A false returne of a Knight of the Shire.

Brunker Sherife of Wilts was sued by an in­formation of perjury in this Court at the suit of the Queene for a false returne made of Sir. I. T. to be a Knight of the Parliament for the said County, whereas indeed one P. [Page 33] was chosen by the greater number of free te­nants in the said County, in deceipt of the County and of all the Realme, and it appea­red by examination that Brunker was not sworne to execute his office, notwithstanding that, a Dedimus potestatem was directed to one Lord to giue him his oath, who disswaded him from it, for the difficulty of the Articles; And this matter by graue resolution and ho­nourable and great assembly of the Noble­men was ordered against Brunker, viz. for contempt of the ancient Law, scilicet, That e­uery Sherife in the beginning of his office shall sweare, which the said B. did not, where­fore he shall pay vnto the King 100 pound beside inprisonment for fiue weekes, and moreouer 100 pound adiudged to the King according to the stat. 8. H. 6. ca. 7. for the false returne, and also a yeares imprisonment without bayle or main-prize. And Hide the Cōmissioner appointed to receiue the oath, was fined at twenty markes, besides a fort­nights imprisonment, and also B. and P. were bound by recognizance to stand to the arbi­terment of foure Noble-men, for the hun­dred pounds due vnto P. But Sir I. S. was bound in 300. pounds to Brun. for to save him harmless for his returne, Dyer 168.

Suing in a Bi­shops Court for things belonging to the Kings Court (ant ali­bi) is interpre­ted by the com­mon Lawyers to signifie the Bi­shops court, but it ought to be taken for the place where the Pope resi­deth as Auigni­on in France or such other place of his a­bode.The Statute of 16. R. 2. cap. 5. gives, that if any sue in the Court of Rome, or any where else where it is taken to be the Bishops Court or other Court, 47. Old Nat. Brev. 147, for any thing which appertaines to the Kings Court, he shal incurre the penaltie of the said Statute, and the partie grieved may sue the Offender before the King and his Counsell, by Atachment, or by Writ of Premunire a­gainst the party, or may sue against him In Custodia Mariscalli in Banco Regis, by Bill. 36. H. 6. 5. Action upon the Statute, Br. 372. Ri. 3. 17. But a man may sue in the Kings Court as many matters as he will without perill.

If a Ryot can­not be found afore Iustices &c.If a Riot bee found before Iustices of the Peace upon inquisition made, then the Iusti­ces of Peace and the Sherife or under. Sherife shall certifie before the King and his Counsell all the acts and circumstances of the Ryot, which shall be of the same force that the pre­sentment by twelue men should have beene, and those which are convicted shall be puni­shed, according to the discretion of the King, and his Counsell. 13. H. 4. ca. 7. and not­withstanding, this matter may be certified in the Kings bench aswell as before the King, and his Counsell, as Iustice Southcot said, and note that the certificate ought to be certaine in all points,The King and his Counsell. because that it is in the nature of an Inditement.

If one speake slanderous words of an Arch­bishop or Bishop,Slanderous word of an Archbishop or Bishop. hee may sue in the Starre-Chamber to haue him punished, or hee may have an Action upon the Statute de Scandalo magnatum, An. 2. R. ca. 5. & 1 [...]. ejusdem ca. 11. as appeared in Sands his Case Bi­shop of Yorke, in the Starre-chamber be­tweene him and one Stapleton Knight.

One spoke of my Lord Dyer Chiefe Iu­stice of the Common Pleas that he was a cor­rupt Iudge,If one say of the Kings Iu­stice, that hee is corrupt. for which he was convicted in this Court, and adjudged to stand upon the Pillo­rie, vide Statut. de scandal. magnatum, in the which the Iudges of the Law are mentioned, and surely this man was a very grave, reverend and upright Iudge by the generall report of all men, and by this report greatly abused.

One had cast abroad slanderous Libells of one that was Bishop of C. circa 20. Regina. Slanderous Li­bels of a Bi­shop. and was punished in this Court.

The King himselfe is by intendment alwaies present here in person,The Prince is alwaies inten­ded to bee pre­sent in the Court of Starre-cham­ber. for the Subpoena that goes out to warne any to appeare in this Court is Coram nobis & Consilio nostro. And al­though the King come not thither, yet being that his Counsell is there, it is intended that the King himselfe is there, And that which his Counsell doth here is adjudged in Law as the Kings deed himselfe, for they speake with his mouth.

Question of the Constable.If strife or debate be whether a suit to bee tryed by battell shall be before the Constable, or Marshall, or by the Common Law the said Constable and Marshall commanding them to surcease untill it bee decided by the Kings Counsell,The kings counsell the Iudge between Iurisdictions. which of them shall have cog­nizance of the matter, 13. H. 2. cap. 2.

Note where the Statute de scandal. magna­tum, in print, speaketh of false messages, the Record of the Tower is, false Messengers, viz. false lyes, and this also appeareth by the Writ which is founded upon the Statute.

Slanderous words against the king.One O. which had spoken slanderous and horrible words against Queene Mary, was in­dited, for the words of the inditement being that he had spoken them against the forme of of divers Statutes without mentioning of any in particular, and without saying, unde scanda­lum in Regno inter Reg. & magnat. vel populum suum oriri poterit: and hee was convicted of these words upon his arraignment, and had Iudgement to be imprisoned, and to be fined at the Kings pleasure untill hee had found his author, according to the Statute of Westmin­ster the 1. Ca. 34. for hee could not have pu­nishment according to the first and second of Queene Mary, because that the time was past, and that is that he shall bee imprisoned untill he produce him unto the Court, who was the first Author of the words, and not according [Page 37] to the advise or arbiterment of the Counsell; for it is when the slander toucheth the Noble men, and great Officers mentioned in the Sta­tute of 2. & 12. R. 2. and not the King, for he is an exempt person, and not implyed within the words (les haults & grands homes ou nobles) &c. Dyer. 155. And it seemeth that the of­fence might have bin examined in the Starre-chamber, and punished there aswell as any where else.

One brings an Action of forging of false deeds against a Lord,An action of Forgery brought against a Lord. no Action will lye a­gainst him for it, while the suit is depend­ing vpon the Statute de scandal. magnatum. For it rests in doubt, whether the defendant be guilty or not, Dyer, fol. 285. And by the the same reason he cannot sue the plaintiffe, in the Starre-chamber depending the suit in this matter.

Iames Tavernor being a Copiholder of the Lord Cromwells of his Mannor of Northelton in Norfolke made a customary in Latin of the said Manor in Parchment,The making of a false customa­ry of a Mannor. with eleven Labels and Seales, of his owne and other Tenants of the Mannor, inserting into it divers very false Customes tending apparantly to the dis­inheriting of the said Lord, and pretending by the said tytle of the Customary to bee collec­ted, renued and set by the consent of all the freeholders of the said Mannor being in num­ber [Page 38] 100, at the least, and allowed and permit­ted by the Lord of the Mannor, & jure, con­clusion, in cujus rei testimonium, the 11 whose names were subscribed, had put their seales the day and yeare abovesaid, but no day nor yeare appeared in the title, and no consent of all the Tenants, nor allowance of the Lord had indeed, and the seales were very strange, for upon every seale, there was a great square seale ingraven about with Northelton. And the particular seale lesse within that, by the which as it seemeth the intent was to prove the con­sent or allowance of the Lord, with the con­sent & agreement of al the tenants, & this was proved to be done wittingly, subtilly, falsly, and to the intent, and by Taverner. If this be a Forgery punishable by the Statute de An. quinto Reginae Eliz. this being done in Anno 9, Regina Eliz. it was doubted and referred by the Lo: to the consideration of all the Iudges quorum opiniones pro majore parte were reported by the two Chiefe Iustices, that it was a For­gery or counterfetting, punishable by the o­pen and shamefull penance contained in the Statute which speaketh expresly of a writing sealed, as this was, and to the intent to bene­fit themselves and to dis-inherite the Lord, and accordingly Iudgement and decree was pronounced that terme in solemne presence the Lord Keeper being absent by reason hee [Page 39] was not well; And for the execution of double costs and damages recovered by the taxation of the Court, it was doubted what manner and forme of proces should be made, and af­ter conference had upon it betweene all the Iustices of both Benches, and the chiefe Ba­ron, it was agreed, That an English Writt should be made and directed to the Sheriffe of Norfolke, rehearsing the conviction, and the Statute for the leavying of the said costs, and of the goods, chattels and profits of the sayd Land of the said T. and to bring in the mony into the Star-chamber, the writt to be sealed with the great Seale, and the Teste or Witnes to the Queene her selfe as is usuall in the like writs as goe out of the Chancery.

After this Conference and judgement in the Star-chamber, the Queene pardoneth the execution of the corporall punishment, whe­ther this bee good without obtaining release of the party. Also quae intention. stat. 5. Regin. Eliz. ca. 14. Note the preamble vehemently penned for the increasing of the punishment for Forgery, and also the body of the Statute, That is to say, that the party grieved shall re­cover double costs and damages, and that the offender shall suffer upon the Pillory the cor­porall penance; and also shall forfeit to the King the profits of his land, but the plaintife to be first satisfied, &c.

Also if the offender hath once satisfied the corporall punishment, hee shall not bee eft­soones impeached.

Also if the offendor bee once convict, the plaintife cannot release nor discontinue the punishment, &c. but onely costs and damages &c. Et postea scilicet termino Mich. prox. it was holden by Wray chiefe Iustice, Sanders chiefe Baron, Harper and Manwood Iustices, Barham, and Gerrard Attorney, that the Queene might pardon the corporall punishment, which trencht to the common example, but Dyer, Mounson, and Southcot held the contrarie, Dyer 322.

Strangers rob­bed on the Sea.A Merchant stranger that is robbed upon the Sea by English men, may complaine by bill in the Starrechamber for it, if so bee that the King whom the Merchant is subject un­to, be in amity with the King of England, vide stat. 37. Eliz. 3. statute staple, ca. 13. that he that sueth before the King, and his Counsell ought to prove that he which tooke him, and robbed him, fuit etiam sub obedientia Regis, vel de ami­citia Dom. Regis sive Principis quarent. tempore spoliationis, & non inimicus Regis sive principis quarentis quia si fuerit inimicus quum coepit bona, tunc nōiest spoliatio nec depredatio sed legalis captio pront quil. inimicus capit super unum & alterum. Et haec fuit opinio Iusticiar' in Camera Scaccar' ad hoc per Cancellarium Angl. vocat. 2. R. 3. Note [Page 41] that the said Statute doth not speake that they shall be examined before the Counsell, and yet the same booke is ut supr. vide 31. H. 6. cap. 4. that this matter may bee examined in the Chancery.

Vide if an enemy take a ship from an Eng­lishman,An enemy ta­keth a ship from an Eng­lishman, and another Eng­lishman taketh it againe from the enemy. and another Englishman taketh it from him againe, the first from which it was taken, hath no remedy if he cannot ante occa­sum of the same day as it was adiudged as Vauisor said Bar. Fits. 9.7.3.4. but hee that tooke it from the enemie shall retaine it as a thing gotten by battell, and neither the King nor the Admirall shall have share. ibid.

Vide the Satut. 27. Eliz. ca. 4. the authority of the Court of Starchamber serveth against them which make frandulent convaiancesFrandulent conveyances. to defraud purchasers &c. By the which it appea­reth that this Court shall punish such an of­fence aswell as it may be punished by the said Statute in another Court, And such a Clause is in 5. Eliz. ca. 10. concerning pujury.

Note by Catlin Chiefe Iustice of England in the Starchamber before all the Queenes Counsell,A fine levied by an Infant or maried wife. that if an Infant or maried wife or other, levy a fine upon a grant and render in tayle or for life, the hu [...]band dies, the wife nor the Infant shall have a Writ of errour during the nonage because that he is the Te­nant of the land himselfe, and againe he can­not [Page 42] have a Writte against himselfe, and so in this case the Infant is without remedy quod nota, great mischiefe. H. Anno. 15.

Perjury volun­tarily commit­ted in the kings Bench.If perjury be voluntarily committed in the Kings Bench by any witnesse or proofe upon a suggestion for a prohibition there to be gran­ted, against an Eccesiasticall Iudge, according to the statut of 2. et. 3. Eliz. 6. cap. 13. where the party is stayed of his Writ of consultati­on, whether it might be examined and puni­shed in the Starchamber was a great questiō, and upon this all the Iustices were assembled together at Sergeants Inn & perused the stat. of 3. H. 7. ca. 20. et 11. H. 7. ca. 25. and the prouiso for the Star-chamber, in the end of the Act of 5. Eliz. ca. 9. and it seemed unto them that the said perjury was not examinable nor to be punished in this Court of Starchamber, for. 3. H. 7. ca. 1. doth not provide any pu­nishment for perjury no more then it doth for murder, and before 5. Eliz. there was no punishment for perjury by common Law but an attaynt, Dyer. 242.

Vide my booke of Iustice of Peace amongst the Articles touching matters Ecclesiasticall, for perjuryPerjury. diuers cases which are printed there.

Perjury in Chancery.A man committeth perjury in the Chance­ry and thereupon a bill is exhibited and con­cluded contraformam statuti. 5. Eliz. And it was [Page 43] doubted whether that the defendant should plead not guilty or not, and whether he should be sworne to his plea, and also answer to in­terrogatories as in the Starchamber, & it was held that he shold not, by Catlin, Dyer, Sanders, and Whiddon, except that the Chancellor have absolute authority, and hath used to examine perjuries before. 5. Eliz. ca. 9. For then it is reserved by the prouiso of the said Statute aswell as for the Star-chamber, and if the Chancellour will examine perjury commit­ted there, vt potest by the said Statute, this shall bee done by Latine Bill and pleaded in Latine, and issue shall be ioyned and tryed in the Kings bench, ut solet, in the like cases 288. Dyer.

Memorandum, Forgery of a Will. that in the great case of For­gery, touching the Will of Sir I. it was mo­ved for a doubt, viz. that if one that writeth the Will of a man that lyeth mortally sicke, insert a clause or article in the Will, when the Testator is speechlesse, and without memory, nor did command him afore to put in this ar­ticle or clause, whether this shall be a forging of a Will, and punishable by the Statute, 5. Eliz. cap. 9. or no. And it was agreed and re­solved upon the better opinion there, that it was not the meaning of the makers of the said Law, Dier. 288. Note that the forging of a Testament by the which any Lease for [Page 44] yeares is conceived, shall bee punished by 5. Eliz. cap. 14. by this word writing, onely. And yet no mention is made of any Testament: but of a Will concerning Frank tenement or inheritance. And it was doubted whether per­jury committed in an Ecclesiasticall Court circa probationem test, may be punished in the Starchamber, by reason of the proviso in the Starchamber there. 302.

A man having a Lease for 20 yeares writeth 30 in the In­denture.A man hath a Lease for twenty yeares, and maketh this in the Indenture thirty yeares, this is no forgery of the said Lease, because that it was a good Deed, and not forged at the beginning. And yet notwithstanding the said Lease is now voyd: the first Case is so ta­ken in the Starchamber: and for the other case see my Lord Dier 26. that striking out, and maculation,Maculation or blotting of words. and blotting of words, although it bee not in a materiall place, as in the sub­stance of words contained in the Indenture, defeats or disanulls the Indenture. And this was in the case of the Lease made by Inden­ture by A. Quaere.

Protection a­gainst Purvey­ors.Note, Fitz. nat. br. 30. that it appeareth by the Register 289. that all persons spirituall may sue out a protection for themselves and their goods, and their Farmors of their lands, and for their goods there that they shall not be taken by the Kings promooters, nor their cariages or cattells taken by any of the Kings [Page 45] Servants: and it appeareth by the same pro­tection, that King Edward in the 14 yeare of his reigne, by especiall Statute granted this priviledge to the Clergy, that he tooke them into his protection, and their goods and ca­riages: And they may have a speciall Com­mission directed to certaine persons, to arrest such Purveyors or servants, to bring them be­fore the Kings Counsell, there to answer their misfesance in this Case.

If a Iurie doe forsweare themselves in Court Baron amongst the free Tenants,Iurors forswea­ring themselves in a Court Baron. upon a bill put into the court, they shalbe punished here, for no attaint will lye in a base Court: But if error be committed in such a Court, the party shall have a Writ of false judgment. But the Copiholder of a Mannour (if false judgement bee given against him) shall not have a Writ of false judgement, but shall sue unto the Lord of the Mannour by petition. Nat. Br. for a false verdict given against such a Copiholder, he may sue in the Starchamber.

A man may sue a Bill (as it seemeth) in the Starchamber upon the Statute of buying of Titles, 32. H. 8. cap. 9.Buying titl [...] for the King to have the forfeiture of the said Statute, and al­though the Statute aforesaid giveth the for­feiture of the one moity to the King, and the other to the party, yet notwithstanding if the King first commence his suit for all, eve­rie [Page 46] one is barred as in other penall Statutes, which give the moity to the King, and the o­ther moity to any other that will sue for it, ut patet 3. H. 7. for the last vide Brunkers Case, ut supra.

A man found [...] Ideot before the [...]scheators.Although a man bee found to be an Ideot before the Escheators or Sheriffe by inquisi­tion, yet notwithstanding hee may come by himselfe, or by his friends before the Kings Counsell, and pray to bee examined before them whether he be an Ideot; or he may fue a Writ of the Chancery directed to certaine persons, to bring him before the Kings Coun­sell to be examined. And if he bee found no Ideot before them, then that which is found before the Escheators or Sherife availeth not.

Vnlawfull maintenance.Note that 3. H. 7. cap. 1. saith that the Lords in this Court shall heare and determine un­lawfull maintenances, &c. Et ideo, what shall be said Maintenance, and what not, vide my booke of Iustice of Peace, eodem titulo.

If a man take upon him to maintaine, and yet doe not.If a man take upon him to maintaine and, yet doe not maintaine in deed, he is punish­able, Li. ass. 30. Dier 95. A man tooke mony to give a verdict, although he gave no verdict yet notwithstanding he shall be fined Dier 95. Fitz. nat. br. 171. 21. H. 6. 2.

Maintenance.If I grant to B. that if my Tenant for life die in my life time, that B. shall have the land for twenty yeares: In this case B. may main­taine, [Page 47] 9. H. 6. 64. and yet this is but a possibi­lity by Strange, and there is a Case vouched to this purpose. Commentar. fo.

Every one which hath interest in the re­version or remainder, may maintaine,Maint [...] and that with his owne money, Maint. Er. 53. 136. And so may he that hath an use in Law or in conscience. As if an obligation bee made to my use, I may maintaine, & vide the Case 15. H. 7. 2. where one was indebted to mee, and others indebted to him, and he assigned his bond to me in satisfaction of my debt, and I in this case may spend of my owne money in this suit, as appeareth there, 37. H. 6. 13. where one buyeth an Obligation made unto another, and it was held void in Law, and al­so in the Chancery, because the party had not quid pro quo, for it is a thing in action, and therefore if he bring an action upon this bond in the Obligees name, this seemeth mainte­nance, because he hath no interest.

The Statute aforesaid of 3. H. 7. cap. 1. spea­keth moreover of the giving of Liveries, that if a man take a Livery, and doe not use it, yet he shall be punished for it, 5. H: 7. 18. per Hussey, & 6. H. 7. per Wood accordingly quare the Statute aforesaid speaketh of Retainers by Deed to promise without Deed, for Retai­ners vide 8. Ed. 4. fol. 2.

Item, the said Statute speaketh of Embra­cers,Embra [...] [Page 48] who shall be said an Embracet, vide my Booke of Iustice of Peace, titulo, Maintenance, Embracery,Embra [...]ry. Champertie, &c.

Note that a Decies tantum will not lye a­gainst an Embracer, if he embrace and doth not take money, for he must take money and embrace. Also where this action is main­tainable, Fitz. Nat. Br. 171. Issue 10 [...]. 37. H. 6. 31.

If a man take mony, or buyeth lands for lesse than it is worth, for to embrace or to give a verdict, it is all one, &c. Decies tantum Fitz. nat. 9. 41. E. 3.

Iurors tooke money after they had given their verdict, without any covenant afore­hand, whereof they were convicted by ver­dict, and every one was fined at a noble. This Case is out of the Statute of Decies tantum, 39. lib. ass. 19. and so it shall be punished in this Court, because that they have power to punish Iurors which take money, as it appea­reth by the Statute of 3. H. 7. cap. 1. supr.

A Lawyer which taketh money to embrace Iurors shall bee punished by the Statute of 6. Ed. 4. 5. Decies tantum. Fitz. nat. br. 171. and yet notwithstanding for taking of money to give in evidence, shall not bee punished. It seemeth that embracers shall bee punished which take money, and labour the Iurors to passe the one way, or the other, although the [Page 49] Iurors give up their verdict as they should doe.

Note that Iurors which take money,Iurors which take money. and are attainted shall not be put in Assize, Iuries or Enquests, but shall be sent to prison, and moreover punished at the Kings pleasure, 5. Edw. 3. ca. 5. Note that this Statute was made long time before the statute of Decies tantum which was made in 34. Ed. 3. ca. 8. And this statute of 34. Ed. 3. giveth no imprison­ment, but where a Iuror or Embracer hath not sufficient to make recompence.

The said Statute of 3. H. 7.Vntrue re­turnes of Sheriffes. speaketh also of the untrue demeanour of Sheriffes in im­panelling of Iuries, and in untrue returnes: concerning false returnes, see Bronkers case su­pra in this title, & vide the Statute of 23. H. 6. ca. 10. for Sheriffe, for extortion, and taking of mony; And vide the title of Sheriffes in my Iustice of Peace.

Item, the said Statute speaketh of Ryotts,Ryots, &c. and see the title of Ryots and Routs in my Iu­stice of Peace.

Item, by the said Statute of 3. H. 7.Taking of mo­ney in Iurors. Embraceries. it appear­eth, the Lords shall punish taking of money in Iurors or Imbracers, although the partie might have beene punished by Statutes that have beene made.

If a man maintaine another whilest the plea is depending pro parte Reg. hee shall bee pu­nishedMaintenance. [Page 50] in the Starre-chamber. For every Champarty implyeth a maintenance, vide 32. H. 8. ca.

If a man exhibite a Bill against 2, and pray to have proces against them, but the plaintife serveth but one of them: If the defendant have a commission to take their answer, and the Commissioners take their answer, and the plaintife doth not joyne in the Commission, here hee shall loose the benefit of examining the defendant upon interrogatories, and ther­fore see that is good, that the plaintife joyne in the commissions to the intent that hee may exhibite interrogatories. Vigilantibus & non dormientibus subveniunt leges.

Entring into a house and ca­rying away of writings.Trespasse for entring into his house, and ca­rying away of writings, and the defendant pleads not guilty, the enquest saith that the defendant came into the house of the plaintife when the plaintife was not there, and said un­to the plaintifes wife, that hee bad that shee should deliver the said writings unto him, which she did, whereupon Higham awarded that the defendant should be imprisoned, and that he should not bee released untill hee had redelivered the said writings unto him; And damages were assessed because he came with a false message, Trespas-ship 240. 34. Ed. 1. vide the statute of 33. H. 8. ca. 1. how one should be punished there for getting of mo­ney, [Page 51] or by a false message, or counterfeit Let­ters or tokens. See Worsley his case codem titu­lo, vide 1. R. 2. ca. 4. How Lords or Noblemen shall bee punished that maintaine quarrels in the Country or any where else.

A Merchant Stranger which came into England by the Kings safe conduct did deliver certaine Merchandize to one of the Kings subjects at South. to cary,A Carier ope­ning packs committed to him not to be opened. who opened the pac­ket, and took things out, whereupon the For­reiner exhibited a Bill in the Starre-chamber before the Kings Counsell there, whether this were Felony or no. It was referred to the Iustices, and held to be felony, and so the Iu­stices certified the Chancellor, and the Kings Counsell. And it seemeth by the booke that a Merchant shall not loose the Mercandizes, because hee comes hither with the Kings safe conduct, ut supra, 13. Ed. 4. 9.Safe conduct to Merchant strangers. And it is said there that it was adjudged that notwithstan­ding the statute which giveth that the safe conduct shall be enrolled, and the number of the Marryners, and the name of the ship, That where safe conduct is, and hath not his due circumstances according to this, yet it shall be allowed, for Aliens say that they are not bound to know our statutes for they come by reason of the Kings privy Seale upon his safe conduct: And if that should not be sufficient then should they bee deceived; and yet not­withstanding [Page 52] some say that the statute made for forfeiture of Merchandize bindeth Mer­chant strangers aswell as Denizens. vide Fo­gassa his case, Coment fol. 1. It is held by the Chancellor in the first case, that a Merchant stranger which comes by safe conduct is not bound to sue by the Law of the Land, to try a thing by twelve men, but that it shall bee de­termined according to the Law of nature, in the Chancery: And by this it appeareth that the Court of Star-chamber was before 5. H. 7. ca. 1.

Collusion upon bond to save a [...]uer [...]y harme­lesse.Note that one Grevile was bound with one Halc, and for the debt of the said H. in an hun­dred pound to one Dawby a Merchant for the payment of 50. pound, at a certaine day, and H. was bound to Grevile by obligation to save him harmlesse against D. H. payeth the money, 50 pound at the day or within three dayes after, and his bond given him, in the which G. and H. were bound to D. G. being neither sued nor damnified by this debt prac­tised with one P. that G should bring an acti­on upon the said obligation against the said H: and then it was agreed, that P should ap­peare as H. his Attourney, and confesse the action without any ordinary rule of the Court to answer: The plaintifes Attourney pleadeth unto him, non sum informatus, and upon this G had H. in execution, and H shew­eth [Page 53] this matter to the Court, whereupon a vacat was made of the Iudgement, and H en­larged, and P committed to the Fleet, and to stand upon the Pillory. And G was bound to the Queene in a Recognizance of two hun­dred pounds to appeare in the Common Pleas. And this devise and lewd practise was made and devised betwixt G and P to stoppe or discharge a debt, in the which the said G was bound unto the said H. Dyer fo. 331. Note that this order that P should stand upon the Pillory was ordered by the Court of Starre-Chamber as it seemeth.

Note, Dyer fol. 249.A Prisoner in execution for debt must be straitly kept. saith that an order and decree was made in the Star-Chamber, 2. H. 4. 8. by the devise of divers Iustices there be­ing, viz. both the Chiefe Iustices of both the Benches, Fitzherb. and Spillins Iustices, that by the Law such a prisoner as is in execution in the Fleet for debt shall not have his liberty within the prison, nor without with the Kee­per, but shall bee kept very straitly in Ward, and an Injunction of this was sent to all the Keepers of the prisons in London to observe the said Order and Decree upon paine of an hundred pound, and so see the authority of the Court that by good discretion it may or­der things, although they be not mentioned in the statute of 3. H. 7. ca. 1.

R. A. was attainted of disseisin with force whereupon an exigent went out,An Item for Sheriffes. which Writ the Sheriffe returneth: And that the King sent unto him the Writ under his seale, that he had pardoned the trespasse and imprison­ment, and commanded that hee should not be endamaged for this cause: so that hee had nothing by reason of this commandement, and returneth the Kings Writ; And because this Writ should have beene sent to the Iu­stices, and they ought to have commanded the Sheriffe to surcease (for a Sheriffe cannot surcease by reason of any Writ in the Law, but by warrant out of the place from whence hee had his commandement) The Sheriffe was amerced, and a new exigent awarded, 14. E. 3. titulo of Vicount Fits 89. As touch­ing that the said privy seale ought to have beene sent to the Iustices, vide 4. E. 4. 14.

A Sheriffe having a Writ of Atachment Coram Domina Regina & consilio in Camera stel­lata apud Westm. 15. Pasche ad respondend. dict. Domina Regina & consilio suo de quodam contemptu, & ad faciend. & recipiend. ulterius, &c. arrested the party, and tooke bond of him, indorsed with this condition, viz. that if hee shall personally appeare before the Queenes Majestie, and her Counsell at West­minster 15. Pasche, and then and there shall an­swer [Page 55] a contempt by him made against the Queene and her Counsell; then if these words, viz. (and then and there shall answer) seem to be an addition more thē is in the sta­tute, 23. H. 6. ca. 10. garr. Ideo vide, whether it be void or not. It was demurred upon in Law, and by the opinion of Dyer and Wind­ham, the obligation is good enough, for it amounteth to as much as to say (then and there to answer to a contempt, &c.) which had been good, and by this obligation no pro­fit accreweth to the Sheriffe or to any other person but onely to answer to the King, &c. which was the intent of the Statute of 23. H. 6. sed Mede contra, and iudgement was given, Mich. 22. & 23. Eliz. per Dyer 364.

Memorandum, quod patet 34. H. 6. rotulo 37.Men that be­ing in prison for debt frau­dulently pro­cure themselves to be indited. in banco Regis, That one Vernay which was in execution in the Fleet for debt unto the King and another procured themselves fraudulent­ly to be indited of fellony, to the intent to defraud their creditors of their debts, and procured themselves to be removed out of the Fleet by a Corpus cum causa, &c. directed to the Warden of the Fleet to be committed to the Marshaisey; and these executions were returned into the Kings Bench, whereupon the King being informed of this intent of the prisoners, and of divers of their such fraudu­lent practices to deceive their creditors by [Page 56] this procurement to bee indited of fellony, and to be arraigned upon it, and to confesse the fellony, and to betake themselves to their Clergy, to the intent to be out of the power of Temporall Lawes, and afterwards by meanes to make their purgation, and bee discharged: The King by his Privy Seale di­rected unto the Iustices of the Kings Bench, commanded them to surcease the arraigne­ment of him untill they had heard further commandement from him and his Counsell, Dier 245. vide 1. H. 7. 7. One was arrested in London upon a plaint which was not at the Common Law, afterwards the defendant was indited in the Kings Bench of trespasse, and was removed thither by habeas corpus out of London, and because he could not appeare by Atturney in the Kings Bench, but in pro­per person, he was not sent backe, which was held cleerly suspitious; and yet hee was dis­missed out of London, for he acknowledged the trespasse, and was committed to the Marshalsey, and afterwards hee found surety for fine to the King, and was discharged, 14. H. 7. 7. printed by Covin shall not be allowed, 6. Ed. 4. 4. One was in execution for the par­tie for damages, recouered in redisseisin, and afterwards attainted by outlawry of fellony, and pardoned for it, who was againe in exe­cution for the party, and yet notwithstan­ding [Page 57] once he was in some sort discharged, be­cause that when the Kings interest and of a common person concurre together in an en­tire thing as in the body, &c. the King shall be preferred; but if he had beene found guil­tie, and had his Clergy, he should be delive­red into his former estate, I. Illingworth and Markham: And the reason is, because that in this case hee is out of the Court, and dis­charged of this; but in the case of redisseisin ut supra, he abideth alwayes in the keeping of the Court, 6. E. 4. vide 24. E. 3. 12. & 6. H. 4. 8. vide 4. E. 4. 9.

A man having neither privi­ledge nor cu­stome to make Proclamation.If a man make a proclamation without priviledge or custome, he shall be fined and committed, and so was Sir I. K. of North. which caused proclamations to be made in divers Townes, that every one to whom I. S. was indebted should come unto him to the which I. S. was executour, and that they should be paid, and he was committed for this, and fined, Proclamation Brooks 10. 22. H. 8. and this matter shall bee examined in this Court.