were in prejudice of the Lord to have Copyhold-land passed and he to have no Fine And I am likewise of opinion that the Freehold of these Lands could not be passed away for a sesse or a lay because the Lord hath but the shadow and the Copyholder hath the substance But if the Lords Rents of Assize should be assessed as they ought to be and he do neglect to pay then these Rents might be decreed from him and so may all other Lands Tenements and Hereditaments decreed in respect whereof one is sessable and sessed by the Laws The third Branch of this clause is the direct point in my case viz. What persons what estates be bound by these decrees And first of the Heirs in Tail whether they be bound by a decree made against the Donees in Tail their Ancestors is the question In the handling whereof I hold it sitting to shew in what cases the Heirs in Tail have been bound by the act of their Ancestors and the reasons and causes thereof And therefore if a Disseisor make a Gift in Tail and the Donee in Tail grant a Rent to the Dissessee for release of his right this will binde the Heir in Tail for that by this release his Estate which before was defeisable is now confirmed as by the Books of 44 Ed. 3. 22. and 20 Ed. 4. 13. 44 Ed. 3. 20 Ed. 4. 46 Ed. 3. appeareth and so in 46 Ed. 3. a gift in Tail was made Ita quod the Donee might alien to the benefit of the Heirs in Tail and and this by Judge Welbey was held a condition which bound the Heir in Tail for his benefit And in 12. Ed. 4. 1. Tregouse and Taltarms Case was That a recovery against Tenant 12 Ed. 4. in Tail with a Voucher by him over did binde the heirs in Tail by the Common Law by reason of the intended recompence which was to come to him by the Voucher and so a lineal warranty with assets and a collateral warranty without assets were and be both of them bars to the Issues by reason also of the intended recompences and these are things which were originally tied to those Estates and were incidents to them ab initio And therefore this shall suffice to treat of bars to the Issues in Tail by the Common Laws and now I shall proceed to shew in what cases they were barred of their Estates by the Statutes of this Realm By the Statute of 16 R. 2. cap. 5. The Lands and Tenements 16 R. 2. of one attaint in a Premunire are to be forfeited to the King and in 21 Eliz. one Trudgin was Tenant in Tail 11 El. and was attainted in a Premunire and the question was Whether Intailed Lands were forfeited against the Issues in Tail or not And in Doctor Forsters case in Cooks 11 Report C. 11 Rep. it is there said to be resolved that the general words of that Statute did not repeal the Statute of Westminster 2. of Intails and so the forfeiture was there resolved to continue but for the life of Trudgin and did not binde the Issues in Tail A Judgement in Debt against Tenant in Tail or if he be bound in a Statute or in a Recognizance in the nature of a Statute the Lands Intailed were not extendable nor to be held in extent by the Statutes of Westminster 2. Acton Burnel or by the Statute de Mercatoribus by any of the general words of these Laws but the Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 39. by expresse words bindeth the heir in Tail for their Lands 23 H. 8. whose Ancestors stood indebted to the King by Judgement Recognizance Obligation or other specialty But the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. Enacts That every 26 H. 8. one which shall be
matters doth contain in it these words viz. That if any person or persons of what Estate or Degree soever he or they be of that from henceforth do take upon him or them to sit by vertue of the said Commissions not being first sworn according to the Tenor of the Oath expressed in the Statute or if any person so named and sworn do sit not having Lands Tenements or other Hereditaments in Fee-simple Fee tail or for term of life to the clear yearly value of Forty Marks above all charges to his own use Except he be Resciant and Free of any City Borough or Town Corporate have moveable substance of the clear value of One hundred pounds or else be learned in the Laws of this Realm in and concerning the same That is to say admitted in one of the principal Inns of Court for an utter Barrister shall forfeit Forty pounds for every time that he shall attempt so to do the one moyety to the King the other moyety to the party that will sue therefore c. So that by this clause it is manifest that every one that is not qualified in one of these degrees is no competent Commissioner within this Statute First that he be an utter Barrister in one of the four Inns of Court Secondly or have Lands Tenements or Hereditaments of the clear yearly value of Forty Marks above all charges in Fee simple Fee tail or for life Thirdly or be Free or Resciant in some City Borough or Town Corporate and have moveable substance of the clear value of One hundred pounds And that person which is not within one of the said three parts and yet doth take upon him to sit in the execution of this Commission incurs two penalties The one the forfeiture of his discretion for his presumption The other of Forty pounds for his contempt And therefore for the more clear examination of these things I will observe that method in my Argument which my Case hath formerly prescribed to me And first of all I shall proceed to the personal abilities and first of the son of the free Citizen of Lincoln I am of opinion that every Commissioner of this kinde must be indowed with these three qualities First he must be free of a City c. If he want any of these then he is out of this Branch of this Statute Secondly he must be there Resciant and Thirdly he must have in clear moveable Substance One hundred pounds and Therefore what person is such a Freeman is now to be handled I am of opinion that every Subject born within the Kings Dominion is a Freeman of this Realm as appeareth by the Grand Charter cap. 14. yea though he be a Bondslave to a Subject but a stranger born is no Freeman of the Kingdom till the King have made him Denizen in whose power alone without the help of any other one may be made free And to be a Freeman of the Realm the place of his birth is held more material then the quality of his Parents for if Aliens have a childe in England it is free of the Kingdom yet by the Opinion of Hussey Chief Justice in 1 R. 3. fol. 4. and in Calvins case of the Post Nati it is holden for Law That if Ambassadors of this Realm have children born in France or elswhere where the Father and Mother be natural born Subjects the children are free of the Realm of England but if either the Father or the Mother of such children were an Alien then are not those children free One out of the Kings protection is as I take it for that time no Freeman of the Realm But in what case a man Exiled is in sorteth the nearest to our question Exile is one of the Eight Punishments which the Roman Laws did inflict upon Strangers which be videlicet 1. Damnum 2. Imprisonamentum 3. Plagae 4. Compensatio 5. Ignominia 6. Exilium 7. Servitudo 8. Mors. Mr. Bracton doth in this maner describe Exile that is Certi loci interdictio and doth distribute it into Four heads That is to say 1. Specialis hoc est interdictio talis provinciae Civitatis Burgi aut villae 2. Generalie Interdictio totius Regni aliquando est 3. Temporaria pro duobus tribus quatuor aut pluribus annis aut c. 4. Perpetua pro termino vitae Exilium est aliquando ex arbitrio principis sicut in exiliando Duces Hertferdiae Norfolciae per Regem Richardum secundum Et aliquando per Judicium terra ut sit in casu Piers de Gaveston etiam in casu Hugonis de le Spencer junioris qui ambo fuorunt exilit ' per Judicium in Parliamento Abjuration also was a legal Exile by the Judgement of the Common Law as also by the Statute Law and in the Statute of Westminster the Second Cap. 35. He which ravisheth a Ward and cannot render the Ward unmarried or the value of his Mariage must abjure the Realm and this is a general Abjuration And by a Statute made in 31 Ed. 1. 31 Ed. 1. Butchers are to be abjured the Town if they offend the fourth time in selling measled flesh and this is a special Abjuration But I must put this Case to a further question which is What a man Exiled doth forfeit thereby And in my opinion he forfeits these things following First he loseth thereby the freedom and liberty of the Nation out of which he is Exiled Secondly he forfeits his Freedom in the Borough or City where he was free for he which forfeits the Freedom of the whole Realm by consequence forfeits his Freedom in every part thereof Thirdly he is of as little esteem in our Law as if he were dead for his Heir may enter and so may his Wife enter into her own Lands and may sue an Action as a woman sole by 31 Ed. 1. 1 H. 4. 31 Ed. 1. 1 H. 4. 1. And fourthly in my opinion he shall forfeit those Lands to the King which he shall purchase in the Realm during his Banishment qued vide 15 Ed. 3. Fitz. Petition ' plac 2. But there in that case Hugh Spencer was banished by a Judgement in Parliament which gave a forfeiture of his Lands howsoever I take him as strongly barred from purchasing in the Realm during his Banishment as an Alien is for fit alienigina by his Banishment and he is in a worse case then an Alien because he taketh with him Indignatio principis But a banished man forfeits neither Title of Honor as Knighthood which is de jure gentium nor the Lands he had before he was Exiled unless by special Judgement given in a legal course they be so decreed Then our case goes further That E. is not Exiled himself but D. his Father was Exiled whose Heir E. is now whether by the Exilement of the Father the liberty and freedom which E. might claim in the City of Lincoln by being the Son and Heir
been always before covered with waters But shores and such grounds which Alternis vicibus were wet and dry were not accounted relinquished grounds and that relinquished grounds belonged to the King but the shore and casual drowned grounds might belong to a subject The Personal Profits of the Sea did consist in Wreck Flotsan Jetfan Ligan and great fishes which are due to the King by the Royal Prerogative of his Crown But subjects might have the Inheritance of the first four by Prescription and of the last by Charter from the King Then I descended into Islands Which are of two sorts First on the sea old ones and new ones That both were within the Kings power and the new ones His in property Fresh Islands in the Land might belong to subjects The nature of them all were that they were undique circumdatae aquis I then landed at the shore which in definition containeth those grounds which extend from the lowest Ebb to the highest Flood That the King had the property thereof de Jure a subject might have it ex perquisito and the people had their usum necessarium I proceeded further to the Coasts whose content and contingent I described so near as by Histories I could inform my self And shores and coasts I held them to be Maris accessoria From these I proceeded to Creeks Havens and Ports and these I set forth in their several kindes And I concluded with the compass of my Statute and my Commission and with the diversity thereof That within the circle of my Statute Seas Isses Shores Coasts Ports Havens Creeks gained and relinquished grounds were comprehended because that might depend in posse but yet the Commissioners which was in presenti operative did extend but to the utmost Banks and Walls towards the seas And I concluded the points of my Case with the difference between grounds left and grounds gained from the seas and thus I ended my first Lecture The second Lecture IN my second Lecture I came on Land and took upon me to set forth her friends from her foes her friends I counted such as had defended her from the violence of the seas and from inundation of salt waters And these were her friends viz. Banks Sewers Goats Calceys and Bridges these are to be maintained and repaired and are the Defences which I fully treated of And these were the enemies Streams Mills Ponds Fishgarths Mildams Locks Hebbingweres Hecks and Floodgates These are Lets and Impediments which this Statute speaketh of and are to be corrected reformed or put down as cause shall require I shewed then that Rivers were of two kindes Royal and Common Rivers That there were other inferior kindes of those watery instruments which might take place after Rivers as Ditches Gutters Sewers Pools Ponds Springs That water is the substantive of all these and if it be a running water at random then it is a stream if it be a running water and pent within Walls or Banks then it is a River Gutter Ditch or Sewer These in their several kindes I did distinguish And Springs I held to be the vital spirit of them all I then described the Commissioners maner of proceedings which might be three maner of ways By view and survey and wherein they consisted By Jury and on what parts that stood By discretion and the diversities and definition thereof After these I took upon me by how many several ways the defences might be maintained which were nine in in number 1. Frontage 2. Ownership 3. Prescription 4. Custom 5. Tenure 6. Covenant 7. Usus Rei 8. A Township and 9. By the Laws of Sewers All these I proved by Reasons Presidents and Authorities and did at large discourse of them Then I came by the course of this Case to treat of Sesses Taxes and Lays set by Commissioners of Sewers whereby I found some Inheritances there were which were subject to these sesses as those that follow Houses Land Meadow Pasture Woods Heaths Furs Moors Marishes Rents Ferries Pischaries Commons Free passage Parks Warrens And many Inheritances I found in reason freed from these Taxes and Lays as Tythes in Spiritual hands Annuities Chases Pensions Proxies Portions Marts Fairs Markets Offices things in Action Conditions Contingents Uses Presentations Founderships I also found these Sesses of three kindes viz. Customary and then they may binde the Mountains as well as the Valleys Hereditary and then the particular Tenant and the Reversion must both contribute Temporary which bound the Possessor And here I ended my second days Lecture The third Lecture MY third Lecture I did distribute into three general heads which were meerly the grounds of the execution of these Laws Which consisted either in punishing the body and person of the Delinquent with 1. Imprisonment 2. Fine and 3. Amerciament Or in doing Execution upon the Offendors Estate 1. By Distress or 2. By sale thereof Or otherwise in extending it upon a mans personal Estate by 1. Charging of the Land perpetually or 2. By the absolute sale thereof And under these general Rules I comprised these particulars which follow First for the Honor of this Commission and for the more necessary execution of these Laws I found them out a Court wherein I set forth in what cases Commissioners might Imprison the Bodies of Delinquents and in what cases they might impose a fine and when Amerciaments be due and then I shewed that for some transgressions neither Imprisonment Fine nor Amerciament was to be imposed I then came to Distresses and held a treble distinction of them videlicet that some were 1. Judicial and issued out of the Judicial Records of this Court 2. Other Ministerial 3. The third Legal wherein all these Diversities I screwed out by proved Authorities Then I shewed in what places these Distresses might be taken when upon the Land charged when within any place within the extent of this Commission and sometimes within any place of this Realm And when the proper goods of the party might be taken and when the goods of strangers and when goods may be sold by this Law Afterwards according to the order prescribed me by my Case I declared that there were some Interrupters to the Execution of these Distresses The one was by suing Replevins wherein I took these diversities That a Sheriff being an inferior Officer could not of his own power deliver a distress taken by warrant of Sewers But that the Commissioners of Sewers are bound to obey a Replevin coming out of the Kings Courts at Westminster Quia de altiori natura Thus yet notwithstanding goods taken by a Judgement were exempted from that Replevin Then I proceeded to the charge of Lands whether a perpetual charge might be imposed or not And from thence I came to Sales and those I distributed into four points First for what cause 2. What Lands 3. Whose Lands 4. To whom these Lands might be sold I after came into the Tractate of Legal proceedings which may be used in our Court of