Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	admit_v	arise_v	great_a	24	3	2.0729	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47716	The second part of Reports and cases of law argued and adjudged in the courts at Westminster in the time of the late Q. Elizabeth, from the XVIIIth to the XXXIIId year of her reign collected by that learned professor of the law, William Leonard ... ; with alphabetical tables of the names of the cases and of the matters contained in the book.; Reports and cases of law argued and adjudged in the courts at Westminster. Part 2	Leonard, William.	1687 (1687)	Wing L1105; ESTC R19612	303,434	242

Covenant performed But if the words had been in consideration of the said Covenant to be performed then he had been bound to pay the money presently and he should have his remedy by Covenant CCLXV. Foster 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench NOTE It was said and holden by the whole Court in this Case That in Debt brought against Executors If the Defendants plead That the Testator was bound in a Recognizance in such a sum beyond which they have not any thing in their hands That it is a good Replication to say That the Recognizance was entred into for performance of Covenants contained in certain Indentures of which Covenants none are yet broken CCLXVI. Partridge 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A Quo Warranto was brought against Partridge in which Case It was holden by all the Iustices That a man may prescribe to hold a Leet oftener than twice in one year and at other days than are set in the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 35. because the said Statute is in the Affirmative But Popham said That one cannot prescribe against a Statute See for the same Book of Entries 13 E. 3. Leet 12. and he said That the want of a Tunbrel and Pillory is a good cause of forfeiture of the Liberty which Coke denied And it was farther moved by Popham That if a general pardon be granted with general exceptions in it he that will take advantage of the same ought to plead it and shew that he is not any person excepted for otherwise the Iudges cannot allow him the benefit of it because they do not know if he be a person excepted or not But if there were special persons excepted by name and none other excepted but onely those persons there the party needs not to plead it for the Court may discern J. B. from J. D. See 8 E. 3. 7. and 26 H. 8. 7. If a man commits Felony and also Treason and afterwards comes a general pardon for the Felony but Treason is excepted and the party is arraigned of Felony by Coke he shall have the benefit of the pardon but Popham contrary for he is disabled by the Treason And it was agreed by the whole Court That in a Quo Warranto It is not sufficient for the Defendant to say That such a Subject hath lawfull interest to hold a Leet without making Title to himself for the Writ is Quo Warranto he claims c. And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Queen CCLXVII Wiggen and Arscot 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN a Prohibition the surmise was That the Exposition of Statutes doth belong unto the Queen's temporal Courts and Arscot had sued in the spiritual Court for Tithes whereas in truth for not reading of the Articles according to the Statute of 13 Eliz. he was deprived ipso facto and so he was not Parson for which cause Gawdy prayed a Prohibition for he said that the surmise was good and sufficient For the Question is Parson or not Parson and that shall be tried here by the Common Law. And I do not know that it hath ever been ruled here to the contrary before Clench Iustice It hath not been ruled to the contrary yet because great inconvenience may arise upon the admitting of it The Court hath taken order That no Prohibition shall be granted upon such a surmise without great probability of the truth of the surmise Where a Prohibition is awarded upon such a surmise the party needs not to prove his surmise according to the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. for this surmise is conceived upon a cause of later time since the said Statute and was not any cause to have a Prohibition at the time of the said Statute CCLXVIII Winter and Loveday 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 759. IN an Action of Covenant by Winter against Loveday It was found by special Verdict That Winter by Deed indented Mortgaged to Loveday a certain Lease upon condition to pay 400 l. to Loveday at a day certain at the porch of such a Church and upon such payment Winter to have back his Lease and Loveday covenanted That upon repayment of the money he should have back all his Evidences concerning the same and it was farther found That at the day of payment one Cornwallys sent unto Loveday to know if Loveday would receive the money which Winter owed to him at his house who answered that he was content and he came there and the money was told and delivered in bags to Loveday but afterwards some contention did arise between Winter and Loveday for certain Writings for which cause Cornwallys said That if they would not agree betwixt them That they should not have his money Whereupon Winter requested Cornwallis that he might have the money to carry to the said porch of the said Parish Church who was contented and there Loveday came to receive it and Winter would not pay it Tanfield moved That the same was a good payment to discharge the Mortgage for the money was told in the house of Cornwallis and Loveday there put it up into bags and the same is a good payment and receit Coke contrary Here is not any payment for it was not the money of Winter but of Cornwallis as appeareth by the words of Cornwallis scil If they could not agree they should not have his money Also Winter requested Cornwallis that he might have the money to carry to the porch of the Parish Church aforesaid by which it appeareth that it was not Winter's money And for that cause it was also the opinion of the Court that the same was not any sufficient tender See for this 1 Len. 34 35. the Case of Watkins and Astwick Hil. 28 Eliz. CCLXIX Ordway and Parrot 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench ORdway brought a Scire facias against Parrot and Hallsey who were Bail in a Bill of Debt for one Bennet and they pleaded That the said Bennet had payed the money recovered to the Plaintiff according to the condition of the Recognizance and it was the opinion of the whole Court that it was no Plea without alledging payment upon Record for if this should be suffered every man should be inforced twice to trie his Action wherefore the Plea was disallowed CCLXX. Coniers and Holland 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 3 Cro. 279. 2 Cro. 483. 620. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit by Coniers against Holland The Defendant pleaded That after the promise that the Plaintiff had discharged him of it And by Wray chief Iustice It is a good Plea and so it hath been often ruled and it was late the Case of the Lord chief Baron against whom in such an Action such a Plea was pleaded and he moved us to declare our opinions in Serjeant's-Inn and there by the greater opinion it was holden to be a good Plea for which cause The Court said to Buckley who

Council by him assigned a sufficient and lawfull discharge of an annual Rent which the Plaintiff claims out of two houses of the Defendant in B. aforesaid That then the said Bond shall be void and the Defendant said That he at the day assigned contained in the Condition that A. and B. by assignment of the Defendant came to B. and tendred to shew to N. and W. of the Plaintiff's Council a sufficient discharge of the said annual Rent and that they did refuse to see it upon which there was a demurrer in Law and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and that the Plea was no Plea for the Defendant ought to have shewed in his Plea what manner of discharge he would have shewed as a release unity of possession c. But as the Case is here If the Plaintiff shall traverse the Plea in Bar the issue joined upon it cannot be tried for the Iury cannot know which is a lawfull and sufficient discharge but the same shall be tried by the Court for if the Defendant had tendered to the Plaintiff a discharge by unity of possession the Iury cannot know if it be a sufficient discharge and as the Plea is here he hath not shewed what discharge he would have shewed to the said Council and therefore we cannot judge of the same If one be bound to plead a sufficient Plea before such a day in such a Court in such an Action it is not sufficient that he hath pleaded a sufficient Plea but he ought to shew what Plea he hath pleaded otherwise the Court cannot judge if the Plea be sufficient or not Vid. 35 H. 6. 19. and 37 H. 8. Br. Cand. 16. where a man will plead that he hath saved the party harmless he ought to shew how Shute Iustice and Clench Iustice If the Defendant had pleaded not disturbed by any indirect means such a Plea had been good enough Gawdy Iustice If he had pleaded not disturbed contra formam Conditionis praed it had been a good Plea In a Writ of Entry Ne entra pas contra formam Statuti He did not alien within age is a Negative pregnant but the party may say he did not alien Modo forma all the part to this Plea which comes after the But is surplusage and Negation Gawdy It is a Plea which is pleaded with all the words of the Condition intirely Clench The Case put by Godfrey 22 E. 4. differs from the Case at Bar For there he pleaded all in the affirmative therefore in such a Case he ought to plead specially but in the Case at Bar all is in the Negative in which Case such special pleading is not necessary If I be bounden that I shall not go out of Westminster-hall untill night but tarry in the Hall till night In an Action against me upon that Bond I may plead in iisdem verbis If I be bound upon Condition That I will not return to Serjeant's-Inn the direct way but by St. Giles I shall plead in totidem verbis Godfrey I agree those Cases for the matter which comes after the But is triable by the Countrey but so it is not in the principal Case Clench But is but a word of surplusage and if that and all which follows had been left out it had been well enough It was adjourned CCXLIX Courtney and Kelloway 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas COurtney brought an Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. concerning Perjury against Kelloway and declared That where Sir Gawen Carew had heretofore brought an Action upon the Case against the now Plaintiff for slanderous words viz. because that the said now Plaintiff had affirmed that the said Sir Gawen had had the Pocks To which Declaration the now Plaintiff had pleaded that Kelloway the now Defendant reported to the said now Plaintiff That he himself i. e. Kelloway had heretofore healed the said Sir Gawen of the Pocks Absque hoc that he spake them simply of his own head upon which they were at issue and the said Kelloway was produced as a witness on the part of the said Courtney and the said Kelloway upon his oath deposed at the Trial of the said issue That he never had reported to the now Plaintiff That he himself had healed the said Sir Gawen of the Pocks for which the Iury found for Gawen and also assessed greater damages in respect that they found That Courtney spake the said words of his own head c. and not of the report of Kelloway It was the opinion of the whole Court that the now Plaintiff should have this Action For notwithstanding that that oath doth not trench much unto the proof or disproof of the issue yet because that by reason of the oath the Iury have aggravated the damages the Action doth lie as in case of Trespass of breaking his Close and spoiling his grass the Defendant pleads Not guilty and at the trial of the issue a witness is produced on the Plaintiff's part who deposeth upon his oath That the Land where c. was so rich in grass that it was ready to be mowed whereas in truth none or very little grass was there growing yet if the Iury find upon other evidence the Defendant guilty it is an occasion to induce the Iury to tax the greater damages all which the Court granted CCL Holland and Drake 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae brought by Holland against Drake and five others Drake pleaded Not guilty the other five Quoad 20 acres pleaded Not guilty also and as to the residue that long time before that Andrews Lessor of the Plaintiff had any thing in the land That Hen. Lord Cromwel was seised and leased the same to them for two years and afterwards granted the Reversion to Andrews to whom they attorned Andrews within the said term entred upon them and leased to the Plaintiff upon whom they re-entred as was lawfull for them to do The Plaintiff by Replication said That long time before the said Lord Cromwel had any thing c. Andrews himself was seised untill by the said Lord Cromwel disseised and leased to the Defendants Ut supra and granted the Reversion to the said Andrews with attornment who entred and leased to the Plaintiff who entred and was possessed untill by the said Defendants ejected Modo forma pro ut c. And upon this Replication the said five Defendants did demur in Law. It was argued That the Plaintiff in his Replication hath departed from his Declaration for by his Declaration he hath supposed himself to be ejected by all the six Defendants and in the Replication he saith That he was possessed untill by the said five Defendants who plead in Bar he was ejected so he hath departed from his Declaration in the number of the Ejectors for he ought to have said untill he by the said five and also by the said Drake was ejected as 12 E. 4. 6. in trespass upon Entry