should be informed what their course is and has been and therefore let us hear the Civilians as to this point Post The King and Marlow THe Defendant being a Printer was indicted for his second Offence for Printing of a Seditious Book contrary to the Act of 14 Car. 2. cap. 33. and being found Guilty at the Sessions of the Old Baily the Iudgment was given That he should be for ever disabled to exercise the Art or Mistery of Printing and pay 20 l Fine and to stand in the Pillory And a Writ of Error was brought and Errors were assigned in the Judgment as varying from the words of the Act. For First The Act is That he should be disabled to exercise the Art and Mistery of Printing or Founding of Letters And the Judgment is only to disable him from Printing Secondly The Act is That he shall receive such further punishment by Fine Imprisonment or other Corporal Punishment And the Judgment is both for a Fine and Corporal Punishment when it ought not to be for both Curia The first is as it should be for Printing and Founding of Letters are two distinct Trades and the words are to be taken respectively to such Trade as the Defendant is of Again 't is a Rule that a Man shall not Assign an Error in that which is for his advantage But the second was held an Error for that the Act did not intend a Fine and Corporal Punishment both and therefore the Judgment was reversed Termino Sancti Michaelis Anno 29 Car. II. In Banco Regis Davis versus Price IN Error upon a Judgment in the Common Bench in an Action of Trover where Iudgment was given by default The Error was assigned in the Declaration which was de decem Juvencis Anglice Bullocks and Heifers and not said how many of one and of the other But it was answered that the Latin word being proper and of known signification the Anglice was void according to Osborns Case 10 Co. But the Court reversed the Judgment and cited the Case before in this Court Trover de viginti ovibus matricibus agnis And it was resolved to be naught for not ascertaining the number of each But Twisden said there was a Trover brought de Viginti averiis ivz. Bobus agnis c. and Viginti was applied to each Species and held well It was offered in this case to distinguish it from the case de Ovibus matricibus agnis that there the Latin was of two sorts Sed non allocatur for the words here being Equivocal it was all one Dutton versus Pool AN Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That his Wives Father being seized of certain Lands now descended to the Defendant and about to cut a Thousand pounds worth of Timber off from the said Lands to raise a Portion for his said Daughter the Defendant promised to the Father in Consideration that he would forbear to fell the Timber that he would pay the said Daughter 1000 l After Verdict upon Non Assumpsit for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Father ought to have brought this Action and not the Husband and Wife and there was a case shewn to be adjudged in the Common Bench Hillary 23 and 24 Car. 2. Rot. 1538. between Pine and Norris where the Son promised the Father that in Consideration that he would Surrender a Copyhold to him that he would pay a certain Sum to his Sister for which she brought the Action and then held that it would lie for none but the Father for where the Party to whom the Promise is to be performed is not concerned in the meritorious cause of it he cannot bring the Action But if a Promise were to a Man that if his Daughter should Marry his Son he would give her 1000 l there because the Daughter does the Act which is the Consideration she may bring the Action On the contrary the Case was cited 1 Rolls 32. Starkey and Miln where in Consideration of certain Goods sold the Promise was to pay part of the Money to another there that other might bring the Action And it differs from the case where Money is delivered to A. to pay over to B. B. may bring Debt Yelv. 24. If the Father had in the Case at Bar cut the Trees And the Son had said Let me have the Trees and I will pay the Daughter so much that had been the same with the Case before cited 1 Roll. and it doth not seem to differ as it is 1 Cro. 163. Rookwook Case where the Father being about to charge the Land with a Rent of 4 l per Annum to his Younger Sons the Eldest promised that if he would forbear to charge the Land he would pay the 4 l per Annum and the Sons upon this brought the Assumpsit and recovered Sed vide librum that Promise is said expresly to be made to the Sons who were present Vid. 1 Cro. 619.652 Levett and Haws Case where the Promise was made to a Man in Consideration that he had agreed that his Son should Mary his Daughter and to settle such a Joynture upon her that he would give the Son 200 l with her and for this the Father brought the Action and held well brought tho' the Court seemed to incline that the Son might also have brought it And the Court here inclined for the Plaintiffs Sed Adjornatur Post Saunders versus Williams IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff Declared that he was seised in Fee of one Acre and possessed for a certain number of years in another Acre and had a Common in Black-acre for Beasts levant and couchant thereupon and that the Defendant put his Beasts in the place and disturbed him The Defendant pleaded a Title of Common to himself also there Vpon which Issue was joyned and found for the Plaintiff and it was now moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Plaintiff had made no Title to the Common by Prescription or otherwise Sed non allocatur The Defendant being a Wrong-doer And the same Matter was Adjudged in the Court between St. John and Moody St. Mich. 27 Car. 2. quod vide ante and in the 2 Cro. 43.122 3 Cro. 500. Robinson versus Woolly THe Case was this Term Argued again And Holt Argued That the Induction tho' executed by the Archdeacon after the New Bishop was Consecrated was sufficient The Bishop is only to Admit and Institute and to send a Mandate to the Archdeacon to Induct who is to do it de communi Jure and therefore if the Bishop hath Admitted and Instituted and made a Mandate for Induction 't is a sufficient Excuse for him in a Quare impedit 11 H. 4. 9. for the Bishop is meerly a Spiritual Officer A Prebendary is to be Inducted by the Dean and Chapter Pl. Com. 529. But 't is Objected That the Archdeacon does not Induct ex Officio â—ut a Mandate from the Bishop is requisite scilicet First The
it will be agreed he might have released it or by cutting of the Wood might have taken away all the right of Action Again it does not appear by the Record that the Defendant was here and so no benefit by the forbearing to cut the Wood. Rookwoods Case cited on the other side 1 Cro. 163. 1 Leonard 192. is that the Promise was made to the younger Brothers and the Consideration that they would consent but here the Plaintiff who was to have the Money had no share in the Consideration or Meritorious Act as where the Father promises J. S. if his Son will Marry his Daughter he will give him 1000 l the Son may bring the Action because the Consideration moves from him Hetlys Rep. 20. the Case was to this effect A Man promises a Woman whom he was to Marry upon a certain Consideration that if he had a Son by her he should have a Term whereof the Woman was then possessed and if it were a Daughter she should have the Moiety of the Goods c. they Intermarry and after the death of the Husband the Daughter born between them brings an Action against the Executor of the Husband and resolved that it would not lie tho' they did not think the Agreement made with the Wife to be discharged by the Intermarriage but only suspended which is a Quaere in my Lord Hobart Yet the Daughter being no Party to the Promise or to the Consideration could not bring an Action The Case of Norris and Pine before cited is stronger for there he that made the Promise had a benefit for it was in Consideration of Marriage On the other side it was said that tho' it doth not appear that the Defendant was Heir yet it may be intended after Verdict however 't is not nudum pactum for if the Defendant had no benefit yet there was a restraint upon the other and that is Consideration enough And for the objection of releasing that holds where J. S. promises J.N. if his Son will Marry his Daughter he will pay him 1000 l J.N. may Release but 't is doubtful whether he can after Marriage because then 't is vested in the Son as Scroggs Chief Justice said 1 Roll. 31. The Uncle of an Infant delivered J.S. 12 l who promised to pay the Infant when he came of Age and the Action was well brought by him after his Age. So Goods sold to A. to pay 10 l to B. B. may Sue Vid. 1. Roll. 32 Starkey and Mills The Court said it might be another Case if the Money had béen to have been paid to a Stranger but there is such a nearness of Relation between the Father and Child and 't is a kind of Debt to the Child to be provided for that the Plaintiff is plainly concerned And so by the Opinion of them all viz. Scroggs Wild Jones and Dolben Judicium pro Querente Ante. Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to the Sheriffs Court of London for that an Action was there Commenced to which the Defendant pleaded That the cause of Action did not arise within the Jurisdiction and offered to swear his Plea but it was refused The Counsel for the Plaintiff objected against the Prohibition that the Plea came too late for it was after an Imparlance But it being proved by Affidavit that the Plea was tendred within two days after the Declaration was delivered and that immediately upon delivering the Declaration there is an Imparlance of course The Court granted the Prohibition and said that the other side might Demurr if they thought fit for the liberty of the Subject was infringed by bringing him within a private Jurisdiction when the Matter arises out of it and Attorney's in such places are sworn to advise no Plea to the Jurisdiction nor that none shall be put in by them And whereas 't was said that the Party had not prejudice for he might remove his Case by Habeas Corpus The that the Court answered coming by Habeas Corpus Bail must be put in above tho' the Cause otherwise did not require it Note It appeared here that there was no defence made in this to the Jurisdiction and Co. Inst was quoted that defence should be made tho' not full defence But the Court said it was not necessary and that Presidents were otherwise especially where the Court have no Jurisdiction of the matter otherwise where not of the person James versus Richardson IN Ejectment the Case upon a Special Verdict was thus A. devised the Lands to B. and his Heirs during the Life of J. S. and after to the Heirs of the Body of R. D. now living and to such other Heirs was should after be Born the Devisee for Life levied a Fine in the Life of him to whose Heirs the Remainder was limited but he had a Son at the time of the death of the Testator The question was Whether it was a Contingent Remainder the consequence whereof was to be destroyed by the Fine and that it was vested in the Son Scroggs Chief Justice Wild and Jones held it a Remainder vested by reason of the words now living which was a sufficient Designation of the person that was to take in a Will tho' improper to call him Heir But Dolben Contra for by this Construction the Heirs Born after are excluded and the Son would take but an Estate for Life tho' it were devised to the Heirs in the Plural Number Note Vpon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber this Iudgment was reversed Hillary 31 32. Car. 2. Termino Paschae Anno 31 Car. II. In Banco Regis A Mandamus was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court to grant the Probat of a Will under Seal c. The Case was the Executor named in the Will had taken the usual Oath but after a Caveat entred and then Refused and another endeavoured to obtain Letters of Administration the Executor came after to desire the Will under Probat and contested the granting of Administration Which was Adjudged against him supposing that he was bound by his Refusal And after an Appeal to the Delegates this Mandamus was prayed and granted by the Court for having taken the Oath he could not be admitted to Refuse and the Ecclesiastical Court had no further Authority and the Caveat did not alter the Case Note The Oath was taken before a Surrogate yet it was all one Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to a Suit for Tythes upon the Suggestion that the Lands out of which they were demanded say out of the Parish and the Bounds of Parishes are tryable at the Common Law But the Court denied the Prohibition because it did not appear that a Plea thereof had been offered in the Ecclesiastical Court Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed to stay a Suit against J. S. Lessee of a Rectory out of which a Pension was demanded It was suggested that the Lord Biron had three parts in four of this Rectory upon which the Pension was chargeable and that
Since many inconveniences have faln c. by reason of Marriages within the Degrees of Marriages prohibited by Gods Laws that is to say the Son to marry the Mother or the Stepmother carnally known by his Father the Brother the Sister the Father his Sons Daughter or his Daughters Daughter or the Son to marry the Daughter of his Father procreate and born by his Stepmother or the Son to marry his Aunt being his Fathers or Mothers Sister or to marry his Uncles Wife carnally known by his Uncle or the Father to marry the Sons Wife carnally known by his Son or the Brother to marry the Brothers Wife carnally known by his Brother or any Man married and carnally knowing his Wife to marry his Wives Daughter or his Wives Sons Daughter or his Wives Daughters Daughter or his Wives Sister So these Marriages are declared to be plainly prohibited and detested by the Laws of God and not to be dispensable with by any man and therefore 't is enacted that no person shall thenceforth marry within these Degrees what pretence soever shall be made to the contrary thereof And in case any person have married within these Degrees and by any the Archbishops or Ministers of the Church of England be separate from the Bond of such Vnlawful Marriage that every such separation shall be good c. And in case there be any person thus married and be not yet separate that every such person shall be separate by the definitive Sentence and Iudgment of the Archbishops Bishops and other Ministers of the Church of England c. and by no other Power or Authority and that all Sentences and Iudgments given and to be given by any Archbishop Bishop or other Minister of the Church of England c. shall be definitively firm good and effectual to all intents and observed and obeyed without suing any Provocations Appeals Prohibitions or other Process from or to the Court of Rome to the Derogation thereof or contrary to the 24 H. 6. c. 12. 'T is very observable and perhaps it has not been observed before that the words of the Statute do not run so as commonly it seems for if the words had been by reason of marrying within or against the Prohibition of Marriage by Gods Laws there had been little question that there had been any other marriage against Gods Law in the intention of this Parliament but those reckoned up but the words are marrying within the Degrees of Marriage prohibited c. Every man apprehends that for the Son to marry the Mother is forbidden and that for the Father to marry the Daughter is within the same Degree tho' not expressed so for a Grandson to marry his Grandmother is within the same Degree of what is there forbidden So whereas the Text Leviticus 18. v. 14. forbids a man to marry his Fathers Brothers Wife for so the Text is tho' the Statute expresses it his Uncles Wife to marry the Mothers Brothers Wife is within the same Degree tho' not mentioned in Leviticus c. The Iudges did observe this only but did give no Opinion concerning Marriages within the Degrees viz. which are within the Degrees paritate rationis only and are not expressed such as Parsons and Manns and Remingtons Case in all which the Case was a man married his first Wives Neice which by Equity and Parity of Reason was perhaps within the Prohibition ver 12 13. that a man should not marry his Aunt or rather the Prohibition ver 14. that a man should not marry his Fathers Brothers Wife c. but only in one particular viz. that in the ascending and descending Parental-Line the Marriages are prohibited in infinitum but for the rest which are in pari gradu to the Degrees there mentioned they have not given any resolution at this time Now as to this Case in the second Statute there is observed this difference that the words carnally known are added where the Prohibition is in respect of a former Marriage of one of the Parties as the Son to marry the Stepmother carnally known by his Father or to marry his Uncles Wife carnally known by his Uncle c. this indeed is not particularly expressed and applied to every individual Prohibition to which 't is applicable in the first Statute but methinks 't is intended and as fully provided for tho' in general in the last Clause of the said first Statute which is this provided always That the Article in this Act contained concerning Prohibition of Marriages within the Degree aforementioned in this Act shall always be taken interpreted and expounded of such Marriages i. e. I suppose former Marriages where Marriages was solemnized and carnal knowledge was had In neither of these two Acts is there any Power given to the Temporal Courts to make any alteration as to the Canon Law or God's Law but it was referred to the Canon Law and the power of Dispensing de facto left in the same state as before And Dispensations were granted in these very particulars which the Statute says ought not to be done The Third Law which concerns this Case is the 28 H. 8. cap. 16. against Dispensations c. from Rome by which all Marriages which stood upon these Dispensations became absolutely unlawful for the Dispensations are made thereby clearly void c. and therefore there is a provisional Clause in it That yet notwithstanding at the most humble Petitions of the Lords and Commons c. all Marriages had and solemnized before the 30th of November Anno 26 of the Kings Reign c. whereof there is no Divorce or Separation had by the Ecclesiastical Laws of this Realm and which Marriages be not prohibited by God's Laws limitted and declared in the Act made in this present Parliament for the establishing the King's Succession viz. 28 H. 8. cap. 7. aforementioned or otherwise by Holy Scripture shall be c. good c. and reputed taken and adjudged c. as good c. if no impediment of Matrimony had ever been between them that have contracted and solemnized such Marriages If the Act had gone no further than these words For the Establishment of the King's Succession it had clearly brought the Cognizance of these Marriages to the Temporal Courts But 't is Objected That this Law made no such alteration because of the words which are added Or otherwise by Holy Scripture for this 't is said makes it directly of the Cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Courts so that it leaves it to them who know what is lawful or unlawful by Holy Scripture I shall forbear to Answer this until I come to the other Act where indeed the very same Exception is for the words Gods Law except in that is tantamount to these words and then I will answer both The Fourth and last Law is 32 H. 8. cap. 38. on which the Question is This is Cardo Questionis the mischief before the Statute was that the Bishop of Rome had entangled and troubled the
the Defendant wage his Law the Oath of the Eleven which are Sworn de credulitate may be dispensed with by the Plaintiffs assent Vid. Mag. Charta c. 28. Note It was Adjudged in the King's Bench 19 Car. II. That if a Prisoner escape by the permission of the Sheriff yet he may be taken by the party at whose Suit he was condemned for it may be the Sheriff is Insufficient and it is no reason that his own Act should damnifie the Plaintiff Vide Hob. 202. Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 20 21 Car. II. In Banco Regis Barnes versus Bruddel ACtion for these Words alledged to be spoken of the Plaintiff viz. She was with Child by J. S. whereof she Miscarried and concludes That by reason thereof she was so brought into her Fathers displeasure that he turned her out of Doors and that she was brought within the Penalty of the Statute of 18 Eliz. And in Maintenance of this Action a Case was cited out of Roll's 1st Part 35. inter Meadows Boyneham an Action was brought for calling of one Whore Per quod consortium amisit Vicin ' suorum and held it would lye And in Anne Davie's Case 4 Co. 17. it is held That since the Statute of the 18 Eliz. cap. 3. to say One had a Bastard would bear an Action But notwithstanding the Opinion of the Court was That such an Action would not lye unless a special Damage had been alledged as to say She had lost her Marriage as in Anne Davies's Case and the Reason upon the Statute alledged in the Case was said by Twisden to be of my Lord Coke's putting in for Iustice Jones affirmed to him there was nothing said thereof in the Case Anonymus IF a Tradesman contract Debts and after gives over Trading he may be afterwards a Bankrupt within the Statute in respect of the Debts contracted before And so it was said to be Ruled in Sir Job Harvies Case Anonymus A Warren may pay Tythes by Custom So of Doves in a Dove-house or Fish in a River Note It was said by Twisden That if a Libel be in the Ecclesiastical Court for a thing whereof they have cognisance altho' the party intitles himself to it by Custom no Prohibition lies Anonymus A Prohibition was prayed for that they Cited him to answer Articles in the Ecclesiastical Court and did not deliver a Copy of the Articles and it was granted quousque they should deliver the Copy But the Prohibition which was taken out was absolute which the Court being informed of they did not think fit to grant a Consultation but to discharge that Prohibition by a Supersedeas Whereupon they proceeded and Excommunicated the party for default of Answering Who again moved the Court for a Prohibition and one was granted with a Mandamus in it to absolve him if it were for not Answering before they gave him a Copy of the Articles Bains Biggersdale ERror to Reverse a Judgment in an Action of Debt upon a Bond in Rippon Court because it was entred upon the Record Assid ' damna ultra misas custagia ad 10 l and doth not say Occasione detentionis debiti or Occasione praedicta and the Iudgment was Quod recuperet damna praedicta and doth not say Per Juratores assessa Yet notwithstanding the Judgment was affirmed Billingham Vavasor ERror to Reverse a Judgment in Debt in the Court of York Assigned First In the Variance between the Count and Plaint for the Plaint was Entred Ad hanc Curiam venit queritur de Placito deb ' super demand ' 14 l and the Count was for 12 l but it was Answered That the certainty of the Sum needed not to be expressed in the Plaint and so Surplusage But otherwise it is of a Variance between the Original and the Count for the Writ must comprehend the certainty of the Debt and 2 Cro. 311. was cited where Debt was brought in the Common Bench for 40 s and after the Return of the Pluries Capias the Entry was Quod Querens obtulit se in plito deb ' 40 l and assigned for Error and disallowed But to that it was said That that was but a Misprision in the Entry of a Continuance which had a former Record to warrant it And here tho' the certainty of the Sum need not to have been expressed Vid. 3 Cro. 619. yet when it is the Plaint must not vary from it Et adjornatur Bourne versus Mason al' IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declares That whereas one Parrie was indebted to the Plaintiff and Defendants in two several Sums of Mony and that a Stranger was indebted in another Sum to Parrie that there being a Communication between them the Defendants in Consideration that Parrie would permit them to sue in his Name the Stranger for the Sum due to him they promised they would pay the Sum which Parrie owed to the Plaintiff and alledged that Parrie permitted them to Sue and that they Recovered After Non assumpsit pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That the Plaintiff could not bring this Action for he was a Stranger to the Consideration But in maintenance thereof a Judgment was cited in 1658. between Sprat and Agar Vid. 3 Cro. 619. in the Kings-Bench where one promised to the Father in Consideration that he would give his Daughter in Marriage with his Son he would settle so much Land After the Marriage the Son brought the Action and it was Adjudged maintainable And another Case was cited of a Promise to a Physician That if he did such a Cure he would give such a Sum of Mony to himself and another to his Daughter and it was Resolved the Daughter might bring an Assumpsit Which Cases the Court Agreed For in the one Case the parties that brought the Assumpsit did the Meritorious act tho' the Promise was made to another and in the other Case the nearness of the relation gives the Daughter the benefit of the consideration performed by her Father but here the Plaintiff did nothing of trouble to himself or benefit to the Defendant but is a mere Stranger to the Consideration wherefore it was adjudged quod nihil capiat per billam Herbert versus Merit A Prohibition was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court for that the Defendant Libelled against the Plaintiff there for calling of her Impudent Whore which was said to be only a word of Passion and the later Opinions have been that unless some Act of Fornication were expressed that Prohibitions should be granted But the Court denied it in this case it being an offence of a Spiritual Cognizance and Eaton and Ailoffes Case 1 Cro. 78. and Pewes Case 329 were cited The Sheriff may Sell Goods he takes in Execution by a Fieri facias at any Rates if the Defendant denies to pay the Money Nota No Action of Debt lies against the Sheriff when the Party escapes who is taken upon a
to the same purpose and that a Fine doth not bar an Interest which is not divested He quoted also the 1 Inst 388. 9 Co. 106. and 5 Co. Saffin's Case where a Fine and Non claim shall bar the Interest of a Term yet it appears in 2 Cro. 60. that two Judges were against that Iudgment given by the other three 2 Cro. 659. Tenant at Will makes a Lease for years and it was held to be no Disseisin volens nolens to him that had the Inheritance And for Isham and Morris's Case 1 Cro. 74. it was the Judges Opinion upon Evidence and there a Fine was levied of the Inheritance which passed the Trust inclusively but this Fine was only to establish an Interest for 54 years Then he Argued that the Inconvenience would be very great to Purchasers who often keep such Leases and Interests on Foot tho' they buy the Inheritance if they should be all barred by Levying of the Fine The Solicitor è contra He agreed that a Fine could not bar any Interest which was not divested at the time of the Fine He Argued first That the Cestuy que Trust was not Tenant at Will for a man shall not be Tenant at Will against his own Conveyance unless by Construction of Law to avoid a Tort as in Littleton's Case where the Cestuy que Use enters upon his Feoffee But tho' the Lessor hath a right to the possession before the Entry of his Lessee for years yet when the Lessee Enters as 't is found in out Case he doth as much as declare that Cestuy que Trust shall not be Tenant at Will Indeed the Bargainee of an Estate for years is in actual possession by force of the Statute yet the Bargainor in case of a Mortgage may Enter to hold at Will because there was no Act done to express his dissent He agreed also that no Disseisin was wrought but there may be an Expulsion without a Disseisin as Hob. 322. where it is said If the Lessor puts out his Lessee for years there is no Disseisin committed and yet the Lessee hath lost his Estate and hath but a Right to it and that whether he will or no And if he were Tenant at Will he by making this and divers Leases before hath absolutely determined his Will if Tenant at Will be ousted by a Stranger and he in Reversion disseised he may enter again not where he is the Wrong-doer himself for that were to make him Tenant at Will against his Will If Tenant at Will makes a Lease for years and the Lessee enters the Tenant at Will is the Disseisor 2 Cro. 660. 3 Cro. 830 5. E. 42. and Tenant at Will is intrusted with and hath power over the possession And where it was said it should be in the Election of the Lessee for 100 years to take this for an Ejectment or no he Argued that it ought clearly to be in the Election of the Lessor For first it was his own act and therefore he could best explain quo animo hoc fecit and that his antecedent Acts had sufficiently done especially being Cestuy que Trust and having also the Inheritance in him and he insisted very much upon the Notice that the Law takes of such an Interest tho' relievable only in Equity 7 H. 5. 3. Cestuy que Use of a Mannor to which an Advowson was appendant was Outlawed the Church became void the King brought a Quare Impedit 2 Cro. 512. A Trust of a Chattel resolved to be forfeit by Attainder Hob. 214. in that case the King shall have the Land it self and Process shall issue out of the Exchequer to seize the Land it self which shews that it hath a legal influence upon the Land therefore he and not the Trustee ought to have the Election If Cestuy que Use had made a Lease for years this had been a Disseisin until 1 R. 3 5 H. 7. 56. 8 H. 7. 8. A Lease of two Acres habendum the one for Life that other in Fee to the use of another shall not the Cestuy que Use determine in which the Inheritance shall be Again It is agreed that this Fine conveys away the Trust shall the Law strain to save the Interest of the Trustee to occasion a Chancery Suit And the Judges ever Expounded the Statute of 4 H. 7. strictly to bind the Right of Strangers Leonard 99. It was the Chief Baron Manwood's Opinion That he that had a future Interest to Lands of which a Fine was Levied ought to have five years after his Interest came in esse neither is there any reason to favour long Leases By the Ancient Law a Lease for above 40 years was void Mirror 164 293. 1st Inst 46. they are never without suspicion of Fraud and 3 Co. Twyne's Case that which is called a Trust is in plain English a Fraud and as this is found it appears by the Circumstances to be almost Fraud apparent And as to the Inconvenience which was alledged would come to Purchasors who desire to keep Leases on foot he Answered That might be prevented by claiming within five years and it would be mischievous to Purchasors if it were otherwise to have such Leases set up against their Titles Postea Note One makes a Lease wherein the Lessee Covenants to Repair and then bargains and sells part of the Reversion He shall have an Action of Covenant per 32 H. 8. Bosvile versus Coates IN Debt upon a Bond with Condition That the Obligor should bring in the Son and Daughter of J.S. at their full Age to give such Releases as a Third person shall require The Defendant pleads That the Son is alive under Age at Doncaster To which the Plaintiff demurs and held he might for it must be taken at their respective Ages Vid. 5 Co. Justice Wyndham's Case Crispe and Jackson versus The Mayor and Commonalty of Berwick IN a Writ of Covenant the Plaintiffs declared upon an Indenture of Demise of an House from the Defendants wherein they Covenanted That the Plaintiffs should enjoy it without the Interruption of any Persons whatsoever and assigned for Breach That J. S. entred and dispossessed them at Berwick Vpon which the Defendant takes Issue Whereupon the Plaintiff suggests That such a place in Northumberland is the next to Berwick and the Venire is awarded to the Sherriff accordingly and a Verdict was found for the Plaintiff It was moved by Jones in Arrest of Judgment That here was a Mis-Trial not aided by any Statute for the last Act which is the largest remedies all Trials so as they be in the proper County but this is not so And he said It ought to have been tried where the Action was laid As when an Action is brought upon a Chartr-Party and a Breach is assigned in a Foreign Kingdom it shall be Tried where the Charter-Party is dated and here the Covenant bore Date at the Castle of York and there the Trial ought to have been 6 Co. Dowdale's Case and
there be not an Entry immediately a Livery within the View is not good and in this case by the Marriage he becomes seised in the Right of his Wife and cannot by his own Act divest himself of that Estate or work a prejudice to his Wife by putting the Estate out of her Which makes it differ from the Case of the 38 E. 3. 11. b. Where a man made Livery of the within View to a Woman and before she Entred married her and claimed the Estate in Right of his Wife there held to be a good Feoffment For in that case there is no Alteration of the Estate consequent upon the Intermarriage Neither is it like the Case of 2. R. 2. quoted in Forse and Hemling's Case in the 4 Co. Where a Woman grants a Reversion to a Man and they Intermarry before Attornment For there the Grant is to be perfected by the Act of a Stranger which in reason should be more available to a man than his own Act. But it was Resolved by all the Court that this Livery was well Executed after the Marriage For an Interest passeth by the Livery in View which cannot be countermanded The effectual part of it viz. Go Enter and take possession was before the Marriage tho' the Estate is not in the Feme while Entry She hath done all on her part to be done and hath put it meerly in the Foffor's power and when he Enters it hath a strong retrospect to the Livery and shall be pleaded as a Feoffment when she was sole If two Women Exchange Lands and one marries before Entry this shall not defeat the Exchange The Cases of 2 R. 2. and 38 Ed. 3. are as strong Emerson versus Emerson TRin. ult Rot. 1389. Error of a Judgment in the Common Pleas in an Action of Trespass by the Plaintiff as Executor upon the Statute of 4 E. 3. De bonis asportatis in vita Testatoris The Plaintiff declared that the Defendant blada crescentia upon the Freehold of the Testator messuit defalcavit cepit asportavit Vpon Not Guilty pleaded a Verdict and Judgment was for the Plaintiff and assigned for Error That no Action lay for Cutting of the Corn for that is a Trespass done to the Freehold of the Testator for which the Statute gives the Executor no Action and while the Corn stands 't is to many purposes parcel of the Freehold So that if a man cuts Corn and carries it away presently tho' with a Felonious intent 't is no Felony Otherwise if he let it lye after 't is Cut and at another time comes and steals it So that it appears for parcel of the Trespass no Action lyes then entire Damages being given as well for the Cutting as Carrying away the Corn the Judgment is Erroneous But all the Court were of another Opinion 9 Co. 78. for 't is but one entire Trespass the Declaration only describes the manner of Taking it away Indeed if it had been quare clausum fregit blada asportavit it had been naught or if he had Cut the Corn and let it lye no Action would have lain for the Executor So if the Grass of the Testator be Cut and carryed away at the same time because the Grass is part of the Freehold but Corn growing is a Chattel The Statute of 4 Ed. 3. hath been always Expounded largely Mr. Amhurst's Case of Grays-Inn SErjeant Maynard moved for a Mandatory Writ to the Mayor and Court of Aldermen of London upon the Statute of 13 Car. 2. c. 11. to give Judgment according to the late Act of 22 nunc Regis The Case was That the Act appoints a Market to be on certain Ground set out in Newgate-Market and in all such cases for the satisfaction of the Owners of the Ground if the City cannot agree with them for it it Impowers the Mayor and Aldermen to Empannel a Jury who shall Assess and Adjudge what satisfaction and recompence shall be given to the Owners and says That the Verdict of such Jury on that behalf to be taken and the Judgment of the said Mayor and Court of Aldermen thereupon and the Payment of the Money so awarded or adjudged c. shall be binding and conclusive to and against the Owners c. Now there was Fifteen thousand Foot of Amhurst's Ground taken away for this purpose and a Jury had been Empannelled and had assessed and awarded him Two shillings a Foot but the Mayor and Court of Aldermen refused to give Sentence or Judgment thereupon This says he is a Ministerial thing and this Court will interpose when any Officers will not do Iustice or will out-go their Authority For there is the same Reason to command to do Justice as to prohibit Injustice A Bishop of Exon had Fallen-out with a Town in Cornwal and denyed them Chrisme and a Mandamus went hence to command him to give it them Mr. Noy brought in a Copy of it Sir William Jones This somewhat resembles a Procedendo ad Judicium this is stronger than the Case of commanding a Bishop to grant Administration there this Court commands them to observe a Statute tho' it be in a Matter this Court has no Cognizance of We can't have an Action on the Case Hale If they don't make you Satisfaction your Interest is not bound Maynard But that is taken away by the same Act Pag. 143. 4. We are Lessee to â—he Dean and Chapter of St. Pauls Hale 'T is not Enacted That they shall give Judgment but that is implyed I never knew a Writ commanding to grant Administration tho' the Opinion has been so Sir William Jones That was done in Sir G. Sandy's Case after great Debate Then a Rule was made to shew Cause why a Writ should not go Afterwards the Court granted a Writ but willed them to consider well of the Form and to whom to direct it Loyd versus Brooking TRin. ult 1046. The Case was Tenant for Life Remainder to his first Son in Tail Remainder to J. S. for Life Remainder to his first Son in Tail c. Tenant for Life after the Birth of his first Son accepts a Fine from J. S. to certain uses and then makes a Feoffment after which the Son of J. S. is Born and whether his Contingent Remainder were destroyed or should vest in him was the Question And it was Resolved by the whole Court upon the first Opening that the Contingent Remainder was not destroyed the acceptance of the Fine displaced nothing the Feoffment divested all the Estates but the Right left in the first Son in Remainder supported the Contingent Remainders My Lord Coke's Case 2 Rolls 796 797 is stronger He Covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life Remainder to his Wife for life Remainder to his Daughter for Life when born Remainder to her first Son in Tail And minding to disturb the arising of the Contingent Estates attempted it by these two Means First He grants the Reversion and in the
But since H. 8. time it had béen for the most part administred by the Dean and Chapter and the Verdict was here for the Dean and Chapter King versus Melling IN an Ejectment upon a Special Verdict the case was this R. Melling seized in Fee having Issue four Sons William Robert Bernard and John devised the Land in question in this manner I give my Land to my Son Bernard for his natural Life and after his decease I give the same to the Issue of his Body lawfully begotten on a second Wife and for want of such Issue to John Melling and his Heirs for ever Provided that Bernard may make a Joynture of all the Premisses to such second Wife which she may enjoy during her Life R.M. dies Bernard in the life of his first Wife suffered a Recovery to the use of himself in Fee and after her decease Marries a second Wife and then by Indenture covenants to stand seized to the use of himself for Life and after to the use of his Wife for her Life for her Joynture and dies J.M. Enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff And this Term after Arguments at the Bar the Court gave their Opinions Rainsford for the Plaintiff First I hold in this Case that B. M. takes but an Estate for Life with a Contingent Remainder to the Issue by his second Wife for the Devise is by express words for Life as in Archers Case 1 Co. a Devise to R. A. for Life and after to the next Heir Male of R. and the Heirs Males of that Heir Male Resolved to create but an Estate for Life to R. A. I rely mainly upon Wilds Case 6 Co. which was brought before all the Judges of England where the Devise was to a Man and his Wife and after their decease to the Children and resolved to be but an Estate for Life 't is true there were Children at the time of the Devise but in the end of the Case 't is said that in such Case if there were no Children the Children born after might take by remainder and the first Estate to be but for Life Clerk v. Day 1 Cro. 313. the Devise was to Rose his Daughter for Life and that if she married after his Death and had Heir of her Body then that the Heir after his Daughter's Death should have the Land and to the Heirs of their Body begotten and if his Daughter died without Issue then to a Stranger It was held by Gawdy and Fenner that Rose had but an Estate for Life in this Case 1 Rolls 837. Devise to his eldest Son for Life and after his decease to the Sons of his Body lawfully begotten the Son resolved to have but an Estate for Life The Second point Whether the power to make a Joynture be destroyed by the Common Recovery these powers to make Estates are of two sorts either Collateral as when Executors have power by a Will to sell Land and such a power cannot be destroyed as appears in Diggs's Case 1 Co. or powers appendant to Estates as to make Leases which shall continue after the Estates to which the power is annexed determins and the power in the Case at Bar to make a Joynture are of this second sort and are destroyed by the alteration of the Estate to which it is annexed in privity as 1 Co. Albany's Case is so that the Common Recovery being a Forfeiture of the Estate for Life by consequence 't is an extinguishment of the power Thirdly But admitting the power continues whether it be well executed and I hold that it is not for being seized in Fee at the time of the Covenant to stand seized to the use of his Wife for her Joynture and this without any reference to his power the use shall arise out of his Interest and not be executed by vertue of his power according to the resolution in Sir Ed. Cleeres Case 6 Co. Twisden of the same Opinion As to the first Point it must be agreed that these words Issue of the Body ex vi termini make not an Entail if they were in a Conveyance by Act executed no more than Children as the words were in Wilds Case 'T is true in a VVill a Devise of Land to a Man and his Issue creates an Entail if the Devisee had no Issue at that time for otherwise those words would be void for in regard they are limited to take presently the Issue born after cannot take as by Remainder there being none to take in praesenti they must be intended to be words of Limitation as a Devise to a Man and his Heirs Males makes an Entail or otherwise the word Males must be rejected then seeing the words in themselves are not proper to make an Entail the next thing to be considered is the intention which is to be known by the expressions in the VVill and not any averment dehors the words are J will give my Land to my Son for Life and after his decease I will give the same to the Issue c. so that the Land is given to him expresly for Life Devise of Land in perpetuum makes Fee but if Land be given by Deèd in perpetuum there an Estate only for Life will pass 15 H. 7. A Devise to one paying 10 l this is a Fee 6 Co. Coliers Case But a Devise to one for Life paying 10 l makes but an Estate for Life the Case of Furse and VVinter was Mich. or Trin. 13 Regis Caroli Rot. 1339. A Devise to his two Daughters equally to be divided between them and to the Survivor of them and to the Heirs of the Body of the Survivor This was so expresly to the Surviror that it was resolved to be a Joynt Estate and not in Common The words here are after the decease of Bernard I give the same to the Issue of the Body c. implying that the Issue should take by Purchase as a Gift and not by Descent Again The power given to Bernard to make a Joynture shews that he could not do it by Virtue of his Estate and therefore needed a power to be annexed And tho' such powers are usually affixed to Estates Tail yet when the construction is doubtful what Estate shall pass the giving such a power is an argument that 't is such an Estate that cannot make a Joynture or the like by any other means The words go further and for want of such Issue then to J.M. 'T is true if Land be devised to a Man and if he dies without Issue then to remain over the Devisee shall have an Entail Owen 29. But it shall not be so in this Case because that Clause is crowded in with other Clauses directly to the contrary I rely mainly upon VVilds Case 6 Co. and the Case quoted out of Bendlowes in the end of that Case A Devise to Baron and Feme and to the Men Children of their Bodies begotten because it did not appear that there were any more Children at
Vpon which it was Demurred Jones Sollicitor for the Defendant said Tho' the Bail may plead payment because the Condition of the Recognizance is in the Disjunctive viz. for rendring the Body or paying the Money yet the Principal cannot Also it ought to have been pleaded to be paid before a Capias ad satisfaciendum taken out for as it is it may be after the Recognizance forfeited As if the Death of the Principal be pleaded it must be alledged to be before the Capias ad satisfaciendum taken out But the Court held it to be well enough For if that matter be material 't is to come on the other side and ex gratia Curiae the Bail has time to save himself before the Return of the second Scire facias Anonymus IN an Assumpsit the Plaintiff Declared that on the 28th of June Discoursing with the Defendant about the Marriage of his Daughter the Defendant promised him That if he would hasten the Marriage and should have a Son within Twelve Months then next following he would give him an Hundred Pound And sets forth That he did Marry soon after and had a Son within 12 Months after the Marriage Vpon non Assumpsit pleaded and a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Plaintiff had not set forth That he had a Son within the time for then next following shall be referred to the Day of the Discourse and not to the Marriage But the Court were of another Opinion and gave Judgment for the Plaintiff Crawfoot versus Dale IN an Action for Words it was thus There being a Discourse of the Plaintiffs Trade the Defendant said He was a cheating Knave and kept a false Debt-Book with which he cheated the Country After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that to say a Tradesman was a Cheating Knave tho' there were a Colloquium of his Trade was not Actionable for that might be said because he sold too Dear and so cheated in the Price but to say that He sold bad Commodities is Actionable and to say He kept a False Book will not bear an Action for that may be unwittingly But the Court Resolved that the Words laid together were Actionable for Tradesmens Books are of much regard and sometimes given in Evidence Jennings versus Hunking IN an Action for saying He was Perjured the Declaration was laid in Devonshire The Defendant Iustified for that the Plaintiff made a false Affidavit at Launceston in Cornwal and Issue was taken upon that and tryed at the Assizes in Devonshire and moved that this was a Mis trial But it was Answered That the Statute of 17 Car. 2. cap. 8. helps all Mis-trials so as the Trial be in the County where the Action is brought And a Case was cited in this Court between Crosse and Winton in the 21 Car. 2. where an Action was brought for saying He stole Plate from Wadham Colledge in Oxford The Defendant Iustified that he did Steal there Vpon which there was Issue joyned and tryed in London where the Action was brought and it was held good And this Term a Case was moved in the Common Bench in a Writ of Covenant against Wise The Defendant pleaded a Feoffment of Lands in Oxfordshire and he Issue was non feoffavit and afterwards tryed in London where the Action was laid and the Opinion of the Court there was that the late Statute would help it The Court said It was within the words of the Act but as they conceived not within the meaning for they intended only so the Trial was in the County where the Issue did arise But in regard of the Resolutions before they would not stay Judgment Anonymus IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff sets forth that the Defendant malitiose crimen Feloniae ei imposuit and not mentioned any Felony in particular and yet held to be well enough Anonymus Trespass with a Continuando which was alledged for some time after the Term wherein the Action was brought and Damages given to 10 l It was moved in Arrest of Judgment that for part of thâ— Trespass it appears by the Plaintiffs own shewing that the Action was brought before the Plaintiff had Cause of Action And it was said That if the Bill were Filed at the End of the Term and the Trespass reached to some time within the Term the Filing should not relate so as to make it Insufficient But here it was carried to the 3d of July which the Court must see is out of the Term because they take Cognizance of the beginning and end of every Term. Anonymus IF an Audita Querela he brought before the Execution of a Judgment quia timet and it goes for the Defendant he shall execute his Principal Judgment But if it he brought after the party is in Execution and he be bailed out then the Judgment being once Executed there can be no after resort to that but the Defendant shall proceed upon the Record of the Audita Querela Fawkener versus Annis THe Priviledge of the Chancery was pleaded by way of Prescription and upon Demurrer it was held naught First Because it was not Concluded hoc paratus est verificare And Secondly No place alledged for they are Matters of Fact and Triable Anonymus IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff Declared That the Defendant the Tenants and Occupiers of such a parcel of Land adjoyning to the Plaintiffs have time out of Mind maintained such a Fence and that from the 23th of April to the 25th of May postea the Fence lay open and that una Equa of the Plaintiffs went through the Gap and fell into a Ditch the 28th of May submersa fuit Vpon Not Guilty pleaded and found for the Plaintiff Holt moved in Arrest of Judgment First That the Prescription is laid in Occupiers and not shewn their Estate and that hath been adjudged naught in the 1 Cro. 445. and the 2 Cro. 665. Curia 'T is true there have been Opinions both ways but 't is good thus laid for the Plaintiff is a Stranger and presumed ignorant of the Estate But otherwise it is if the Defendant had prescribed Secondly It was Objected That the Cause of Action is laid after the 25th of May and for ought appears the Fence might be good at that time tho' 't is said to be open till the 25th of May postea Sed non allocatur For 1. 'T is after a Verdict 2. 'T is said expresly that the Beast was lost in defectu fensuratum and so cannot be intended but that it was down at the time Anonymus AN Indictment of Forcible Entry upon the 8 H. 6 being removed hither by Certiorari a Restitution was prayed But to stop that it was said that the Indictment was traversed and a Plea that the party had had three years quiet possession according to the 31st of Eliz. and tho' Dyer 122 is That 't is in the
for if a Man Covenants to stand seized to a Contingent Use and afterwards is attainted of Treason before the Contingency happen the Contingency shall never rise for the King has the Estate discharged and the Use is to rise out of the Estate of the Covenantor so is Moor Sir Tho Palmers Case 815 In Moors Rep. of my Lord Pagets Case 194. It s said that W. Paget had an Amoveas manus for the Estate of the Queen leased by the Death of my Lord Paget In Sir Francis Englefeilds Case Popham 18. n. 7. It s resolved that no Use rises because t is that it shall Discend Remain or Come which is uncertain but if he had Covenanted that after his Death he and his Heirs would have stood seized to the Use of John an Use would have resulted to Sir Francis Second Point I conceive if it be impossible for Ralph to take by Discent this would be a Contingent Use in him by Purchase The great Objection against this is that the Limitation is to an Heir and an Heir which ought to take by Purchase ought not to be only Heir of the Body c. but Heir general Of this I am not well satisfied I conceive the Remainder being limited to the Heirs of the Body of Jane begotten by Michael such a Limitation will make a special Heir to serve the turn and t is not to be resembled to Shelley's Case My Reasons are First Because at the Common Law before the Statute de Donis notice was taken that this was a special Heir and therefore 't is no wrong done to make him here a qualified Heir In the Statute de Donis 't is said When Lands are given to Man and his Wife and the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten Secondly Vpon the special penning of the Deed it is apparent that Michael took notice that he had an Heir at Common Law therefore it can't be intended that he meant here such an Heir that should be Heir general to him this would be Contradictio in Adjecto Litt. Sect. 352. puts this Case If a Feoffment be made upon Condition that the Feoffee shall give the Land to the Feoffor and his Wife and the Heirs of their two Bodies begotten In this Case if the Husband dye living his Wife before the Estate Tail is granted to them the Feoffee ought to make the Estate as near the Condition and as near the intent of the Condition as may be viz. To let the Land to the Wife for her Life without impeachment of Wast the Remainder to the Heirs of the Body of the Husband on her begotten If the Husband and Wife dye before the Gift made then the Feoffee ought to make it to the Issue and to the Heirs of the Body of his Father and Mother begotten Suppose that this had been to a second Wife and there had been Issue by a former the Book of 12 H. 4. 3. says that there it shall be in another manner but Litt. says it shall be as near vid. Litt. Sect. 22. Morevils Case Fitzh Tail 23. 2 Ed. 3. 1. 4. Ed. 3. 50. by all these Cases it appears that no regard is had whether the Son be Heir of the Husband if he be Heir of their two Bodies Therefore it seems that by this Limitation Ralph shall take by way of Contingent Remainder For Heirs of the Body of the second Wife is a good name of Purchase I have not read any Case against this Hill 16. or 26 Eliz. there was this Case A Man taking notice in his Will that his Brother who was dead had a Son and that he himself had three Daughters who were his right and immediate Heirs he gave them 2000 l and gave his Land to the Son of his Brother by the name of his Heir Male. Provided If his Daughters troubled his Heir then the Devise of the 2000 l to them should be void And it was resolved that the Devisor taking notice that others were his Heirs the Limitation to his Brothers Son by the name of Heir Male was a good name of Purchase and this agrees with Cownden and Clarks Case in Hob. Wild Justice said he was of the same Opinion with Hale in this last Point And Iudgment was given for the Defendant Three Learned ARGUMENTS One in the Court of Kings-Bench BY Sir FRANCIS NORTH Attorny General And Two in the Court of Exchequer BY Sir MATTHEW HALE Chief Baron there The Argument of Sir Francis North. In Banco Regis Potter and Sir Henry North. IN a Replevin for taking of an Horse in a certain place called the Fenn at Milden-Hall in the County of Suffolk the Defendant makes Cognizance as Bayliff to Sir Henry North and saith That the place Where c. containeth Ten thousand Acres of Pasture in Milden-Hall whereof a certain place called Delfe is parcel and that it is Sir Henry North's Freehold and the Horse was Damage feasant there c. The Plaintiff Replies Confessing the Soyl to be the Freehold of Sir Henry Norths but says That time whereof c. the place Where hath been parcel of the Fenn and parcel of the Mannor of Milden-Hall of which Sir Henry North is seised in Fee and that the Plaintiff was at the time c. seised of an Ancient Messuage one of the Freeholds holden of the Mannor by Rents and Services and parcel of the said Mannor and that Time out of Mind there were divers ancient Freehold Messuages holden of the said Mannor by Rents and Services and divers Copyhold Messuages parcel of the said Mannor by Custom of the said Mannor demised and demisable by Copy of Court Rolls of the said Mannor And the several Tenants of the said Freehold Tenements being seised in their Demesn as of Fee and they whose Estate they have in the same Time out of mind have had together with the Customary Tenants of the said Customary Tenements the sole and several Feeding of 100 Acres of Pasture for all Beasts except Hogs Sheep and Northern Steers levant and couchant upon their several Freeholds every year at all times of the year as to their several Freeholds belonging And that within the said Mannor there is and Temps d'ont c. hath been such a Custom that the several Tenants of the Customary Messuages together with the Freeholders aforesaid have used and accustomed to have the sole and several Feeding of the said 100 Acres of Pasture for all their Beasts except Sheep Hogs and Northern Steers levant and couchant upon their several Copy-holds every year at all times in the year tanquam ad seperal ' Tenementa customar ' spectant ' pertinent ' and the Plaintiff being seised put in his Horse c. and so Iustifies Vpon this the Defendant demurs generally This Prescription is naught in substance and Judgment ought to be given for the Defendant upon these Four Exceptions First That several Freeholders cannot joyn or be joyned in a Prescription to claim an entire Interest in another mans Soyl as
George because being descended from an Alien the Law takes no notice of them as to this purpose otherwise 't is if the said Nicholas had been a Denizen born and Attainted because in such a case though he could not take himself by Discent he could obstruct the Discent to the younger Brother so the Land would Escheat Thirdly That the Case of George the Son naturalized and the Case of John his Son as in reterence to John the Earl and the Discent from him will be all one if George had survived him John the Earl might have inherited so will John his Son who jure Representationis is the same with his Father Et è Converso These things being unquestionably to be admitted before I come to the Argument of the Case I shall premise certain General Observations First Touching Discents Secondly Touching the Capacities of Incapacities of an Alien Thirdly Touching Naturalizations Touching Discents I shall consider First The Rule whereby they are to be Governed Secondly The various kinds of Discents or hereditary Successions Concerning the Rule of Discents we must not govern our selves therein by the General Notions of Law or Proximity of Nature but by the Principal Laws of the Country where the Question ariseth for the various Countries have variously disposed the manner of Discents even in the same Law or Degree of Proximity For Instance The Father is certainly as near of Kin to the Son as the Son is to the Father and is nearer in Proximity than a Brother and therefore shall be preferred as next of Kin in an Administration 3 Rep. Ratcliffs Case Yet touching the Succession of the Father to the purchase of his Son the Laws of several Countries variously provide First According to the Jews for want of Issue of the Son the Father succeeds excluding the Brother and that hath been the Vse and Construction of the Jewish Doctors upon Number 27. Selden de Successionibus Hebr. Cap. 12. But the Mother was wholly excluded Secondly According to the Greeks the Provision for the Succession of the Father is left doubtful Petit Leges 1 6. fol. 6. According to the Romans or Civil Law by the Construction of the Law of the Twelve Tables the Father succeeds in the purchase of the Son for want of Issue of the Son under the Title of Proximus Agnatus and accordingly was their Vsage tho' my Lord Coke supposed the contrary Co. Lit. 5. But to settle all the Institutes of Justinian Lib. 3. Tit. 3. in an Authentick Collection 8. Tit. de Haered ' ab intestato venientibus the Son dying without Issue his Brothers and Sisters Father and Mother do succeed him in a kind of Coparcenary as well to Lands as Goods According to the Customs of Normandy which in some things have a Cognition with the Laws of England the Son dying without Issue his Brothers are preferred before the Father but the Father is preferred before the Vncles Terrien lib. 6. c. 6. la Customier de Normandie cap. Descheants 5. According to the Laws of England the Son dying without Issue or Brother or Sister the Father cannot succeed but it descends to the Vncle. And it is a Maxim of the English Law An Inheritance cannot Lineally ascend Consequently the Question being in this Case touching a Discent of Lands in England it must be Ruled and Disputed according to the Grounds and Reasons of the Laws of England Secondly Touching the Second the Division of Discents are of two kinds First Lineal as from the Father or Grandfather to the Son or Grandson Secondly Collateral or Transversal as from Brother to Brother Vncle to Nephew or è converso And both these are again of two sorts First Immediate as in Lineals from Father to Son Secondly Mediate as in Lineals from Grandfather to Grandson the Father dying in the Life of the Grandfather when the Father is the medium differens of the Discent Thirdly In Collaterals from the Vncle to the Nephew or from the Nephew to the Vncle where the Father is likewise the medium differens And I call this a Mediate Discent tho' as to many purposes it be Immediate for the Father dying in the Life of the Grandfather the Son succeeds in point of Discent of the Laws immediately to the Grandfather and in a Writ of Entry shall be supposed in the Per to the Grandfather and not in the Per and Cui But I call it a Mediate Discent because the Father is the medium through or by whom the Son derives his Title to the Grandfather Therefore if any man thinks the term of Mediate Discent not properly used he may if he please use the words of Mediate or Immediate Ancestors Words are imposed to signifie Things and therefore the Terms being explained what I mean by them I shall retain the Terms of Mediate or Immediate Discents This distinction of Discents or Relations between Ancestor and Heir and Hereditary Succession will be of use throughout this whole Debate In Immediate Discents there can be no Impediment but what arises in the parties themselves For Instance The Father seised of Lands the Impediment that hinders the Discent must be either in the Father or the Son as if the Father or the Son be Attaint or an Alien In Immediate Discents a Disability of being an Alien or Attaint in him that I call a medius Ancestor will disable a person to take by Discent tho' he himself hath no such Disability For Instance In Lineal Discents If the Father be Attaint or an Alien and hath Issue a Denizen born and dies in the life of the Grandfather the Grandfather dies seised the Son shall not take but the Land shall Escheat In Collateral Discents A. and B. Brothers A. is an Alien or Attainted and hath Issue C. a Denizen born B. purchaseth Lands and dies without Issue C. shall not inherit for A. which was the Medius Ancestor or medium differens of this Discent was incapable Dyer 274. Gray's Case And this is apparent in this very Case for by this means Patrick tho' a Denizen and the Son of an Elder Brother is disabled to inherit the Earl A. and B. Brothers A. is an Alien or person Attainted and hath Issue C. and dies and C. purchaseth Lands and dies without Issue B. his Vncle shall not inherit for the Reason before-going for A. is a Medius which was disabled This is Courtney's Case And if in our Case Patrick the Son of Nicholas altho' a Denizen born had purchased Lands and died without Issue John his Vncle should not have Inherited him by reason of the Disability of Nicholas and yet Nicholas himself had he not been an Alien could not immediately have Inherited to his Son but yet he is a Block in the way to John See the Reason 17 E. 4. cap. 1. But this must be intended of such as are absolute Impediments as Attainder or Alien not Temporary suspensions As in the Lord Delaware's Case in 10 Co. But in any Discents the Impediment of
1 W. M. After which Judgment for the Defendants 166 That the said Defendants shall go sine die and have their Costs 167 Averment that the said Judgment remains in full force That the Goods in the said Action of Trespass and this of Trover are the same That the Conversion in this Action and the Taking in the other is the same That the Cause of Action was the same in both And that the Plaintiffs and Defendants are the same Et hoc parati sunt verificare unde petunt Judicium si praedicti the Plaintiffs Actionem suam versus eos habere debeant c. Not guilty to the residue of the Goods The Plaintiffs demur The Defendants joyn 168 Vsury Pleaded Vid. Debt 7. Way Action for stopping it Vid. Action on the Case 5. WE all knowing the Great Learning and Judgment of the Author do for the Benefit of the Public approve of and allow the Printing and Publishing of this Book Intituled The Reports of Sir Peyton Ventris Kt. Late One of the Justices of the Court of Common-Pleas J. Som̄ers C.S. J. Holt Geo Treby Ed Nevill Joh. Powell W. Gregory N. Lechmere Tho. Rokeby G Eyre Jo Turton John Powell Sam. Eyre April the 20 th 1965. The Second Volume TERMINO SANCTI HILLARII Anno Vicesimo primo secundo Caroli Secundi IN COMMUNI BANCO Craw versus Ramsey IN an Ejectment of Lands and the Rectory of Kingston upon Thames in Surrey Vpon Not Guilty pleaded the Jury found a Special Verdict to this effect viz. That Robert Ramsey Born in Scotland before the Accession thereof to the Crown of England had Issue four Sons Robert Nicholas John and George Antenati Robert died they do not find when leaving Issue three Daughters Margaret Isabel and Jane who were also Aliens and alive 1 Octob. 14 Car. 1. Nicholas had Issue Patrick born in England 1 May 1618. They also find that at the Parliament holden 10 Car. 1. in Ireland it was Enacted That all Persons of the Scottish Nation should be reputed the Kings Natural Subjects to all intents constructions and purposes of that his Realm of Ireland as if Born there And they find the Act of Parliament at large Nicholas Ramsey was alive at the making of that Act. John the third Son afterwards Earl of Holderness was Naturalized by Act of Parliament in England 1 Jacobi and purchased the Lands and Rectory in question and being seised 22 Jac by Indenture Tripartite between him of the First part Sir William Cocke and Martha his Daughter of the Second part and Charles Lord Effingham of the Third part In Consideration of a Marriage to be had between him and Martha did Covenant to levy a Fine to the use of himself for Life and afterwards to Martha for Life the Remainder to the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to his own right Heirs And 29 Septemb. 22 Jac. the Marriage was had and the Michaelmas Term after a Fine was Levied accordingly The 24 of Jan. 1 Car. 1. the Earl died without Issue Martha Entred and was seised for her Life and died 17 Car. Et eodem anno it was found by Office that the Earl of Holderness died seised of the Rectory as before and without an Heir and that King Charles anno decimo granted this Rectory to one Murray George the fourth Son of Robert was Naturalized by the Parliament here 7 Jac. He had Issue John the Defendant Nicholas died Patrick his Heir in 1651. bargained and sold to the Earl of Elgin and one Sydenham virtute cujus vigore Statuti c. they were seised prout Lex postulat and in 1662. bargained and sold for years to Amabel Countess of Kent and Jane Hart and afterwards Released to them and their Heirs in 1665. They being seised bargained and sold by Lease and Release also to Pullen and Neale who Entred and bargained and sold to Sir Lionel Talmash and West the Lessors of the Plaintiff upon whom John the Defendant Entred Vpon which the Action is brought and the great Question in the Case was Whether Patrick the Son of Nicholas might claim these Lands as Heir to the Earl of Holderness by virtue of the Act of Parliament in Ireland 10 Car. or that they should descend to the Defendant the Son of George Naturalized the 7 of Jac. in England Wyld and Archer who Argued first were of Opinion That however the Point was adjudged the Plaintiff could not have Judgment upon this Verdict for they do not find that Patrick entred or was seised but that he in 1651. did bargain and sell c. Virtute cujus the Bargainees were seised prout Lex postulat and then bargained and sold in 1662 and do not so much as find their Bargainees seised prout Lex postulat But they find the Defendant Entred and so the primer Possession is in him which is a good Title against the Plaintiff for whom none is found it not being found that Patrick Entred Again If the Naturalization in Ireland will serve in England the Title appears for the Daughters the Heirs of Robert the eldest Son for 't is found that he died but not when so it might be after the Act of 10 Car. But Tyrrell and Vaughan Chief Justice differed in these two Points As to the First They said it would be intended Patrick entred for a Verdict that leaves all the Matter at large to the Iudgment of the Court will be taken sometimes by Intendment as well as where the Jury Conclude upon a Special Point 2 Cro. 64. find an Incumbent Resigned the Resignation shall be intended accepted So in 4 Co. Fullwood's Case it was found that one came before the Recorder of London and Mayor of the Staple recognovit se debere c. and did not say per scriptum suum Obligatorium nec per formam Statuti yet intended so Vid. Hob. 262. And where they find the Bargainees seised prout lex postulat that doth not leave it doubtful whether seised or no but whether by right or wrong for Seisin must be taken as found expresly Neither do they find any other in possession nor that the Defendant made any Claim in Twelve years after which enforces the Intendment as before And it is found expresly that Pullen and Neale Entred in 1665. so that the Defendant had not the primer Possession however or if he had he should not have Judgment if no other Title were found for him as is Resolved in 1 Cro. 42. Hern and Allen's Case As to the Second It shall be intended Robert died before 10 Car. For he is found an Alien and shall be presumed to have continued so during his Life unless found to the contrary then the Discent to the Daughters is obstructed by the Incapacity of their Father And tho' when the Title is found for the King the Court shall adjudge for him because the Kings Courts are intrusted with his Rights 't is not so of any other person but they shall take no
of the Crown so 11. and so it was held in the Case of the Earl of Essex in Queen Elizabeths Time and in the Lord Cobham's Case in the Reign of King James the First And the Chief Justice cited the Statute made 29 H. 6. cap. 1. upon the Rebellion of Jack Cade which Act sets forth that John Cade naming himself John Mortimer falsly and traiterously imagined the Death of the King and the destruction and subversion of this Realm in gathering together and levying of a great Number of the King's People and exciting them to Rise against the King c. against the Royal Crown and Dignity of the King was an Overt act of imagining the Death of the King and made and levied War falsly and trayterously against the King and his Highness c. So that it appears by that Act that it was the Iudgment of the Parliament That gathering Men together and exciting them to Rise against the King was an Overt Act of Imagining the Death of the King Vide Stamford's Pleas of the Crown fo 180. And according to this Opinion Judgment was given against Harding in the following Sessions and he was Executed thereupon NOta At an Adjourned Sessions held the 19th of May 2 Willielmi Mariae it appeared that one of the Kings Witnesses which was to be produced in an Indictment for Treason had been the day before Challenged to Fight by a Gentleman that it was said was a Member of the House of Commons he was by the Court bound in a Recognizance of 500 l to keep the Peace And because it appeared the Witness had accepted the Challenge he was bound in the like Sum. NOta Vpon an Appeal to the House of Lords Anno 2 Willielmi Mariae the sole Question was Whether upon the Statute of Distributions 22 23 Car. 2. the half Blood should have an equal share with the whole Blood of the Personal Estate And by the Advice of the two Chief Justices and some other of the Judges the Decree of the Lords was That the Half Blood should have an Equal share Samon versus Jones IN an Ejectment brought in the Court of Exchequer in the year of the Reign of the late King James the Second The Case upon a Special Verdict was to this effect William Lewis seised of a Reversion in Fee expectant upon an Estate for Life did by Deed Poll in Consideration of Natural love and affection which he had to his Wife and Robert Lewis his Son and Heir apparent begotten on the Body of his said Wife and to Ellen his Daughter give grant and confirm unto the said Robert Lewis the Son all those Lands c. the Reversion and Reversions Remainder and Remainders thereof To have and to hold to his Son and his Heirs to the Vses following viz. to the use of himself for Life and then mentioned several other Vses not necessary to be here mentioned as not material to the Point in question and then to the use of the Wife for Life and after to the use of Robert and the Heirs of his Body and for want of such Issue to the use of Ellen the Daughter and the Heirs of her Body c. William Lewis and his Wife died Robert the Son devised the Estate to the Lessor of the Plaintiff and died without Issue Ellen was in possession and claimed the Lands by this Deed in which thâ—re was a Warranty but no Execution of the said Deed further than the Sealing and Delivery was had either by Enrolment Attornment or otherwise So that the sole Question was Whether this Deed should operate as a Covenant to stand seised or be void And it was Adjudged to amount to a Covenant to stand seised in the Court of the Exchequer And upon a Writ of Error brought upon the Statute of Ed. 3. before the Commissioners of the Great Seal and others empowered by that Act to sit upon Writs of Error of Judgments given in the Court of Exchequer the said Judgment was Reversed by the Opinion of Holt Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and Pollexfen Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas And upon a Writ of Error before the Lords in Parliament brought upon the said last Judgment it was Argued for the Plaintiff in the VVrit of Error That this should enure as a Covenant to stand seised to the use of the Wife Son c. It appears by Bedell's Case in the 7 Co. and Foxe's Case in the 8 Co. that the words proper to a Conveyance are not necessary but ut res magis valeat a Conveyance may work as a Bargain and Sale tho' the words be not used so as a Covenant to stand seised tho' the word Covenant is not in the Deed and and Poplewell's Case were cited in 2 Roll. Abr. 786 787. A Feme in Consideration of a Marriage intended to be had between her and J. S. did give grant and confirm Lands to J.S. and his Heirs with a Clause of VVarranty in the Deed which was also Enrolled but no Livery was made It was Resolved to operate as a Covenant to stand seised Vide Osborn and Churchman's Case in the 2 Cro. 127. which seems contrary to that Case but the chiefest Case relied upon was that of Crossing and Scudamore Mod. Rep. 175. where a man by Indenture bargained sold enfeoffed and confirmed certain Lands to his Daughter and her Heirs and no Consideration of Natural Love or Money exprest This was Resolved 22 Car. 2. in B.R. to operate as a Covenant to stand seised and upon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber the Judgment was affirmed It was said on the other side for the Defendant That the Case at Bar differed from the Cases cited for here the Intention of the Deed is to transfer the Estate to the Son and that the Vses should arise out of such Estate so transferred In the Cases cited no Vses are limited upon the Estate purported or intended to be Conveyed but only an Intention appearing to convey an Estate to the Daughter in Crossing's Case and to the intended Husband in Poplewell's Case and seeing for want of due Execution in those Cases the Estate could not pass at Law it shall pass by raising of an Vse But the Case at Bar is much the same with the Case of Hore and Dix in Siderfin the 1st Part. 25. where one by Indenture between him and his Son of the one part and two Strangers of the other part in Consideration of Natural love did give grant and enfeoff the two Strangers to the use of himself for Life Remainder to the Son in Tail c. and no other Execution was three than the Sealing and Delivery of the Deed this was Resolved not to raise an Vse for the Vse was limited to rise out of the Seisin of the Strangers who took no Estate Vide Pitfield and Pierce's Case 15 Car. 1. Marche's Rep. 50. One gave granted and confirmed Lands to his Son after his Death this Deed had been
and it s a Devise That all his Personal Estate shall be laid out c. Curia There is nothing to be laid out until the Debts and Legacies paid the 80 l is not to the Daughter but for the Mother 'T is taken for granted that where a Sum of Money is devised to a Child at such an Age it shall have the Interest in the mean time rather than the Executor shall swallow it but clear when no Maintenance is otherwise provided for The Lord Chancellor Decreed it for the Daughter and that the Executor should account for what Interest he paid the Brother Note Tho' it be said that the Money to be laid out after all Legacies paid yet all besides what serves to pay the Legacies should be laid out presently Anonymus Trin. Anno 31 Car. II. A Devise of 100 l to J.S. at the Age of 21 years and if J.S. died under Age then J.N. and A.B. to have the 100 l or else the Survivor of them A.B. and J.N. dye both in the life of J. S. and before the Age of 21 years and then J.S. dies under the Age of 21 years The Administrator of J.N. who survived A.B. sued and obtained a Decree for the 100 l for tho' he died before the Contingency hapned yet his Administrator should have it Charles Blois al' Plaintiffs versus Dame Jane Blois and Jane Blois Infants Defendants Mich. Anno 31 Car. II. THe Case was thus Sir William Blois who had Issue the Plaintiff and two Daughters by a former Venter and Jane the Defendant by a second Venter upon his second Marriage setled Lands for the Ioynture of his Wife and after her decease in case he had Issue only a Daughter to raise 3000 l for that Daughter to be paid her at the Day of Marriage so that she married after Sixteen or otherwise at the Age of Eighteen years and if she died before either then his Heir to have the benefit Afterwards Sir William Blois by his Will devises the Reversion of his setled Lands and all his other Estate to Jane his Relict one of the Defendants and three others and says That after the Son by a convenient Match shall have raised 9000 l for his three Daughters that then they should let the Son the now Plaintiff have his Estate The Question now was That if the Daughter by the second Venter had 3000 l paid her whether she should have any further benefit by the Settlement and so take a double Portion one upon the Will and another upon the Settlement The Decree made by my Lord Fynch was That if the Heir paid 9000 l the Security by the Settlement should be discharged the Will being but Cumulative Security and so the Defendant Jane was to have but one 3000 l and be subject to the same Contingencies with the Settlement and gave the Heir two years time to pay the Money and in the mean time Jane to have a third part of the Profits of the Land devised My Lord Chancellor cited one Pyne's Case where a man had secured Portions for his Children and afterwards by his Will Devised to each of them a like Sum it was held that this would not double their Portions unless plainly proved that he intended to do so Nota If one sue in Chancery an Executor of one Obligor to discover Assets you must make all the Obligors parties that the Charge may lye equal Quaere Whether you may not sue the Principal and leave out them that are bound only as Sureties But 't is clear that if a Judgment be had at Law against one Obligor you may sue the Executor of him alone to discover Assets c. because the Bond is drowned in the Judgment Turner's Case A Mortgage was made in Fee which descended to the Heir at Law and the Money ten years since paid to him The Executor of the Mortgagee preferred his Bill and had a Decree for the Money but without Interest My Lord Chancellor went upon the Reason of the Case in Littleton That if a Feoffment be made upon Condition to re-enter upon the payment of a Sum of Money and not expressed to whom to be paid there after the Death of the Feoffee it must be paid to the Executor and not to the Heir So here tho' the Proviso was to pay to the Feoffee his Heirs or Executors yet when the Day is past 't is as much as if no person had been expressed and then Equity shall follow the Law and appoint it to the Executor Termino Paschae Anno 32 Car. II. In Cancellaria Anonymus AN Impropriator devised to one that served the Cure and to all that should serve the Cure after him all the Tythes and other Profits c. Tho' the Curate was incapable to take by this Devise in such manner for want of being Incorporate and having Succession yet my Lord Chancellor Finch Decreed That the Heir of the Devisee should be seised in Trust for the Curate for the time being Broadhurst versus Richardson al' A Man had Issue three Daughters and devised to his three Daughters 540 l equally to be divided between them that is to say 180 l apiece but if any of them died without Child her part to go to the Survivors One of the Daughters married Broadhurst and before the Portion paid she died without Issue Broadhurst Exihibits his Bill against the Executor and the two surviving Sisters and had a Decree for the 180 l For a Sum of Money cannot be Entailed Anonymus IF Lands be devised for the payment of Debts and Legacies and the residue of the Personal Estate be given to the Executors after the Debts and Legacies paid the Personal Estate shall notwithstanding as far as it will go be applied to the payment of the Debts c. and the Land charged no further than is necessary to make up the residue Termino Sancti Hillarij Anno 32 33 Car. II. In Cancellaria Sayle Freeland al' Infants THe Bill was to Redeem a Mortgage made by the Father of the Defendants or to be foreclosed The Defendants by Guardian Answered setting forth That their Grandfather was seised in Fee and made a Settlement whereby he entailed the Estate but with a power of Revocation by any Writing published under his Hand and Seal in the presence of three Witnesses And the Case was That he made his Will under his Hand and Seal wherein he recited his Power and declared that he Revoked the Settlement but the Will had but two Witnesses which subscribed their Names tho' a third present and died The Lands descended to the Father who made the Mortgage and the Defendants claimed by virtue of the Entail The Decree was that the Mortgage Money should be paid First My Lord Chancellor said that here was an Execution of the Power in strictness tho' the third Witness did not Subscribe Secondly If there had not that Equity should help it in such a little Circumstance where the Owner of
business to enquire of the Condition of her whom he will make his Wife Then the next thing to be considered is the Infancy of the Defendant and that is nothing in this Case Porter who was the probablest person to give notice is found to be an Infant too Conditions in Fact bind Infants Again the Condition here relates to an Act which she is capable of doing The Statute of Merton which Enacts Non currant usurae c. whereby Infants are exempted from Penalties yet in another Chapter gives the Forfeiture of the said double value to the Lord where his Ward Marries without his consent 'T is a restraint laid upon her in a matter proper for her Condition and with respect to her Condition that being and Infant she might advise with her Friends about her Marriage The Cases which have been objected do not come to this Case as the Opinion in Sanders and Carwells Case which might be good Law if it could be known what that case was for the words might either explicitly or implicitly require notice as if they were if he refused to pay c. or it may be no time might be set for payment for in Molineux Case there Rents were granted and after a Devise for the payment of them which naturally lie in demand Secondly There it concerned the younger Children to give notice for the Rents were not only to be paid to them but upon failer of payment the Land was Devised to them So that was a Concurrence of concern in them as to the performance of the Condition and the Estate they should acquire by the Breach Whereas the Plaintiff in this Case is not concerned in the performance of the Condition Thirdly The penning of the Condition were quite differs for 't is upon default of payment which implies notice must be first had In Frances Case there would have been no need of notice if the Devise had not béen to the Heir which is the only thing wherein it differs materially from this Case In Alfords Case the debate was occasioned by the special penning for it was thus that if thorough Obliviousness the Trusts should not happen to be performed Now there could be no Oblivion of that they never knew therefore there is some Opinion there that the Mayor and Citizens of L. ought to have had a precedent notice yet the Judgment is contrary for they could not have been barred by the Fine and Non-claim if notice had been necessary to the Commencement of their Title and 't is not found whether those to whom the Estate was devised before had notice so that this cause proves rather that there needs no notice in this case than otherwise Wherefore the Plaintiff must have his Judgment When my Lord Chief Justice had concluded Rainsford said he had spoken with Justice Moreton who declared to him that he was of the same Opinion Fitzgerald versus Marshall ERror of a Judgment given in the Kings Bench in Ireland in affirmance of a Judgment removed thither by Error out of the Common Pleas in Ireland By the Record it appeared that the Writ of Error to the Common Bench was directed Rob. Booth Militi Socijs suis quia in Recordo processu ac in redditione Judicij loquelae quae suit coram vobis Socijs vestris And the Judgment certified appeared to be in an Action commenced in the time of Sir R. Smith who died and Sir R. Booth made Chief Justice in his place before Judgment given And the Court here were of Opinion that the Record was not well removed into the Kings Bench there by that Writ which commanded them to remove Recordum loquelae coram R. Booth whereas the loquela commenced before R. Smith and the Titling of the Record is in such case placita coram R. Smith c. tho' some of the Continuances might be entred coram R. Booth and the Judgment given in his time and for this Cause the Judgment given in affirmance in the Kings Bench there was reversed Sir Samuel Sterling versus Turner ERror of a Judgment in the Common Bench in an Action upon the Case where the Plaintiff declared upon the Custom of London of Electing of two Men in the Office of Bridge-masters every year by the Citizens assembled in a Common Hall and a Custom that if two be Competitors he that is chosen by the greatest number of Votes is duely Elected and that if one in such case desire the Polls to be numbred the Mayor ought to grant the Poll. And shews that there was a Common Hall assembled the 18 of October 22. Regis nunc Sterling being Mayor and that then the Plaintiff and one Allet stood as Competitors to be chosen to that Office and avers that he had the greatest number of Voices and that he affirmed then and there that he had the greatest number which the other denying he requested the Mayor that according to the Custom they might go to the Poll and the Defendant not minding the Execution of his Office but violating the Law and Custom of the City then and there did maliciously refuse the numbering of the Polls but immediately made Proclamation and dismissed the Court by which he lost the Fees and Profits of the Place which he averred belonged unto it Vpon Not guilty pleaded and Verdict for the Plaintiff after it had béen several times argued in Arrest of Judgment that this Action did not lie it was adjudged for the Plaintiff by Tyrrel Archer and Wyld Vaughan dissenting And now Error was brought and assigned in the matter of Law and argued for that it was incertain whether the Plaintiff should have been Elected and that he could not bring an Action for a possibility of damage and this was no more not being decided who had the greatest number of Voices But the Court were clear of Opinion that the Judgment should be affirmed for the Defendant deprived the Plaintiff of the means whereby it should appear whether he had the greatest number of Electors or no. And Hale said it was a very good President and so it was adjudged by both Courts One D. of Bedfordshire Esquire was indicted of High Treason for coyning a great number of counterfeit pieces of Guinnies of Gold 23 Regis nunc and being Arraigned at the Bar he pleaded the Kings Pardon which was of all Treasons and of this in particluar but did not mention that he stood indicted Twisden said that my Lord Keeling was of Opinion that such a Pardon was not good But Hale said it might be well enough in this case but in case of Murther it is necessary to recite it because of the Statute of 27 E. 3. 2. vid. 10 E. 3. 2. 14 E. 3. 15. and so it was allowed The Lady Chesters Case A Prohibition was prayed to the Prerogative Court of Canterbury Sir Henry Wood having devised the Guardianship of his Daughter by his Will in VVriting according to the Act of this King to the Lady Chester his
Sister the Dutchess of Cleaveland to whose Son this Daughter being about 8 years old was contracted pretending that Sir Henry VVood by word revoked this disposition of the Guardianship Sued in the Prerogative Court to have this nuncupative Codicil proved and the Court granted a Prohibition for they are not to prove a VVill concerning the Guardianship of a Child which is a thing conusable here and to be judged whether it be devised pursuant to the Statute And Hale said that they may prove a VVill which contains Goods and Lands tho' formerly a Prohibition used to go quoad the Lands Vid. 1 Cro. Netter and Percivalls Case Prior versus .... ERror was brought of a Judgment in this Court into the Exchequer Chamber and Error in fact was then assigned and the Court being there of Opinion that Error in fact could not be assigned there they affirmed the Judgment upon which the Record with the Affirmation was remitted hither and a Writ of Error was brought here coram vobis residen ' as is usual for Error in fact It was pray'd that upon putting in not Bail this new Writ of Error might be a Supersedeas to the Execution But the Court held that this Writ was not to be allowed in this case for the Judgment given in this Court being affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber transit in rem judicatam there and a Writ of Error cannot be brought here upon a Judgment there and 't is always the course in Writs of Error to recite all the proceedings that have been in the matter as if a Judgment be removed hither by Error out of the Common Pleas and here affirmed and then brought into Parliament the last Writ must recite both the Judgment in Communi Banco and the Affirmation here And whereas this Writ goes by the Judgment into the Exchequer Chamber and mentions only the Judgment here it must therefore be quashed And it is the course if a Writ of Error be brought here upon Error in fact of a Judgment here that the Writ should be allowed in Court And the Court said they would allow none in this Case Throwers Case HE was indicted at the Sessions of the Peace at Ipswich for Stopping communem viam pedestrem ad Ecclesiam de Witby It was removed hither by Certiorari and the Court were moved to quash it for it was objected That an Indictent would not lye for a Nusans in a Church-path but Suit might be in the Ecclesiastical Court. Besides the Damage is private and concerns only the Parishioners Where there is a foot way to a Common every Commoner may bring his Action if it be stoped but in such case there can be no Indictment Hale said if this were alledged to be communis via pedestris ad Ecclesiam pro parochianis the Indictment would not be good for then the Nusans would extend no further than the Parishioners for which they have their particular Suits but for ought appears this is a common foot way and the Church is only the Terminus ad quem and it may lead further the Church being expressed only to ascertain it and 't is laid ad commune nocumentum wherefore the Rule was that he should Plead to it The Lady Prettymans Case A Judgment was had in a Scire facias brought against her upon a former Judgment upon two Nihils returned And the Court was moved to set it aside for that it was alledged that before the Scire facias brought she was married to Sir John Pretty-man and that it was brought against her as sole by contrivance between the Plaintiff and her Husband to oppress her and lay her up in Prison and it was shewn that the Plaintiff knew of the Marriage for he being an Attorney had prosecuted an other Action before the return of the Scire facias against her and her Husband and that she could not help her self by Error or Audita Querela because her Husband would Release The Court said they might set aside the Judgment for the misdemeanour of the Plaintiff but because they were informed that this Marriage was under debate in the Ecclesiastical Court and near to a Sentence they suspended making any Rule in this while that was determined Twisden said he had a Case from my Lord Keeling where a Feme Covert Infant levied a Fine and her Friends got a VVrit of Error in her Husbands and her name that the Court would not suffer the Husband to Release But Hale said he could not see how that could be avoided but he had known that in such case the Court would not permit the Husband to disavow the Guardian which they admitted for the VVife How 's Case HE was indicted of an Assault Battery and VVounding of Thomas Masters Esquire and Found Guilty at the Assizes in Gloucestershire Now the Attorney General moved the Court to set a Fine and such an one as might be exemplary according to the demerit of the Fact for he shewed that a great part of the Gentry of Gloucester amongst which were How and Masters being assembled at Circencester about the Election of a Burgess for that Town How without any provocation struck Masters on the Cheek with the end of his Cane which had an Iron pike at it and that if Masters had not governed himself with much moderation and prudence it had in all probability engaged the whole Assembly in a dangerous quarrel they being both Men of great Estates and Quality in the Country And the Attorney said there was nothing more necessary than that somewhat of a limited Starchamber should be exercised in this Court for the due punishment of such enormous Crimes as these Hale said that they were much discouraged from setting Fines for the new Act binds them to estreat them into the Exchequer and then it was well known whether they went meaning to such as farmed them from the King by Patent The Attorney replied that the legality of such Patents was to be questioned and that one which was granted to the Earl of Berkshire 7 Co. Penal Statutes was now like to be resumed and it was fit it should seeing it was like to prove an obstruction to the publick Iustice Then it was doubted whether the Fine could be set How not being present but held it might but the Course is not to hear any thing moved in mitigation of the Fine unless the Party be present and he was fined 500 Marks Ward versus Forth IN Debt upon a Bond the Defendant pleads that he delivered the Deed as an Escrow to J. S. c. hoc paratus est verificare To this it was demurred For that he ought to have concluded issint ninet son fait for this matter amounts to a Special Non est factum and the Plaintiff cannot reply that he delivered it as his Deed absque hoc that he delivered it as an Escrow and so said the Court. Shermans Case BY Certiorari an Order for the keeping of a Bastard Child by the