HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0929 and id is 1 raw text is: MICHAELMAS, 4 WILLIAM AND MARY
against Home accordingly. But Cro. Car. 18, Sir Francis Vincent against Lesney,
trespass lies for striking his hawk, without shewing he was reclaimed. Cro. Ja. 262,
Grimes vers. Stacke, trover lies of musk-cats and of monkies, because they are merehandize;
and for the same reason [337] it has been adjudged, that trover lies of negroes, Cro. Ja. 345,
Wadhurst against Damme. Trespass for killing his mastiff; and ibid. 463, trespass
for taking his greyhound and collar. 2 Inst. 655, in the time of E. 1, trespass for
taking his two greyhounds. Ow. 93, assumpsit to deliver a dog. Cro. Eliz. 125, 126,
property in a dog. Roll. 1 Abr. pag. 5, sect. 5, that trover lies of a spaniel; and
afterward judgment was given for the plaintiff.
THE KING against THE BISHOP OF NORWICH, RICHARD HIDE
AND EDMUND BOUGHTON.
Notice or no notice of a simoniacal agreement not necessary. Ante 16, 83, 115, 206.
Quare impedit of the church of Hopton Wafers in the county of Salop, and declares
that J. S. was seised of the advowson, and presented Wheeler, and granted the next
avoidance to Charles Boughton, and that the church avoided by the death of Wheeler,
and then shews the stat. 31 El. c. 5, of Simony; and that the church being void, it
was corruptly agreed between a friend of Charles Boughton, and on his behalf, and
one Taylor, that Charles Boughton should present Hide, and that Taylor should pay
to Richards 201. a year for six years, if Hide should so long live; and that in pursu-
ance of this agreement Taylor became bound to Richards in 2001. for payment of the
201. per annum; which obligation was made to the use of Charles Boughton; and
that immediately thereupon Charles Boughton presented Hide, and he was thereupon
de facto instituted, &c. which by virtue of the said statute was void, and so it belonged
to K. Charles II. to present, and then derives the Government to the now King and
Queen, and their right now to present; and that the defendants hindered them, &c.
Hide with a protestation to the agreement and the obligation pleads, that he had no
notice of the agreement at the time of the presentation, or at any time before ; where-
upon the Attorney-General demurs for the King. Boughton also with a protestation
to the agreement and the obligation pleads, that the other defendant presented him
freely, and traverses the corrupt agreement. Whereupon issue was joined ; and now
upon arguing the demurrer, and consideration of the books of Cro. Ja. 385. The
King against The Bishop of Norwich, Cro. 533. Booth versus Potter, Cro. Car. 330.
Mich. 9 Car. 1, Bawderocke versus [338] Mackaller, 3 Inst. 154, it was resolved by the
whole Court, viz. Treby, Nevile, Powell and Rokesby, that the notice is not material,
but only the corrupt agreement; for the notice is very difficult to be proved in such
cases, and the patron may entrust a friend, as in this case, to make the agreement;
and before notice thereof given to him, may present upon an assurance by certain
signs between them that such an agreement is perfected. Whereupon they gave
judgment for the plaintiff upon the demurrer, but execution to stay 'till the issue tried.
Levinz for the plaintiff, Pemberton for the defendant.
COTTEREL against MATTHEWS.
In an action for words where the first words are laid positively, the last words shall
be taken positively also; although they come under a cumque. 2 Lev. 193.
2 Show. 17, 294, 413. 2 Jo. 197. 4 Bac. Ab. 512.
Case, quare cum the plaintiff was a good subject, &c. the defendant April 1, quarto
regni Regis nunc falsely and maliciously said to the plaintiff, Thou art a peijured knave.
Cumque etiam postea Apr. 2, he said, Thou art a cheating roque, and a perjured knave, and
hast cheated all men that ever dealt with thee. After verdict for the plaintiff, upon issue
not guilty and entire damages, it was moved in arrest of judgment by Lutwyche, that
the last words are not laid affirmatively and positively, but by way of recital, with a
cumq; he said these words, and he cited several cases, where in trespass, battery, &c.
when alledged cum the defendant did such a trespass, battery, &c. that after a'verdict
718
3 LEV. 33?.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0929&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)