Selected quad for the lemma: woman_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
woman_n	action_n	husband_n	wife_n	1,645	5	7.3746	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43467	Reports and cases taken in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh years of the late King Charles as they were argued by most of the King's sergeants at the Commonpleas barre / collected and reported, by that eminent lawyer, Sir Thomas Hetley Knight, sergeant at law, sometimes of the Honourable Society of Grayes-Inne, and appointed by the king and judges for one of he reporters of the law ; now Englished, and likewise of the cases, both alphabetical.	Hetley, Thomas, Sir.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.	1657 (1657)	Wing H1627; ESTC R10743	229,000	204

Sergeant Henden moved for a Prohibition for that that their Instructions are Whereas there be divers Books News and Tales spread abroad and Libells made by which the Subjects are abused and the Peace may be broken you shall proceed against such Persons till the Authors be found out and they be punished by fines imprisonments papers set on their breasts and the like And he said that those words are not accomtable at Common-law and therfore are not as they seem within their Instructions But admit that yet they have not power to give dammages to the Party Richardson said In the Star-Chamber libellous Letters that are spitefull and scandalous to defame any although that they bear not an Action at Common-law yet they are punishable there and also they give dammages to the Party wronged But there is difference betwéen the Star-Chamber and that c. Henden said that Magna Charta makes the difference Quod nullus liber homo capietur aut imprisonetur nisi secundum legem terrae So by the Common Law and their instructions they have not power to give damages to the party Richardson chief Iustice said that no prohibition should be granted for the Fine of the King for they have power in that Case without question and to the punishing in that matter And if they err in Iudgement for the Libellious Letter and adjudge it to be Libellious where it is not We cannot award a prohibition nor grant error But for the damages that Court differs from the Star-chamber for the Star-chamber had its power by its self and differs from the Common Law But that Court is by Commission and therefore they ought to follow their Instructions And therefore a prohibition as to the damages shall be granted And Yelverton also was of the same opinion but he said there was another clause in their Instructions And for that a prohibition as to the damages shall be granted Hutton and Harvey said That if the sute was by information than it is clear that damages cannot be given But it is by Bill so in nature of an Action as I conceive which concludes that they were damnified But it is now brought too late to grant a prohibition where the parties have admitted the action But a day was given to shew cause why a prohibition should not be granted quoad the damages And so they concluded for that time Note that it was said by the Court That if money be lent upon Interest and the Scrivener who makes the Obligation reserves more then 8. l. in the 100. l. That that is not an usurious Contract See the cause c. Eaton and Morris●s Case EAton and Morris being reputed Churchwardens but they never took any Oath as the Office requires present a Feme Covert upon a Common report for Adultery c. And the husband and wife Libel against them in the Ecclesiastical Court for that defamation And when sentence was taken and ready to be given for them the Churchwardens appeal to the Arches and for that that that presentment cannot be proved but by one witness they sentenced the Baron and Feme And now Ward who that term was made a Serjeant by a special call moved for a prohibition but it was denied by the Court for they were Plaintiffs first And also it is a cause which this Court had not any Conusance of Marshes Case before MOre of Marshes Case which is before Richardson Hutton Harvey and Yelverton said That the consideration also is good For although that it be not expressed that the Plaintiff himself shewed the accounts yet it appears fully that they were upon the request of the wife viewed And it shall be intended by Common presumption that the Plaintiff himself shewed them for he had the custody of them and is owner of them And the Books of Merchants are their secrets and treasure and they will not shew them by their good will Now it is not like to the case of an Obligation for there the certainty of the debt was before and he was compellable to shew it But the certainty here cannot appear without great search and labour and there can be no compassion to shew their Books And by Hutton Iustice There is no question but if the promise had been made after the Sute commenced it ha●… been good No question by Richardson and it is agreed by all That if the Defendent had required the Books to be brought to his house or to another place it should have been good And there is not any difference although the Books were shewen in the shop by the servant for he permitted his Books to be viewed c. And Yelverton said that Beechers Case and Banes Case is more infirm than this Case is And yet adjudged there to be good And so it was awarded that Iudgement should be entred for the Plaintiff Si non c. Of a Communication of Marriage A Communication between I.S. and A. was of the Marriage of I S. being possessed of a term for years and of certain goods promised to A. that if she would be married to him and they had issue a son that he should have the term If a Female that she should have the moyetie of the goods And after they intermarry and have issue B. a daughter The husband dies and B. brings an action upon the Case against the Administrator of I.S. By the Court she cannot bring the action unless as Administratrix of A. or in the name of A. And the Case of Stafford was recited Where there was a Communication between Stafford and a woman That if she would marry with him that Stafford would leave her at his death 100. l. And after the intermarriage and death of the husband in an action brought by the wife the question was whether the promise was extinguisht by the intermarriage And after grand disputes it was resolved that the intermarriage was but a suspension of the promise And so it was concluded Kitton against Walters KItton brought debt upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. cap. 9. for Perjury against Walters for an Action of Trespass for Battery was brought against him by I. S. and he pleaded not guilty and that the Defendant was brought as a witness And that he falsely and corruptedly deposed and did not speak voluntarily that the Plaintiff in the Trespass was wounded and beaten c. And that he could not labour for half a year c. And upon the general issue pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and Hendon moved to have Iudgement But it was objected that the party grieved shall not have that Action for that he did not say voluntarie deposuit c. For although that he falsly deposed wherein voluntary is not but a conclusion and voluntas ought to be in the premisses and corruptive does not include that and so was the opinion of the whole Court And it was awarded that the Plaintiff nil capiat per breve A servant of a Bayliffs Case IT was awarded

day a procedendo in this case was granted Sir William Cave against Sir William Fleetwood IN debt the Plaintiff had judgement Hill 5 Car. Com. Banc. and a cap. ad satisfac was awarded against the Defendant upon which he was outlawed And Crawley moved that the Plaintiff might have an Elegit and cited 21 H. 7. 19. There are but four manners of Execution Two by the Common law levari and fieri fac And two by the Statute elegit and capias and none of them is a barre to the other unlesse there be satisfaction of it A fieri fac is no barre to the cap. although part of the Debt be satisfied 22 Ass 47. E. 3. Exec. 41. If the party pray execution of the body and had it then he shall not have resort to a new Execution For if the Defendant die in prison it is adjudged in Bloomfields case that the Plaintiff shall have an Elegit which proves that it is the satisfaction the Law looks upon and respects A fieri fac is no barre to the capias although part of the debt be levied by fieri fac and a capias may issue after Secondly the processe is determined by the Outlawry although it be after Iudgement And for that the Plaintiff resorts to his satisfactory execution again 17 E. 4. 4. Execution by Statute does not oust execution by the Common law no more than the execution by one Statute ousts the execution by another Hutton Iustice If upon an Elegit brought it be executed he can never have an execution And if a man be taken upon a capias the party now may have another execution but the outlawry here determines the process and then the Plaintiff by scire fac revives the Iudgement again and he may resort to which process he will If a man had a Iudgement and taken a capias and done nothing upon it but died the Executor is not bound by that But after a scire facias he may have an Elegit or what other execution he will Hudson and Lees case Common Bench The Plaintiff took an Elegit but because he could not upon the Inquisition find sufficient to satisfie he resorted to a capias And it was agréed that he might for that that the Elegit was not awarded upon Record But if an Elegit be awarded by the Roll and so shall be recorded the Plaintiff ought to proceed upon that But the course is not to award it upon the Roll and he said that Bloomfields case is not Law For if the party die in execution by Elegit by capias the Plaintiff had his execution and might not have any execution again And so it was adjudged in Iacksons Case in this Coutt And the making of the Statute of 21 ●…ac shews that so the Law was taken Wollaston Dixye against the Bailiffs and Burgesses of Derby IN a quare impedit the Plaintiff declares that Iustice Beamont was seised in Fée of the Advowson of St. Peters in Derby and presented his Clerk to it who was instituted and inducted c. and dies and that the Advowson descended to H. Beamont his son and heir and he died and the Advowson descended to Barbara his daughter and heir and that she being seised in fée and under the age of 21 years the Church became void and Barbara her Mother who had not any right of presenting presents her Clerk who was instituted and inducted and admitted to it And Barbara the Daughter took the Plaintiff to Husband and became of full age and then the Church became void And because the Bayliffs and Burgesses presented and the Church so full within the six months the husband alone brought that action upon which there was a demurrer Davenport said the action did not lie for the husband alone but the wife ought to joyn with him For that usurpation upon the Infant which he had by descent by the Statute of West the 2d does not turn the Infant to his writ of right Yet the Vsurper gets the inheritance and turns his estate to a right And for that he cited Cook 6. 50. Boswells case and 16. E. 3. there cited Where one seised of a Mannor with an advowson appendant dies his heir within age who suffers an usurpation and then grants the Mannor Resolved that the advowson does not passe because that the heir had but a right in the advowson after the usurpation So in our case the wife had but a title of action and than the wife ought to join As where an obligation is made to a woman who takes a husband the wife ought to joyn with the husband in the action upon the obligation But Henden said that the Husband only might have an action If a feme covert be seised of an advowson in fee and the Church void the Husband only may have an action without question Which was granted by the Court. Then here the wife being of full age before the avoidance now the feme being in possession of the Advowson again to all intents and purposes And for that by the exposition of the Statute of Westminster the force of the usurpation being upon the Infant who had it by descent continued but during the incumbency and non-age of the Infant And it was said by Richardson That the Infant at full age might present and so regain the possession without action at the Common Law by usurpation she was turned to her writ of Right And if it was a purchase he was without remedy Now I demand in this case If there be a death during the avoidance whether the Executor shall have it or the Husband upon tenant by Courtesie And he cited the Lord Stanhops Case which was That the Abbot of the Monastery of Shelford was seised of the advowson in gross and there was an usurpation in the time of the Abbot And then came the Statute of dissolutions which gave a right and title to the King So that that which was in the Abbot was now in the King Afterwards the King grants that Advowson by a general grant without recital of the case And adjudged a good grant But by Hutton Warberton and Winch Iustices were of the contrary opinion to Hubbard But that was because that there are words in the Statute that the Subject shall have all the King had which was to induce purchasers Hutton If it might appear that the Plaintiff scil the Husband presented before the Vsurpation and was disturbed that perhaps would have been a claim and so a remitter For at the Common Law the remedy for an Infant was to present and upon admission and Institution c. of his Clerk he should be remitted or might have a Writ of right if he pleased But by the Court the husband only in this case might have presented And then upon disturbance he only shall have the action But here the Church was full before the presentation Henden said the intention of the Statute was to give to the Infant at full age

all his Interest which he had before usurpation During the life of the Incumbent and non-age of the Infant the Vsurper had an Estate in fee. But after the death of the Incumbent and full age of the Infant the Estate of the Vsurper ceased And the reason is upon the Statute of Westm 2. Infans habeat candem possessoriam actionem qualiter antecessor And 33 H. 6. 42 is that an Vsurper puts an Infant out of possession Infans habeat eandem actionem possessoriam qualiter antecessor But that ought to be understood during the Infancy only Et adjournatur Rawlins's Case HE was Plaintiff in a Replevin and was non-suted after Evidence given to the Iury and the Iurors did not find Costs and Dammages And afterwards a Writ of Enquiry of dammages was granted And Ashley moved that the writ might not be filed Because that the Writ of Inquiry of dammages could not issue but awarded from the Court And the Plaintiff here being non suted was out of the Court and that nothing might be done against him And the Prothonotaries said That in Case of a Verdict where the Iurors omit to find dammages a Writ of Enquiry is many times granted Writ of Enquiry may be granted after a verdict when Jury omit the dammages But they were commanded to search for Presidents in Case of a non-sute Richardson cited one Grimstons Case in the Kings Bench. Which was one Plaintiff in Action upon the Case against an Inne-holder was non suted and the Declaration was insufficient And for that the Plaintiff might not have costs But by Henden It is ordinary now in the Kings Bench If the Defendant had a Verdict although the Declaration be insufficient Yet he shall have Costs Nurse a gainst Pounford NUrse a Barrester of Grays-Inne brought an Action upon the Case against Pounford And declares that he is a Counsellor and was of Councel with several Noble men and that he was Steward to the Lord Barkley of 20 Mannors and also the receiver of his Rents for those Mannors And that the Defendant maliciously intending to disgrace him to the Lord Barkley writ an infamous Letter against him to the Lord Barkley Which Letter was here recited and it was to this effect briefly ut sequitur scil Your wonted Courtesie to Strangers incourageth me to desire your Honor not to protect your Steward in his unlawfull Sutes He hath unjustly vexed his own Brother by Sutes and caused him to be arrested and taken out of his Bed forcibly by Catchpoles He hath likewise almost undone me who have maried his own Sister notwithstanding his entertainment at my House for himself Wife Servants and Horses for several years And now instead of payment thinks to weary me out with Vexations and Sutes at Law I hope your Lordship will give no countenance to him in these things By reason of which Letter the Lord Barkley turned him out of his Office The Defendant pleads not guilty which was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in arrest of Iudgement that the Action here would not lye Atthowe said that the Action would lye well by reason of the particular loss the Plaintiff had And that is proved by Anne Davies Case Coo. 4. Such words that there are spoken of a maried woman are not actionable But of a Feme sole who had a Suter the Action will lye If one said of a Feme sole That she is a Whore and such a mans Whore It will not bear an Action in our Law But in the Spiritual Court it will And perhaps for Whore generally there And in the Case of Anne Mayes there was a loss of preferment which she might have But here the Plaintiff lost the preferment which he had If a man said to the Ordinary of a Clark presented to him that he is a Bastard seditious or heretique by reason of which words the Ordinary refuses him An Action lies for the Clark for the temporal losse and he cited Butchers Case and Stewkleys Case Cook 4. Also he cited Sir Gilbert Gerrards Case Cook 4. 18. If one said Take not a Lease of such an one I have a Lease of it an Action does not lie But if the party by reason of those words could not demise it to one with whom he had Communication for the Lease Then it lies Or if he said that another had a Lease of that also an Action lies 6 E. 6. Dyer 72. One saying that a Merchant would be a Banckrupt is Actionable Because that no man will trust him 7 E. 4. 24. One threatens another if he will come abroad he will beat him For the threatning an Action does not lie But if for that Cause he could not go abroad about his Business an Action will lye Secondly It hath been objected that the Action does not lie Because that it appears that the Letter was written out of the time of Limitation by the Statute of 21 Iac. which is for Slander That the Action ought to be brought within two years after the Slander I agree if it be brought for slanderous words But this is an Action upon the Case only An Action upon the Case for slandering of a Title is not within the Statute 21 Jac. for the two years but for the six years So here the Action is not for slanderous words For the Letter does not bear an Action But for the temporal loss But it was resolved by the Court That the Action did not lie For by Richardson Chief Iustice In all Cases where you will maintain an Action for words there ought to be some particular words of Slander spoken or written by which the particular loss came Here is a Letter it had not any Slander in it And it cannot be conceiceived that the Lord turned him away out of his Service or Office by that Letter which does not touch him in his Office of Stewardship nor his Receivorship If he had written that the Plaintiff was a contentious and troublesome man that had been more questionable than this is Yet it would not bear an Action And Richardson said that they alwaies conceived Sir Gilbert Gerrards Case not to be Law For if a man said that he himself had a Title to the Land of an other it is not actionable although he lost by that But if he had said that another man had Title to the Land of another that is actionable And no Case can be shewen where an Action upon the Case lies upon a particular losse unless the words carry some slander with them Hutton said the words of the Letter are not actionable But if being said to be done maliciously and falsesly and to the intent the Lord Barkley should put him out of his place and upon that the Lord displaced him then there would be more doubt of it But here the Iury had found the Defendant guilty and that seemed only to the writing of the Letter and it might be false notwithstanding But if the Iury had found that