the said Francis was seised in Fee and before the time of the Trespasse supposed viz. 8 Jac in consideration of a Marriage to be between the said Francis his Son and the Plaintiff for her Ioynture made a Feoffment therof to the use of the said Francis and Rachel the Plaintiff and to the Heirs of the said Francis upon the body of the Plaintiff begotten the remainder to the Heirs of Francis in Fee and shewed the marriage and that by force of the Statute of 27 H 8. they were seised ut supra is limited Absque hoc that the aforesaid Francis Tayler the Father of the aforesaid Francis the Son died seised of the Tenements aforesaid with the Appurtenances de nova assignat in his Demesn as of Fee Modo forma prout praedictus defendens superius allegavit hoc paratus est verificare c. unde c. wherupon the Defendant demurred Vide 3 H 6 Brook Traverse 30 H 6 7. Brook Traverse 359. In Trespasse the Defendant plead his Freehold the Plaintiff plead the dying seised of his Father and that he is Heir and entred and that the Defendant disseised him the Defendant traversed the Disseisin and not the dying seised of his Father and good vide the said Book of 30 H 6. 7. by Prisot if I in Assise plead that my Father died seised in Fee that I entred as Son and Heir to him and was seised untill by R. disseised who enfeoffed the Plaintiff upon whom I entred here the Disseisin is not traversable but the dying seised vide 33 H 6. 59. Wangford put this case In Assise if the Defendant plead that his Father was seised and died seised and give colour to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff ought to traverse the dying seised and not the possession of the Father which is the cause of the dying seised Vide 30 H. 6. fol 4. Entry in nature of an Assise the Defendant plead that W. was seised in Fee and enfeoffed him and give colour the Plaintiff replies that W. was seised in jure Uxoris and that he had Issue and his Wife died and he was Tenant by the Curtesie and made a Feoffment sans ceo that W. was seised modo forma and Issue taken and there it is said that the Issue is well taken This case was adjudged for the Plaintiff because that no dying seised is pleaded so that it might be traversed but with a Sic scisitus obijt Also the matter only traversable here is the seisin in Fee modo forma for by the Replication Seisin joyntly with the Plaintiff and to the Heirs of the body of the said Francis with a Fee-simple in him is confessed and that is good with the Traverse Memorand That this Case was moved by Serjeant Hitcham Trin. 10 Car. And Serjeant Hedley moved for the Defendant and vouched 5 H 7. 7. and the Record was read and all the Court agreed that it was a good Traverse And that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff Pasch 10 Car. Dawe versus Palmer Case JOhn Dawe Plaintiff against William Palmer in an action upon the Case and count that wheras he was a Fuller and had used the Trade of Falling and therby acquired his livelyhood and was of good Credit Words c. The Defendant said of him Trust him not for he owes me a hundred pound and is not worth one Groat And at another day he said He is a Bankrupt Rogue And upon Not guilty pleaded the Iurors found for the Plaintiff and gave entire Damages And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the first words were not actionable and then the Iury having given entire Damages the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment for any part vide Osbornes case Coke lib 10. But in this case after many debates it was resolved by the Court that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment For the first words are actionable at Common Law before the Statute Trust him not he is not worth one Groat Go not to buy of I.S. a Merchant for he will deceive you Of an Inne-keeper Go not to such an Inne for he is so poor that you can have no good entertainment Of an Atturney Use him not for â—e will cousen you All these words are actionable He will be a Bankrupt within seven daies And for the other words That he is a Bankrupt Rogue that is resolved Coke lib. 4. to be actionable And it was a Case Pasch 10 Car. in a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber upon Iudgment given in the Kings Bench between Dunkin and Laycroft Dunkin and Laycroft for words spoken of a Merchant who had been at Hamborow in partibus transmarinis and there hâ—d used the Trade of a Merchant and Factor Thou innuendo the Plaintiff camest over from Hamborow a broken Merchant And adjudged actionable and so affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber And upon all these Authorities the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Mich. 10 Car. Deanes Case DEane being robbed in an Hundred in Kent brought an action upon the Statute of Hue and Cry and a speciall Verdict being found tâ—â— Dourt intended was If one be assaulted to be robbed in one Hundred Hue and Cry and he escape and flye into another Hundred and the Theeves instantly pursue him rob him there if the Hund. in which he was robbed should be solely charged And the opinion of the Court was that it should but upon reading the Record this appeared not to be the Case And the Court was informed that the Sheriffs had taken the Goods of one in execution who was not inhabiting within the Hundred at the time of the Robbery committed but came afterwards And the Court was of opinion that he was not chargable Mich. 10 Car. Knight versus Copping RObert Knight brought an action upon the case against Valentine Copping one of the Attorneys of this Court count Case That wheras one Edw. Loft had brought an action of debt for 30 l. against him And therupon such processe was that a non pros was entred costs of 30 s. assessed for the now Plaintiff An action of the case for â— entring Judgment after non pros the now Defendant being Attorney for the said Ed. Loft having notice therof unduly and maliciously procured a judgment to be entred for the said Ed. Loft against the now Plaintiff sued execution against him wherby he was taken and imprisoned untill he was delivered by a writ of Supersedeas The Defendant Protestando that there was no such Iudgment for the said Edward Loft against the said now Plaintiff nor that he was taken in Execution therupon for plea saith that there is not any Record of the said Non pros The Plaintiff replies that at the time of the said Iudgment entred for the said Edward Loft And when the now Plaintiff was taken in Execution and imprisoned therupon the said Iudgment of Non pros against the said Edw. L. and
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
this Arraingnment the Iudges assistant sate with their heads covered as the ancient use hath been But the Serjeant at Armes was commanded to make Proclamation That the Iudges and all the Lords not being his Peers and all of the Privy Councell should be covered and others not And this was only in relation to the precedent usage and the right which appertain to the Iudges For in Parliament they being called by Writ use to be covered as oft as the Lord Chancellor or Keeper of the Great Seal which is Speaker puts on his Hat But now it is used that they put not on their Caps untill they have been requested by the Lord Speaker And when they are called into the Star Chamber or to Errors in the Exchequer Chamber they set covered with their Caps Pasch 7 Car. Risam versus Goodwin Mich. 5 Car. Rot. 2512. IN a Writ of Scire facias brought by William Risam against John Goodwin and Richard Peat Administrators of Thomas Cammon the Case was such The Court of Common Bench award not execution upon a Judgment given in grand Sessions in Wales The now Plaintiff William Risam recovered against Thomas Cammon a hundred pounds Debt and ten shillings Costs at the Grand Sessions holden at Carmâ—rthen and execution awarded and Nulla bona returned And upon Surmise that the said Thomas Cammon was dead and that the now Defendants had taken Letters of Administration a Scire facias issued against them and Nichil returned and after a Writ of Execution and that afterwards being returned by the Sheriff of the County Nulla bona testatoris a Writ issued to the Sheriff of the County of the Town of Carmarthen who returned Devastavit And because that the now Defendants had not Goods within the said County or within the County of the Town of Carmarthen or Jurisdiction of the Grand Sessions the Plaintiff procured a Certiori to the Justices of the Grand Sessions who certified the Record to the Chancery and by Mittimus it came to the Common Bench with directions Quia executio judicii praedicti adhuc restat faciend Mandant quod at the prosecution of the Plaintiff Vos fieri faciat de more secundum legem consuetudinem regni nostri Angliae fuit faciend Wherupon a Writ of Scire facias was awarded to the Sheriff of Hereford against the said Defendants to which they appeared And after many Imparlances they demurred upon the insufficiency of the Writ of Scire facias And this case was argued by Berkley for the Plaintiff and by Henden for the Defendant And the Cases put by Berkley were F N. B 243. a. b. 39 E. 6. 3 4 Ass in ancient Demesne and for the Damages surmised that he had nothing within ancient Demesne 21 E 3. 49. 21 H 7. 33. 8 Ass 27. 30 H 6 7. 3 H 4. 15. 1 Justitutes 59. in Frankalmoigne That Wales is parcel of England 1 E 3. Jurisdiction 45. 22 H 6. 58. 47. E 3. 6. 3. E 3. Quare Impedit 38. 35 H 5. 30. 19 H 6. 12. 52. vide the Statute of 34 H 8. for Wales and Writs of Error Henden argued to the contrary and his first reason was 1. That this Court of the great Sessions is an inferiour Court 2. The Record it self comes not but a Transcript 3. The Statute of 34 H 8. hath appointed the Execution and that should be pursued 4. This Innovation is perillous and never put in practice And he relyed upon the diversity When Iudgment in a peculiar inferiour Court comes into the Kings Bench or into this Court by Writ of Error and is affirmed then the Superiour supplies it and add strength to the Iudgment But when Iudgment is given in a Court of a Corporation and that is removed by Certiorari and sent by Mittimus that shall not be executed there vide 45 E 3. 25. Formedon in London vide 14 E 3. Tryals 23. 15 E 3. Record 35. New Book of Entries the last case in Writ of Error vide 8 E 3. 10. 26 H 6 8. 3 H 6. 16. 7 H 4. 8. 14 H 4. 25. H 5. 11. And he relyed upon 21 H 7. 35. and the case of 39 H 6. 3 4. and the case of ancient Demesne 7 H 9. 18. 37 H 6. 16. Dyer 369. And upon this Case the Iudges consulted and agreed that the Writ was insufficient And so Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff But it was said that upon this Iudgment so sent to this Court the Plaintiff might bring an action of Debt and so have execution But to make this Court an Instrument to serve an inferiour Court and to extend their Iurisdiction by this way as it were by a Windlace it is not lawfull Hil. 7 Car. Napper versus Sanders Pasch 6 Car. Rot. 1148. IN an Ejectione firmae brought by Robert Napper against Henry Sanders upon a Lease by Deed indented made by John Napper and Elizabeth his Wife and Francis Sanders upon Not guilty pleaged Remainder where it shall be said Contingent the Iury gave a speciall Verdict wherupon the Case was such Margaret Sanders seised in Fee makes a Feoffment to the use of her self for life without impeachment of Wast and after to the use of the Feeoffees for eighty years if one Nicholas Sanders and Elizabeth his Wife should live so long and if the said Elizabeth survive Nicholas her Husband then to the use of the said Elizabeth for life without impeachment of Wast and after the decease of the said Elizabeth to the use of Postumus Sanders Son of the said Nicholas and Elizabeth in tail And for default of such Issue to the use of Elizabeth Wife of the said Iohn Napper and Dorothy Sanders and the said Francis Sanders one of the Lessors and to the Heirs of their bodies remainder to the right Heirs of Margaret the Feoffor And there was a clause in the said Indenture that the intent of the Estate for years to the Feoffees was that the said Elizabeth Sanders might have the profits and not Nicholas her Husband who was a Prodigall Margaret Sanders dies and Dorothy dies without Issue the Feoffee enter Elizabeth Sanders dies Nicholas is yet alive and Posthumus dies without Issue Iohn Napper and his Wife and the said Francis entred and were possessed untill the Defendant as Son and Heir of the said Margaret entred and ousted them Et si super totam Materiam c. And the sole question was whether the remainder in tail to Posthumus and the remainder in tail to Elizabeth and Francis were contingent or executed And it was resolved by all the Court that the remainders were not contingent in the Estate for life which was to come to Elizabeth Sanders the Wife of the said Nicholas but were vested presently And it was agreed that the Estate for life if she survive her Husband was contingent and when that had hapned being by way of Limitation of an use it shall be interposed when the Contingent
he had nothing else to say but submit himself to the mercy of the King And there execution was awarded and a Roll made therof and so it was done in Lepu's case as the President was shewn and he was committed to the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex and by them he was brought to the Gatehouse and the next day which day the Lord Mayor of London came to Westminster to take his Oath he was beheaded in the great Court at Westminster and he died in a good and religious manner and spake much without any fear of death submitted himself to the Block and by his death gained great reputation in this life and by the grace and mercy of God remission of his sins and eternall life afterwards c. Bishop and others FAther Tenant in tail hath Issue two Sons the Father with the eldest Son makes a Feoffment with Warranty the eldest Son dies Lineall Warranty and after the Father dies the younger Son brought his Formedon and this Feoffment with warranty of the eldest Son is pleaded in Bar and upon Demurrer Iudgment for the Demandant For it is but a lineall Warranty and then without Assets it is no Bar for though the eldest Son dye in the life of the Father yet the younger Son by possibility might have the Land as Heir to him Mich. 16 Jacobi AN action of Debt was brought upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for perjury against one that was produc't as a Witnesse in an action of Trespasse and deposed falsely And upon Nil debet pleaded the Plaintiff was non-suit Costs shal not be allowed upon a non-suit in an action brought upon the Statute 5 Eliz. of Perjury And whether the Defendant should have costs or no was moved by Serjeant Harvy and that stands upon the words of the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 16. the words are In any Action Suit Bill upon the Case or upon any Statute for any Offence or wrong personall immediatly supposed to be done to the Plaintiff The opinion of the Court was that the Defendant should not have costs upon this non-suit because that this action is founded upon a Statute made long after the making of that Statute Also this is not an immediate wrong to the Plaintiff but to the Secondary for it is an immediate wrong to the truth and such Statutes which are intended by this Act shall be like to Trespasse done to the party himself as Ravishment of Ward Also it is not aided by the Statute of 4 Jacobi cap 3. for that gives costs to the Defendant where the Plaintiff shall have costs if he recover And Mr. Brownlow the Prothonatory said that it had been ruled so before for the Plaintiff should not have costs if he recover because the Act 5 Eliz. gives a Penalty viz. a forfeiture of twenty pounds against the Witnesse and forty pounds against the Suborner and so the Plaintiff if he had recovered should not have had any costs and therfore it is not aided by the Statute of 4 Jacobi Mich. 16 Jacobi Conesbies Case THe Lady Conesby being the Wife of Sir Ralph Conesby was cited into the Ecclesiasticall Court by Mr. Watts Prohibition who had married Elizabeth the Grand-child of the Father of Sir Ralph to which Grand-child by Will one Legacy of a hundred pounds was devised and that was pass 3 Jac. by the Lady Conesby Executor of the first Testator and upon payment an Acquittance under the hand and Seal of the said Watts was c. in the presence of two Witnesses now dead And this being denied and they allowing of no proof by comparison of hands nor by circumstances but only proof of them which wrote it or of them which saw them subscribe And by their Law an Acquittance of the Husband for a Legacy to the Wife without the Wife is not sufficient also if Watts himself will deny it upon his Oath there it shall stand against all proofs A Prohibition was granted upon the motion of Serjeant John Moore and after Serjeant Harvy had said all that he could say Trin. 16 Jac. Rot. 954. Kind versus Ammery KInd Plaintiff in a Replevin against Ammery Replevin The Avowry was for a Rent-charge and the Grant was of a rent of twelve pounds payable at two Feasts Demand not necessary in an Avowry for a Rent-charge and if it vs behind for the space of a month after any of the said Feasts it being lawfully demanded that he might distrain and for Rent arrear at the Annunciation and by the space of a month after and not paid he distrained And the Plaintiff demurred upon this Avowry and shewes for cause that it is not shewn that the Avowant made any demand before the Distresse And Serjeant Harris relied upon a Case which was An 31 Eliz. as he said and vouched the number Roll Bosdens case that upon demurrer between Bosden and Downes there the Avowry was not good for the same cause And Maunds case Coke lib. 7 fol. 28. implies that it ought to be demanded but it is not issuable if it be at the day or after And he said it was debated 31 Eliz. whether it was form or substance which shall not need to be shewn upon Demurrer But the Court agreed that no actuall demand was necessary to procede the Distresse in this case but that the Distresse is a demand But if the Grant has been penned in this form if it be arrear at such a Feast and for a month after demand that then he may distrain otherwise it is for there the Distresse is limited to the month after the demand And so it was adjudged in this Court between Coppleston and Langford Trin. 3. Car. Rot. 2865. Copplestone Langford Replevin between Beriman and Bower Avowry for Rent granted out of ten acres of Land in Crediton payable at such a Feast upon the Town stone upon the Key in Barnstable if it be lawfully demanded with clause of Distresse and the Distresse was before demand and upon demurrer it was resolved a good Distresse without demand vide Dyer 348. Booton against the Bishop of Rochester A Quare impedit was brought by Booton against the Bishop of Rochester who pleads that he claims nothing but as Ordinary and yet pleads further that the Clerk which the Plaintiff present had before contracted with the Plaintiff Simoniacally Insufficient return on a Writ in Quare Impedit to the Arch bishop and therfore because he was Simoniacus he refused him and that the Church was then void and so remained void wherupon the Plaintiff had a Writ to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury who returned that before the coming of this Writ viz. 4 July the Church was full of one Mr. Doctor Grant ex collatione of the said Bishop of Rochester which had collated by Laps and this return was adjudged insufficient First it is clear that though the six months passe yet if the Patron present the Bishop ought to admit although it
are not Affirmative or Positive but a supposition only as if he had said Nowels case I will indite him for such a matter it was vouched to be adjudged 51 Eliz. in Nowels case that to say of an Attornaâ—â— That he was Cooped for forging Writs maintain an action And 14 Eliz. He is infected of the Robbery and he smelleth of the Robbary adjudged actionable In balls case There is never a Purse cut in Northamptonshire but Ball hath a part of it will not bear action But the Court would not declare their opinion Quia sub spe Concordiae Griggs Case GRigg which is the Examiner at Chester preferred there this Bill in the Chancery vocat the Exchequer Prohibition â—i Chester against one which inhabite within the same County and another which inhabite in London being executors to one to whom the said Grigg was indebted by Obligation which Obligation was put in suit in the Court of Common Pleas and there proceed to processe before the Bill exhibited and the Bill concern equity of an Agreement that the Testator had promised that one Robert Grigg should assign a lease of Tithes to the Plaintiff in consideration of his entry into the said Obligation and if he could not procure it that then the Obligation should not be prejudiciall to him and he which was distributing in Chester answered therto And an Order was made by Sir Thomas Ireland Vice-Chamberlain that Processe should be awarded to him which dwelleth in London And an Inquisition was granted to stay the proceedings at Common Law And afterwards upon the motion of Serjeant Hitcharâ— Sir Thomas Ireland was in Court and shew all that he could to maintain the Iurisdiction viz. That the Contract was made in the County Palatine and that the priviledge pursued the Plaintiff and ipse qui est reus non potest eligere c. Yet it was resembled to ancient Demesn and Guildable And by Lord Hobart he which inhabit at Doveâ— by this way may be inforced to come and answer to a Bill in Chester which would be infinite trouble and the matter is transitory And it was resolved that the Court of Chester had not power in this case but it belonged to the Chancery of England And a Prohibition was granted Hil. 20 Jac. ONe case was in the Kings Bench viz. Trespasse Baron and Feme brought in action of Trespasse Quare clausum fregit Trespasse by Baron and Feme for breaking the Close of the Baron for the Battery of the Wife and for Battery of the Feme the Defendant pleaded a License to enter into the Close made by the Baron and not guilty as to the Battery And the Court was moved in Arrest of Iudgment because the Husband and Writ could not ioyn for the weaking of the Close of the Baron the Writ shall abate for all But the Lord chief Iustice and Iustice Dodderidge were of opinion that the Plaintiff should have Iudgment And it seems that the Law is clear accordingly vide 9 E 4. 51. Trespasse by the Husband and Wife for the Battery of them both the Iury found so much for the Battery of the Husband and so much for the Battery of the Wife and so Damages assessed severally because the Wife could not soon with the Husband in an action for the Battery of the Husband for that part the Writ shall abate and for the Battery of the Wife they shall recover for for that they ought or joyn in an action vide 46 E 3. 3. Baron and Feme brought Trespasse for the Battery and Imprisonment of the Wife and the Writ was ad damnum ipsorum and yet good vide 9 H 7. in the case of Rescous and 22 E 4. 4. there is a good diversity when the Writ is falsified by the shewing of the party himself and when it is found by Verdict And Iustice Haughton and Iustice Chamberlain were of opinion that the Writ should abate for it is apparent that as to the Trespasse Quare clausum fregit the Wife had no cause of action But this case being debated at Serjeants Inn in Chancery Lane at the Table the Lord chief Baron was of opinion that Plaintiff should have Iudgment for that part and he held the Writ good in part and Reddenda singula singulie Meâ—enest issint as it seems no more then in the case of 9 E 4. for there the Writ shall avate for part And if an action of forgery of Deeds be brought against two for forging and publishing and found that one forged and the other published the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment Howell versus Auger Trespasse IN an action of Trespasse brought by Noy Howell against Auger for breaking of a house and five acres of Land in Fresham upon Non Culp pleaded the Iury gave a speciall Verdict Devise of a Fee after a Fee Robert Howell seised of the Land in Question and of other Land by his Will in writing devised this Land to Dorothy his Wife for life and devised this Land to Thomas Howell his younger Son to him and his Heirs in Fee under the Condition which shall be afterwards declared And the other Land was also devised to Dorothy for life and to the Plaintiff and his Heirs in Fee under the Condition hereafter limited If Dorothy died before the Legacies paid then he will that they shall be paid by Noy and Thomas his Sons portion-like out of the Houses and Lands given them And if either of my Sons dye before they enter or before the Legacies paid or before either of them enter Then I will that the longer liver shall enjoy both parts to him and his Heirs And if both dye before they enter then his Executors or one of them to pay the Legacies and to take the profits till they be paid and a year after and made Dorothy his Wife and Christopher Roys his Executors and died Dorothy entred the Plaintiff Noy by his Deed In 33 Eliz. in the life of Dorothy released to Thomas all his right c. with Warranty Release of Lands devised before they be vested Thomas by his Will devised the Land for which the action is brought to Agnes his Wife and died in the life of Dorothy and before Legacies paid Dorothy died and Agnes entred and took to Husband Henry Ayleyard who leased to the Defendant upon whom Noy entred and the Defendant re-entred And Si super totam Materiam c. And this Case was well argued at Bar in two Terms and the first question was If this Devise of a Fes after a Limitation be good or not much was said for it and they relyed upon a case which was adjudged in the Kings Bench between Pell and Brown of such a limitable Fee Pell and Brown And many Cases put that this operate as a future Devise Executory as well as one may by his Will Devise that if his Son and Heir dye before he marry or before that he come to the age of
Yelverton and I were opinion that the Debt is gone for it is at the suit of the King and Iudgment is given for the King And there shall be an answer to the King And we relyed upon the cases vouched by the Lord Coke but Iustice Harvey and Crook to the contrary And upon conference with all the Iustices of Serjeants Inne it was resolved that this action was at the suit of the party for he might be Non-suited vide 25 H 8. Br. Non-suit that the Informer may be Non-suited vide 6 E. 2. Fitz Non-suit 13. when the Iury come again to deliver their Verdict the King cannot discharge them and be Non-suited and the King cannot discharge this action And his Attorney reply not as in an Information Clotworthy versus Clotworthy Amendments Debt SImon Clotworthy brought an action of Debt against John C. Cosin and Heir of Bartholmew C. And the Imparlance Roll is Quod cum praedictus B. cujus consanguineus heres idem Johannes est viz. filius Johannis Clotworthy fratris praedicti B. C. And upon the Plea Roll upon which Iudgment is given this space was perfected and Iudgment for the Plaintiff and now the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and it was moved to be amended And if the Imparlance Roll shall be amended which is the foundation of the subsequent Rolls is the question For it is commonly holden that the Plea Roll shall he amended by the Imparlance but not e converso Hil. 18 Jac. Rot. 67â— Walker versus Worsley Amendments WAlker brought an action of Debt against Worsley Debt as Son and Heir of Thomas W. in the Imparlance Roll which was entred Mich 18 Jac Rot 576. the words which bind the Heir were omitted viz. Ad quam quidem solutionem obligasset se Heredes suos but they were in the Plea Roll And after Iudgment that was assigned for Error in the Kings Bench and it was amended in the Common Bench by the Court vide there that it was by the fault and mis-prision of the Clerk who had the Obligation and so amendable by the Statute of 8 H 6. cap 15. 1. Hil. 9 Jac. Rot. 516. Govard versus Dennet GOvard against Dennet and Iudgment and the name of the Attorney viz. Henry was omitted in the Imparlance Roll and it was in the Plea Roll Henry and after Error brought it was amended Mich. 16 Jac. Rot. 581. Arrowsmith's Case THe Imparlance Roll Trin 16 Jac Rot 1727. Debt for three hundred pounds against Arrowsmith for part sur emisset and the other part sur in simul computasset And in the Imparlance Roll both parcells did not amount to three hundred pounds but wanted six pounds therof and after Error brought it was amended Pasch 12 Jac. Rot. 420. Godhow versus Bennet REplevin by Godhow against Bennet divers spaces in the Imparlance Roll were supplyed in the Plea Roll after Verdict Hil. 12 Jac. Rot. 420. Parker versus Parker THe Imparlance Roll was Mich 12 Jac Rot 547. Parker against Parker in Trover and Conversion the Imparlance Roll wanted the day and year of the possession and conversion but the Issue Roll was after the Verdict and motion in Arrest of Iudgment amended Mich. 2 Car. Crocker versus Kelsey JOhn Canterson and Agnes his Wife Tenants in speciall tail had Issue a Son Lease made by Feme in speciall tail viz. John and John the Father died John the Son levied a Fine with Proclamations to the use of himself in Fee Agnes leased to John Herring and Margaret his Wife Lessors to the Plaintiff for one and twenty years rendring Rent c. by vertue wherof they entred Agnes died John the Son entred and afterward the said John Herring and Margaret his Wife entred And the said John the Son made his Will in writing and by that devised the Land to Kelsey the Defendant and another in Fee and died John Herring and Margaret leased to Crocker the Plaintiff who entred and being ousted by Kelsey brought Ejectione firmae And this speciall Verdict being found Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and now affirmed upon Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber Mich. 2 Car. Franklin versus Bradell FRanklin a Woman servant brought an action upon the case upon a promise against John Bradell Consideration in an Assumpsit ex post facto And count that wheras she had served the Defendant and his Wife and done to them loyall service the Defendant after the death of his Wife in consideration of the service which the Plaintiff had done to the Defendant and his Wife promised to pay her thirteen shillings four pence upon request and alledged request and non-payment And after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment upon the Book of 13 Eliz. Dyer that this is no sufficient consideration because that it is not alledged that the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant had served him Also it was not sufficient because that it was done after the service performed And it was answered that it was a good consideration and that the service was to the benefit of the Defendant And therfore in consideration that the Plaintiff had married the Daughter of the Defendant he promise to pay twenty pounds it is a good consideration and so in consideration that you have been my surely to such a man for such a Debt I promise to save you harmlesse And in consideration that the Plaintiff was Baile for the Defendant he promised to give him a Horse this is good And in consideration that I.S. being a Carpenter had well built my house I promise to give him five pounds And Iudgment for the Plaintiff Hil. 2 Car. Hearne versus Allen. Entred 22 Jac Rot 1875. Oxford 1. RIchard Hearne brought an Ejectione firmae against John Allen Ejectione firmae for two acres of Land in Langham upon a Lease made by Anne Keene which was the Wife of Edward Keene and upon Not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was found Richard Keene was seised of an house in Chippin-norton Devise and of two acres of Land there in Fee and of two acres of Meadow in Langham in Fee used with the said Messuage which were holden in Socage And by his Will in writing dated the 20. May 30 Eliz. he devised the said house Cuni omnibus singulis ad inde pertinentibus vel aliquo modo spectantibus to Tho. K. and his Heirs for ever And for want of Heirs of him the said Thomas then to one Anne K. the Daughter of the Devisor and her Heirs for ever And for default c. then to Iohn K. his Cosin and his Heirs for ever And by the same Will devised his Goods and all his Lands to Eliz. his Wife during her Widow-hood and died Elizabeth his Wife entred Thomas the Son entred upon the Wife and disseised her and having enfeoffed one Edward K. in Fee died and Tho. K. also died without Issue Edward K. by his Will devised
commence and he is seised in Fee and may hold it charged with both the Rents 2 H 5. 7. 5 H 5. 34. Ass 15. And this Estate surrendred is in Esse as to the benefit of strangers but not as to the benefit of him who accepted it for hee is seised in Fee vide Lillingstons case And the Court was of opinion that the Rent was revived and that the Contract is now determined Nota that this grant to Humphrey the Son for years was but upon confidence to assign it over If Grantee of an Estate for life of a Rent take an Estate for life of part of the Land and surrender it yet the Rent is not revived for it was extinct in this case if he had granted his interest quere and if he had granted his interest over to I. S. and he had surrendred it that shall not revive the Rent because that he had by his granting over of his interest discharged of the Rent extinguish it quaere but in the principall case the Rent was suspended by the acceptance of the Lease and is revived by the surrender And it was agreed that where Lessee for years surrender to which the Lessor agree and accept it the possession and the interest is in him without entry Hil. 3 Car. Sandford versus Cooper SAndford brought a Scire facias against Cooper to have execution of a Iudgment for sixteen pounds Sci. fac which Iudgment was de Oct. Hil. An. 2 Car. And one being returned Ter-tenant pleaded that after the Iudgment viz. 22 Jan. he against whom the Iudgment was viz. John Bill acknowledged a Statute-staple and sheweâ— that by that the Land was extended and after upon liberate delivered in Execution and demand Iudgment wherupon the Plaintiff demurred And the sole question was to what day the Iudgment shall have relation for it appears in the pleading To what day a Judgment shall have relation that the twentieth day of January was the day of Essoin and it seemed to the Court that the Iudgment should have relation to the first day of this return as well as if it had been a return in the Tearm viz. 15 Hil. for otherwise it should be uncertain And he may be Non-suited upon this day vide 5 Eliz. Dyer fol. 200. That a recovery being in the first return the Warrant of Attorney made and dated the fourth day is taken to be a Warrant after Iudgment and vide 33 E 6. fol 45 46. the principall case there If a Nisi prius taken after the day of Essoin shall be good and it is adjudged not for the first day is the return And it was agreed that in Common Parlance the first day of the Tearm is the fourth day viz. If one be obliged to appear or to pay monies the first day of such a Tearm Loquendum est ut vulgus But the Law relate the Iudgment to the first day of every return vide Dyer 361. a Release pleaded after the Darrein Continuance which was dated the one and twentieth of January which was the day after the Essoin day and it was not good for it ought to be before the utas Hillarii Gillinghams case And my Brother Harvey and Crook vouched one Gillinghams case viz. A Release of all Iudgments before the fourth day and after the day of Essoin would not release this Iudgment which was de Octab. Hil. vide many cases vouched to this purpose 4 E 3.34 H 6. 20. a Writ of Error brought after the utas and before the fourth that is good and brought after Iudgment vide 22 H 6. 7. a. a Writ of Error ought to be brought after the Iudgment rendred or otherwise no Execution shall be stayed And all the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff in this Scire facias Hil. 3 Car. Holt versus Sambach Trin. 2 Car. Rot. 731. Replevin Tenant for life with a remainder to him in tail expectant and remainder in fee grant a rent in fee afterwards had fee by fine SIr Thomas Holt brought Replevin against Thomas Sambach in which upon Demurrer the Case was Sir William Catesby being Tenant for life of Land the remainder in tail to Robert his Son the remainder in Fee granted a Rent of ten pounds by the year out therof to William Sambach in Fee and Sir William and Robert his Son levied a Fine with Proclamations which was to the use of the said Sir William in Fee and afterwards the said Sir William enfeoffed Sir Thomas Holt and died Robert had Issue Robert and died And the Court was of opinion that this Grant in Fee is good for he had an Estate for life in possession and an Estate of remainder in tail and remainder in Fee in himself to charge and then the Fee-simple passe by the Grant And although that Robert the Son might have avoided it yet when he had barred the Estate-tail c. by Fine to the use of Sir William now Sir William Catesby had by this acceptance of this Estate to himself avoided the means by which he might have avoided the Rent And although that in Bredons case in the first Book when Tenant for life and he in the remainder in tail joyn in a Fine rendring Rent to Tenant for life that passeth from every one that which lawfully might passe and that the Rent continue after the death of him in the remainder in tail without Issue yet in this case the Estate is barred by the Fine and united to that Estate which William the Grantor had and now William is seised in Fee and this Rent made unavoidable The Case was well argued by Henden and Davenport but it appeared that the Conusance was for twenty shillings part of the rent of fifty pounds behind and for fifty pounds parcell of two hundred pounds arrear for Nomine poenae and did not say in his Avowry that he was satisfied of the rest And therfore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff vide 20 E 4. 2 a. 48 E. 3. 3. Chichley versus the Bishop of Ely Quare Impedit DAme Dorothy Chichley brought a Quare Impedit against Nich Bishop of Ely and Mark Thompson the Incumbent for the Church of Wimple and counted that Thomas Chichley was seised of the Advowson of the said Church in Fee as in grosse and presented to it being void Edward Marshall which was Instituted and Inducted and afterward the said Thomas Chichley died seised and the Advowson descended to his Son and Heir Sir Thomas Chichley Traverse upon Traverse who by his Deed indented c. for the increase of the Ioynture of the Plaintiff granted the said Advowson to Thomas East and Edward Anger and their Heirs to the use of the said Plaintiff for life and afterwards to the use of the Heirs Males of the body of Sir Thomas Chichley and that by force therof she was seised for life And the Church being hold by the death of the said Edward Marshall she presented and the
Peter Edgecombe and it was to the intent of granting the Rent to the King and his Heirs and then of the recovery of the Mannor out of which c. to the said Sir Peter Edgecombe in tail the remainder to the King and they being seised by their Deed dated the third of June 11 H 8. sealed and delivered which is found in haec verba and that it was inrolled afterwards viz. 7. June granted the said Rent to H 8. Et si super totam materiam the Court adjudged it a Grant by Deed the third of June 11 H 8. then for the Defendant c. And upon Argument at Bar and conference had we all declared our opinion and agreed that Iudgment should be given for the Defendants The first reason was that the Issue is joyned upon the Grant modo forma and not upon the day as is offered by the Traverse but upon the Grant modo forma And the matter found is generally as is alledged vide Littleton Title Release that modo forma avoid and prevent the matter of day and goes solely to that which is materiall And by any thing which appears by the Verdict there is no intervening matter after the third day and before the seventh when the Deed was enrolled and then it is a good Grant of the third of June vide H 7 31. Then the speciall Conclusion found which is contrary to Law shall not conclude the Iudges to give Iudgment according to Law And so Iudgment was given for the Defendants Mich. 8 Car. Col. versus Wilkes SAmpson Cole brought an action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 H. 6. against Leonard Wilkes Tryall at the Bar Debt Debt upon the Statute of the 2 E. 6. for Tithes A Lease was made to two they enter and occupy and set not out their Tithes Debt was brought against one of them it lies not But here it was found that one only occupyed the Land and therfore the action well lies Sir John Gerards case And a Case was shewn Mich 8 Jac. An action of Debt was brought upon this Statute by Sir John Gerard against two Tenants in Common and it appeared that one of them set out his Tithe and that the other afterwards took it and carried it away and adjudged that the action lies only against him which carried it away Pasch 9 Car. Strilley's Case Amendment of the proclamation of a fine VPon motion made in this Court for the amendment of a Proclamation of a Fine levied by Strilley of Lands in Nottinghamshire Mich 11 Eliz. The Proclamations endorsed by the Chirographer upon the Fine were well but in the Transcript and Note of the Fine which is delivered to the Custos brevium by the Chirographer according to the Statute the second Proclamation was entred to be made the twentieth of May where it should have been the twenty third day of May and that by the misprision of the Clerk And it was moved that that might be amended And the Court was of opinion that it should be amended for the Ingrossement upon the Fine by the Chirographer is the foundation and that being well it is sufficient Warrant to amend the other And the Court was of opinion that it was a good Fine without any amendment But it being the misprision of the Clerk it shall be amended as in the case Coke lib 8. Blackamores case The Proclamation made and entred before the Originall shall be amended And it was objected that this Fine and Proclamations as they found in the Office of the Custos brevium are exemplified under the Great Seal and therfore by a Clause in the Statute of 23 Eliz cap. 3. could not be amended after such exemplification To that it was answered that that Statute extends only to Fines before levied which should be exemplified before the first day of June An 1582. And the latter clause in the said Statute doth not extend but to Fines exemplified according to the said Statute And therfore it was awarded to be amended Pasch 9 Car. Glasier versus Heliar Sussex Case GLasier brought an action upon the case for words against Heliar and shewed that three Colliers being in an house in Sussex were feloniously burnt in the said house and shewed that two or three men were indicted convicted and executed for the said Murther the Defendant knowing therof and intending to bring the Plaintiff in perill of his life Words as accessary to the said Murther sayd to him Thou didst bring Faggots a mile and a half to the burning of the Colliers And after Verdict for the Plaintiff and motion in Arrest of Iudgment it was adjudged that the words were actionable For if a Mansion-house be burnt feloniously to say You brought fire to set in the Thatch of the house which is burnt it is actionable Iudgment pro quaerente Smith versus Cornelius Southamp JOhn Smith Town-Clark of Southampton Case brought an action upon the case against one Cornelius an Attorney of this Court and shew that the Plaintiff was of good fame and Town-Clark of the Major and Burgesses of Southampton and was their Scribe and had the custody of all Rolls Pleas and Certificates Words and other proceedings before the Major and Burgesses in the Court before them to be holden And the Defendant intending to draw him into Infamy and to cause him to lose his Office said to him Thou hast made many false Certificate to the Major and Burgesses in that Court and the more thou stirrest in it the more it will stink And it was adjudged that these words are not actionable 1. Because that it is not alledged that there was any Colloquium concerning his Office of Town-Clark 2. Because that it appears not in the Count that the making of Certificates belong to his Office but only that he had the custody of them 3. It might be false and yet no blame to him if he did know them to be false or that he had made them false maliciously And therfore Iudgment was given for the Defendant And this Case was moved again by Hitcham the first day of Trinity Term next And then Iudgment was affrmed Hil. 9 Jac. Edwards versus Laurence Trin. 9 Car. Rot. 2488. Suff. RAchel Edwards brought an action of Trespasse against Richard Laurence for breaking of her Close Trespasse The Defendant in Bar to the new Assignment plead Traverse of Seisin that before the time of the Trespasse supposed to be done one Francis Tayler was seised in Fee of the Tenements wherof c. and so being seised died wherby it descended to Francis his Son and Heir who being seised therof 8 Car. demised it to the Defendant for two years by vertue wherof he entred and gives colour to the Plaintiff by a Grant made to him by Francis the Father where nothing passed therby and so iustifie The Plaintiff replyed that long before Francis Tayler the Son had any thing one Francis Tayler Grand-father of