certain Lands in Hetherset and Windham in Norfolk and doth not say in two parts in three parts to be divided and yet it was good as well in the Declaration as in the Writ for without question the Writ is good de duabus partibus generally and so is the Register See 4 E. 3. 162. 2 E. 3. 31. 2 Assis 1. 10 Assis 12. 10 E. 3. 511. 11 Ass 21. 11 E. 3. Bre. 478. 9 H. 6. 36. 17 E. 4. 46. 19 E. 3. Bre. 244. And upon all the said Books it appeareth that by the intendment and construction of the Law when any parts are demanded without shewing in how many parts the whole is divided that there remains but one part not divided As if two parts are demanded there remains a third part and when three parts are divided three remains a fourth part c. But when any demand is of other parts in other form there he ought to shew the same specialty as if one demandeth three parts of five parts or four parts of six c. And according to this difference it was so resolved in Jourdens Case in the Kings-Bench and accordingly Iudgment was given in this Term in the Case at Bar. XXVI Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Muttons Case AN Action upon the Case was brought against Mutton for calling of the Plaintiff Sorcerer and Inchantor who pleaded Not-guilty and it was found against him to the damages of 6 d. And it was holden by the whole Court in the Common-Pleas that no Action lieth for the said words for Sortilegium est rei futuri per sortes exploratio Et Sortilegus sive Sortilegista est qui per sortes futura praenunciat Inchauntry est verbis aut rebus adjunctis aliquid praeter naturam moliri whereof the Poet saith Carminibus Circes socios mutavit Ulyssis See 45 E. 3. 17. One was taken in Southwark with the Head and Visage of a Dead man and with a Book of Sorcery in his Mail and he was brought into the Kings-Bench before Knevet Iustice but no Indictment was framed against him for which the Clarks made him swear that he should never after commit any Sorcery and he was sent to prison and the Head and the Book were burned at Tuthill at the charges of the Prisoner And the ancient Law was as it appeareth by Britton that those who were attainted of Sorcery were burned but the Law is not such at this day but he who is convicted of such imposture and deceit shall be fined and imprisoned And it was said that it was adjudged That if one calleth another Witch that an Action will not lie for it is too general Et dicitur Latine Venefica But if one saith She is a Witch and hath bewitched such a one to death an Action upon the Case lieth if in truth he be dead Conjuration is derived of these words Con and juro Et propria dicitur quando multi in alicujus pernitiem jurant And in the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 16. it is taken for Invocation of any evil and wicked Spirits i. est conjurare verbis conceptis aliquos malos iniquos spiritus the same is made Felony But Witchcraft Inchantment Charm or Sorcery is not felony if not by them any person be killed or dyeth So that Conjuration est verbis conceptis compellere malos iniquos spiritus aliquod facere vel dicere c. But a Witch who works any thing by any evil spirit doth not make any Conjuration or Invocation by any powerful names of the Devil but the wicked spirit comes to her familiarly and therefore is called a Familiar But if a man be called a Conjurer or a Witch he shall not have any Action upon the Case unless that he saith That he is a Conjurer of the Devil or of any evil or wicked spirit or that one is a Witch and that she hath bewitched any one to death as is before said And note that the first Statute which was made against Conjuration Witchcraft Sorcery and Inchantment was the Act of 33 H. 8. cap. 8. and by it they were Felony in certain cases special but that Act was repealed by the Statute of 1 E. 6. cap. 12. XXVII Mich. Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Court of Wards Sir Allen Percies Case SIr John Fitz and Bridget his Wife being Tenants for life of a Tenement called Ramshams the remainder to Sir John Fitz in tail the remainder to Bridget in tail the Reversion to Sir John and his Heirs Sir John and Bridget his Wife by Indenture demised the said Tenement to William Sprey for divers years yet to come except all Trees of Timber Oaks and Ashes and liberty to carry them away rendering Rent and afterwards Sir John dyed having issue Mary his daughter now the Wife of Sir Allen Percy Knight and afterwards the said William Sprey demised the same Tenement to Sir Allen for seven years The Question was Whether Sir Allen having the immediate inheritance in the right of his Wife expoctant upon the Estate for the life of Bridget and also having the possession by the said Demise might cut down the Timber Trees Oaks and Ashes And it was objected that he might well do it for it was resolved in Saunders Case in the fifth part of my Reports fo 12. That if Lessee for years or for life assigns over his term or Estate unto another excepting the Mines or the Trees or the Clay c. that the exception is voyd because that he cannot except that which he cannot lawfully take and which doth not belong unto him by the Law But it was answered and resolved by the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron That in the Case at Bar the Exception was good without question because that he who hath the Inheritance joyns in the Lease with the Lessee for life And it was further resolved That if Tenant for life Leaseth for years excepting the Timber Trees the same is lawfully and wisely done for otherwise if the Lessee or Assignee cutteth down the Trees the Tenant for life should be punished in Waste and should not have any remedy against the Lessee for years and also if he demiseth the Land without exception he who hath the immediate Estate of Inheritance by the assent of the Lessee may cut down all the Timber Trees which when the term ended all should be wasted and then the Tenant for life should not have the Boots which the Law giveth him nor the pawnage and other profits of the said Trees which he lawfully might take But when Tenant for life upon his Lease excepteth the Trees if they be cut down by the Lessor the Lessee or Assignee shall have an Action of Trespass Quare vi armis and shall recover damages according to his loss And this case is not like to the said case of Saunders which was affirmed to be good Law for there the Lessee assigned over his whole interest and therefore could not except the Mines
the Feoffee and another is not any new thing but the pernancy of the old profits of the Land which well may be limited to the Feoffee and another joyntly But if the use had been onely limited to the Feoffee and his Heirs there because there is not any limitation to another person nec in praesenti nec in futuro he shall be in by force of the Feoffment And it was resolved That Ioynt-tenants might be seised to an use although that they come to it at several times as if a man maketh a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and to such a woman which he shall after marry for term of their lives or in tayl or in fee in this case if after he marryeth a Wife she shall take joyntly with him although that they take the use at several times for they derive the use out of the same fountain and Freehold scil the Feoffment See 17 Eliz. Dyer 340. So if a Disseisin be had to the use of two and one of them agreeth at one time and the other at another time they shall be Ioynt-tenants but otherwise it is of Estates which pass by the common Law and therefore if a Grant be made by deed to one man for term of life the Remainder to the right Heirs of A. and B. in Fee and A. hath issue and dyeth and afterwards B. hath issue and dyeth and then the Tenant for life dyeth in that case the Heirs of A. and B. are not Ioynt-tenants nor shall joyn in a Scire facias to execute the Fine 24 E. 3. Joynder in Action 10. because that although the remainder be limited by one Fine and by joynt words yet because that by the death of A. the Remainder as unto the moyety vested in his Heir and by the death of B. the other moyety vested in his Heir at several times they cannot be Ioynt tenants But in the case of a use the Husband taketh all the use in the mean time and when he marryeth the Wife takes it by force of the Feoffment and the limitation of the use joyntly with him for there is not any fraction and several vesting by parcels as in the other case and such is the difference See 18 E. 3. 28. And upon the whole matter it was resolved That because in the principal case the Father and Son were Ioynt-tenants by the original purchase that the Son having the Land by Survivor should not be in Ward and accordingly it was so decreed XXIV Pasc 39 Eliz. Rot. 233. In the Kings-Bench Collins and Hardings Case THe Case between Collins and Harding was A man seised of Lands in Fee and also of Lands by Copy of Court Roll in Fee according to the Custom of the Mannor made one entire Demise of the Lands in Fee and of the Lands holden by Copy according to the Custom to Harding for years rendering one entire Rent and afterwards the Lessor surrendered the Copyhold Land to the use of Collins and his Heirs and at another time granted by Deed the Reversion of the Freehold Lands to Collins in Fee and Harding attorned and afterwards for the Rent behinde Collins brought an Action of Debt for the whole Rent And it was objected That the reservation of the Rent was an entire contract and by the Act of the Lessee the same cannot be apportioned and therefore if one demiseth three Acres rendering 3 s. Rent and afterwards bargaineth and selleth by Deed indented and inrolled the Reversion of one Acre the whole Rent is gone because that the Contract is entire and cannot be severed by the Act of the Lessor Also the Lessee by that shall be subject to two Fealties where he was subject but to one before As to these points it was answered and resolved That the Contract was not entire but that the same by the Act of the Lessor and the assent of the Lessee might be divided and severed for the Rent is incident to the Reversion and the Reversion is severable and by consequence the Rent also for accessorium sequitur naturam sui principalis and that cannot be severed or divided by the assent of the Lessee or express attornment or implyed by force of an Act of Parliament to which every one is a party as by force of the Statute of Inrolments or of Vses c. And as to the two Fealties to that the Lessee shall be subject although that the Rent shall be extinct for Fealty is by necessity of Law incident to the Reversion and to every part of it but the Rent shall be divided pro rata portionis and so it was adjudged And it was also adjudged That although Collins cometh to the Reversion by several Conveyances and at several times yet he might bring an Action of Debt for the whole Rent Hill 43 Eliz. Rot. 243. West and Lassels Case A man made a Lease for years of certain Lands and afterwards deviseth the Reversion of two parts to one he shall have two parts of the Rent and he may have an Action of Debt for the same and have Iudgment to recover Hill 42 Eliz. Rot. 108. in the Common-Pleas Ewer and Moyls Case The Devisee of the Reversion of part shall avow for part of the Rent and such Avowry shall be good and maintainable Note well these Cases and Iudgments for they are given upon great reason and consideration for otherwise great inconvenience would ensue if by severance of part of the Reversion the entire Rent should be lost and the opinion reported by Serjeant Bendloes in Hill 6 and 7 E. 6. to the contrary nihil valet scil That the Rent in such case shall be lost because that no contract can be apportioned which is not Law For 1. A Rent reserved upon a Lease for years is more then a Contract for it is a Rent-service 2. It is incident to the Reversion which is severable 3. Vpon recovery of part in Waste or upon entry in part for a forfeiture or upon surrender of part the Rent is apportionable 25. Note It was adjudged 19 Eliz. in the Kings-Bench That where one obtained a Prohibition upon Prescription de Modo Decimandi by payment of a certain sum of mony at a certain day upon which Issue was taken and the Iury found the Modus Decimandi by payment of the said sum but that it had been payd at another day and the Case was well debated and at the last it was resolved That no Consultation should be granted for although that the day of payment be mistaken yet it appeareth to the Court that no Tythes in kinde were due for which the suit was in the spiritual Court and the Tryal of the Custom de Modo Decimandi belongeth to the Common Law and a Consultation shall not be granted where the Spiritual Court hath not Iurisdiction of the Cause Tanfield chief Baron hath the Report of this Case XXV Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis IN an Ejectione Firmae the Writ and Declaration were of two parts of
the said Act in such case the Appeal was to Rome immediately XXXV Mich. Term 5 Jacob. Rot. 30. In the Kings-Bench Prichard and Hawkins Case JOhn Prichard brought an Action upon the Case against Robert Hawkins for slanderous words publishèd the last day of August in the third year of the King viz. That Prichard which serveth Mistris Shelley did murder John Adams Childe Quandam Isabellam Adams modo defunct filiam cujusdem Johannis Adams of Williamstre in the County of Glocester innuendo upon which a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Iudgment given for Prichard in the Kings-Bench and the Iudgment was reversed in Easter Term 7 Jacobi because that it doth not appear that Isabel was dead at the time of the speaking the words for tunc defunct ought to have been in the place of modo defunct XXXVI Easter Term. 8 Jacobi In the Kings-Bench Dison and Bestneys Case HUmphrey Dison said of Nicolas Bestney utter Barester and Councellor of Grays-Inn Thou a Barester Thou art no Barester thou art a Barretor Thou wert put from the Bar and thou darest not shew thy self there Thou study Law Thou hast as much wit as a Daw. Vpon Not-guilty pleaded the Iury found for the Plaintiff and assessed damages to 23 l. upon which Iudgment was given and in a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber the Iudgment was affirmed XXXVII Easter Term 8 Jacobi Regis In the Kings-Bench Smith and Hills Case NOah Smith brought an Action of Assault and Battery against Walter Hill in the Kings-Bench which began Pasc 7 Jacobi Rot. 175. upon Not-guilty pleaded a Verdict and Iudgment was for the Plaintiff and 107 l. assessed for damages and costs In a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber the Error was assigned in the Venire facias which was certified by Writ of Certiorari and upon the Writ no Return was made upon the back of the Writ which is called Returnum album and for that cause this Easter Term the Iudgment was reversed XXXVIII Trinity Term 7 Jacobi In the Court of Wards Westcots Case IT was found by a Writ of Diem clausit extremum after the death of Roger Westcot That the said Roger the day that he dyed was seised of and in the moyety of the Mannor of Trewalliard in his Demesn as of Fee and of such his Estate dyed thereof seised and that the moyety of the said Mannor anno 19 E. 3. was holden of the then Prince as of his Castle of Trematon parcel of his Dutchy of Cornwall by Knights-service as it appeareth by a certain exemplification of Trematon for the same Prince made 9 Marcii 19 E. 3. And the words of the Extent were Willielmus de Torr tenet duo feoda dimid militis apud Pick Striklestomb Trewalliard per servitum militare reddit inde per annum 8 d. And it was resolved by the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron That the Office concerning the Tenure was insufficient and voyd because that the Verdict of a Iury ought to be full and direct and not with a prout patet for by that the whole force of their Verdict relyeth onely upon the Extent which if it be false he who is grieved shall have no remedy by any Traverse for they have not found the Tenure indefinite which might be traversed but with a prout patet which makes the Office in that point insufficient and upon that a Melius inquirendum shall issue forth and therewith agreeth F. N. B. 255. that a Melius inquirendum shall be awarded in Inch a Case The NAMES of the CASES CAse of the admiralty 7. Jac. 51. Case of S. Alphage parish in Canterbury 8. Jac. 70. Baron and Boyes case 6. Jac. 18. Case of repairing Bridges c. 7. Jac. 33. Bedell and Shermans case 40. Eliz. 47. Baylyes case 7. Jac. 48. Case in Chancery Hill 27. Eliz. 19. Case in the common Pleas. 6. Jac. 26. Collings and Hardings 39. Eli. 57. Case of Modus decinandi 6. Jac. 12. Case de Modo Decimandi and of prohibitions before the King 7. Jac. 37. Disow and Bestneyes case 8. Jac. 71. Edwards case 6. Jac. 9. Case in ejectione firmae 7. Jac. 58. Hulmes case 7. Jac. 61. Haywards and Sr. Iohn Whitebrookes case 64. Hughes and Crowthers case 7. Iac. 66. Haidon and Smiths case 8. Iac. 67. Muttons case 7. Iac. 59. More and Webs case 7. Iac. 65. Neale and Rowses case 6. Iac. 24. Porters and Rochesters case 6. Iac. 4. Ca. of prohibition 6. Iac. 30. Sir Allen Percies case 7. Iac. 60. Parliaments case 7. Ia. 63. Prichard and Haukins case 5. Iac. 71. Sir William Reades Boothes case 7. Iac. 34. Syrat and Heales case 44. Eliz. 23. Case of sewers 7 Iac. 35. Sparye case 7. Iac. 49. Samms case 7. Iac. 54. Smith and Hils case 8. Iac. 71. Taylor and Moyls case 6. Iac. 11. Willowes case 6. Iac. 1. Case in the court of wards 7. Iac. 48. Case in the Court of wards 7. Iac. 49. Wills case 7. Iac. 50. Westcots case 7. Iac. 72. THE TABLE A Acts of Parliament are parcell of the Law so to be judged by the judges of the Law fol. 4. Acts none may take upon him any act c. but who hath knowledge in the same 12. Apples not contained within the words of Stat. 5. E. 6. 14. against ingrossors 18. 19. Actions of claime to be brought within 5. yeares 21. Aid to the King who to pay it 26. 27. 28. For what 29. 30. Made certaine and when to be paid 25. Admirall his power how far it extends 51. 52. Court of Admiralty no Court of record 53. Avoury where it shall be good and maintaineable 58. B Brewer is within the act of the 5. El. 4. for that none may keepe a common brewhouse unlesse formerly apprentice 11. 12. Burgage tenure what it is 27. Bridges rivers sewers c. who ought to repair them and how compellable to it 33. Boote a saxon word the signification whereof various 68. Boote and estovers signifie all one thing 68. C Copyhold where a Copyholder may deny to pay his fine 2. Canterbury Arch bishop thereof cannot cite one out of his owne Diocese and the reason thereof 5. 6. 7. 8. Commission High commissioners their power and to whom extendible 11. 47. Customes what Customes shall be good and when and what not 12. 13. Customes where the Kings Court shall be ousted of jurisdiction in Modo decimandi and where not 18. Customes and prescriptions to be tryed by the common Law 40. Canon Eccles against the Kings perrogative the common law c. ipso facto voide 47. Common of Pasture who shall have it and who shall be debared and why 66. Common divided shall be rateable so that the land in which c. shal not be surcharged 66. Coppyholders may of common right take House-boote hedge boote Plough-boote upon his coppy hold 68. Shall have an action against his Lord for cutting
shillings eight pence for the Admittance of a Copyholder in Fee-simple upon a Surrender made For this is not like to a voluntary Grant as when the Copyholder hath but an Estate for life and dieth Or if he hath an Estate in Fee-simple and committeth Felony there Arbitrio Dom. res estimari debet but when the Lord is compellable to admit him to whose use the Surrender is And when Cestui que use is admitted he shall be in by him who made the Surrender and the Lord is but an Instrument to present the same And therefore in such Case the value of two years for such an Admittance is unreasonable especially when the value of the Cottage and one acre of Pasture is a Rack at fifty three shillings by the year 5. It was resolved That the Surjoynder is no more then what the Law saith For in this Case in the Iudgment of the Law the Fine is unreasonable and therefore the same is but ex abundanti and now the Court ought to judge upon the whole speciall matter And for the Causes aforesaid Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And Coke chief Iustice said in this Case That where the usage of the Court of Admiralty is to amerce the Defendant for his default by his discretion as it appeareth in 19 H. 6. 7. That if the Amerciament be outrageous and excessive the same shall not bind the party and if it be excessive or not it shall be determined in the Court in which the Action shall be brought for the levying of it And the Writ of Account is against the Bayliff or Guardian Quod reddat ei rationabilem Computum de exitibus Manerii And the Law requireth a thing which is reasonable and no excesse or extremity in any thing II. Mich. 6 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. Porter and Rochesters Case THis Term Lewis and Rochester who dwelt in Essex within the The Statute of 23 H 8. of citing out of Dioces Dioces of London were sued for substraction of Tithes growing in B. within the County of Essex by Porter in the Court of the Arches of the Bishop of Canterbury in London And the Case was That the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Iurisdiction of fourteen Parishes called a Deanry exempted from the Authority of the Bishop of London whereof the Parish of S. Mary de Arcubus is the Chief And the Court is called the Arches because the Court is holden there And a great question was moved If in the said Court of Arches holden in London within his Peculiar he might cite any dwelling in Essex for substraction of Tithes growing in Essex Or if he be prohibited by the Statute of the twenty third year of King Henry the eighth cap. 9. And after that the matter was well debated as well by Councell at the Bar as by Dr. Ferrard Dr. James and others in open Court and lastly by all the Iustices of the Common Pleas A Prohibition was granted to the Court of Arches And in this Case divers Points were resolved by the Court. 1. That all Acts of Parliament made by the King Lords and Commons of Parliament are parcell of the Laws of England and therefore shall be expounded by the Iudges of the Laws of England and not by the Civilians and Commonists although the Acts concern Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall Iurisdiction And therefore the Act of 2 H. 4. cap. 15. by which in effect it is enacted Quod nullus teneat doceat informet c. clam vel publice aliquam nefandam opinionem contrariam sidei Catholicae seu determinationi Ecclesiae sacro-sanctae nec de hujusmodi secta nephandis Doctrinis Conventiculas faciat And that in such Cases the Diocessan might arrest and imprison such Offender c. And in 10 H. 7. the Bishop of London commanded one to be imprisoned because that the Plaintiff said that he ought not to pay his Tithes to his Curat and the party so imprisoned brought an Action of False Imprisonment against those who arrested him by the commandment of the Bishop and there the matter is well argued What words are within the said Statute and what without the Statute So upon the same Statute it was resolved in 5 E. 4. in Keysars case in the Kings Bench which you may see in my Book of Presidents And so the Statutes of Articuli Cleri de Prohibitione regia De Circumspecte agatis of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. and all other Acts of Parliament concerning Spirituall Causes have alwaies been expounded by the Iudges of the Common Law as it was adjudged in Woods Case Pasch 29 Eliz. in my Notes fol. 22. So the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. hath been expounded by the Iudges of the Realm concerning Pluralities and the having of two Benefices Common Laws and Dispensations see 7 Eliz. Dyer 233. The Kings Courts shall adjudge of Dispensations and Commendams See also 17 Eliz. Dyer 251. 14 Eliz. Dyer 312. 15 Eliz. Dyer 327 18 Eliz. Dyer 352. and 347. 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. Construction of the Statute cap. 12. Smiths Case concerning Subscription which is a meer Spirituall thing Also it appeareth by 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. That for want of subscription the Church was alwaies void by the said Act of 23 Eliz. and yet the Civilians say that there ought to be a Sentence Declaratorie although that the Act maketh it void 2. It was resolved by Coke chief Iustice Warberton Daniel and Foster Iustices That the Archbishop of Canterbury is restrained by the Act of 23 H. 8. cap. 9. to cite any one out of his own Diocesse or his Peculiar Iurisdiction although that he holdeth his Court of Arches within London And first it was objected That the Title of the Act is An Act that no person shall be cited out of the Diocess where he or she dwelleth except in certain Cases And here the Archbishop doth not cite the said Party dwelling in Essex out of the Diocesse of London for he holdeth his Court of Arches within London 2. The Preamble of the Act is Where a great number of the Kings Subjects dwelling in divers Diocesses c. And here he doth not dwell in divers Diocesses 3. Far out of the Diocesse where such men c. dwell and here he doth not dwell far out c. 4. The body of the Act is No manner of person shall be cited before any Ordinance c. out of the Diocesse or peculiar Iurisdiction where the person shall be inhabiting c. And here he was not cited out of the Dioces of London To which it was answered and resolved That the same was prohibited by the said Act for divers Causes 1. As to all the said Objections One answer makes an end of them all For Diocesis dicitur distinctio vel divisio sive gubernatio quae divisa diversa est ab Ecclesia alterius Episcopatus Commissa Gubernatio in unius and is derived a Diâ— quod est duo electio id est
do extend to the nature of all the Offences mentioned in the first and second Branches But if one forge a Writing in 37. of Eliz. and afterwards he forge another in 38. of Eliz. yet it is not Felony although that he forgeth many Writings one after the other for by the expresse words of the Act it is not Felony The Forgery c. which is Felony by the Act ought to be after conviction or condemnation of a former Writing As to the third doubt it was resolved That the allegation of the time by the Plaintiff in the Bill shall not alter the Offence but shall give unto the Court Iurisdiction but if it appeareth to the Court that the Forgery or Publication was after the Sentence then the Court shall surcease As to the last Point it was resolved that the time of the Forgery is not materiall be it before or after the Offence in truth committed if it be committed before the exhibiting of the Bill but if the date of the Writing supposed to be forged had been mistaken there the Defendant could not be condemned of a Deed of another date for that is not the Offence complained of in the Bill of which the Court can give Sentence XIV Pasch 7. Jacobi Regis The Case of Sewers THe Case was That there was a Cawsey or Milstanke of Stone in the River of Dee and City of Chester which Cawsey before the Raign of King Edward the first was erected for the necessary maintenance of certain Mills some of the Kings and others of the Subjects at the end of the said Cawsey and now a certain Decree was made by certain Commissioners of Sewers for a breach to be made by ten Poles in length in the said Cawsey which Cawsey as it was admitted by both parties was errected before the Raign of King Edward the first and so hath continued untill this day without any exaltation or inhancing and if by any Decree of the Commissioners by force of any Statute any breach may be made in that Cawsey was the Question And it was referred by the Letters of the Lord of the Privy Councell to the two cheif Iustices and the chief Baron and upon hearing of Councell learned at divers daies and good consideration had in the time of the last Vacation of all the Statutes concerning Sewers and upon conference had amongst themselves it was resolved as followeth 1. Whereas it is provided by the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 23. Quod omnes Kidelli deponantur de cetero per Thamesiam Medeweiam per totam Angl. nisi per Costeram Maris It was resolved That that Stat. extended only to Kidells sc open Wares for taking of Fish but the first Statute which extended to pulling down or abating of any Mills Mill-stankes and Cawseys was the Statute of 25 E. 3. cap. 4. which Act appointed such only to be thrown down or abated which were levied or erected in the Raign of King Edward the first or after But by the Statute made An. 1 H. 4. cap. 12. upon complaint in Parliament of the great damages which have risen by the outrageous inhansing of Mills Mill-stanks and other impediments made and erected before the Raign of King Edward the first The said old Mills and Mill-stanks were appointed by Act then made to be surveyed and such as were found to be much inhansed to be corrected and amended saving alwaies reasonable substance of such Mills Mill-stanks Wears c. so in old time made and levied None of which Acts extended to tho Case in question For that Cawsey was erected before the Raign of Edward the first and never exalted or inhansed after the errection of it And the statute of 12 H. 4. cap. 7. doth confirm all the said Acts and by them the generality of the Act of Magna Charta is restrained as by the said Acts appeareth And by the statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 5. None of the said Acts as to the Case in question is repealed for first the same Act appoints the manner form tenor and effect of the Commission of Sewers by which power is given to the Commissioners to survey Walls c. Fences Cawseys c. Mills c. and then to correct repair amend pull down or over throw or reform as cause requireth according to their wisdomes and discretions and therein as well to ordain and do after the form tenor and offect of all and singular the Statutes and Ordinances made before the first of March in the twenty third year of Henry the eighth as also to enquire by the Oathes of honest and lawfull men c. through whose default the said hurts and damages have happened c. By which it appeareth That the discretion of the Commissioners was limited scill to proceed according to the statutes and Ordinances before made c. And also to reform repair and amend the said Walls c. by force of that word said hath relation to the precedent purview of the Act c. And further to reform prostrate and over-throw all such Mills c. and other impediments and annoyances aforesaid as shall be found by Inquisition or by your survey and discretion to be excessive i. e. hurtfull which word aforesaid refers that clause also to the precedent purview scil such immpediments and annoyances as are against the Statutes and Ordinances before made Also it is further provided by the same Act That all and every Statute Act and Ordinance heretofore made concerning the Premisses or any of them not being contrary to this present Act nor heretofore repealed shall from henceforth stand and be good and effectuall for ever But the said Acts of 25 E. 3 and 1 H. 4. are not contrary to any clause of that Act nor were repealed before And alwaies such construction ought to be made that one part of the Act may agree with another and all to stand together and if they had intended a repeal of the said former Acts they would not have repealed them by such generall and doubtfull words when they concerned the Inheritances of many Subjects and according to this resolution we certified the Lords of the Councell that the said Statutes of 25 E. 3. and 1. of H. 4. remained yet in force and that the Authority given by the Commission of Sewers did not extend to Mills Mill-stanks Cawseys c. errected before the Raign of King Ed. 1. unlesse that they have been inhaunsed and exalted above their former height and thereby made more prejudiciall c. In which case they are not to be overthrown or subverted but to be reformed by abating the excesse and inhaunsment only Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis XIV The Case De Modo Decimandi and of Prohibitions debated before the Kings Majesty RIchard Archbishop of Canterbury accompanyed with the Bishop of London the Bishop of Bathe and Wells the Bishop of Rochester and divers Doctors of the Civil and Canon Law as Dr. Dunn Iudg of the Arches Dr. Bennet