<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2009-05-10</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Scott Lepisto</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist:
x Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate
x Add DIV TYPEs, validate
x Review structure, use BODY or rarely GROUP
x Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N=""
x Proof title page(s)
x Check HEAD TRAILER ARGUMENT EPIGRAPH OPENER CLOSER SIGNED SALUTE BYLINE
x Check ^, oe, italic I / J, _Initals, space between &amp;c FIGURE
x Check q; startq endq Q
x Check ligatures if in black letter &abper; &abpro; &abus; &abquod; &absed; &abser; &abcon; &abrum; &abis;
x Correct illegibles from proofsheet
x Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs, &punc;
Final validate

Corrected [  ] illegible groups out of [  ].
Converted [  ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible".
DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A77472">
<STC T="W">B4648A</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99895579</BIBNO>
<VID>153062</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="document">
<PB N="1" REF="1">
<HEAD>A brief State of the Ca&s;e and Tryal had in the <HI>Kings Bench,</HI> in the A&s;&s;ize brought for the Office of Chief Clerk for inrolling of Pleas in the &s;aid Court; between <HI>William Bridge|man,</HI> <ABBR>E&s;q</ABBR> Plantiff; and <HI>Rowland Holt,</HI> <ABBR>E&s;q</ABBR> and <HI>Edward Coleman,</HI> Gent. Defen|dants.</HEAD>
<P>THe Plaintiff declares that the Office of Chief Clerk for the inrolling of Pleas in the Court of <HI>Kings Bench,</HI> was time out of mind granted and grantable by the Kings and Queens of this Realm: And that King <HI>Charles</HI> II. by Letters Patents under the great Seal of <HI>England,</HI> dated 2 <HI>June,</HI> 25 of his Reign (reciting that he had by his Letters Patents, 1 <HI>July,</HI> 14 of his Reign (after a recital therein that <HI>Robert Henly</HI> and <HI>Samuel Wightwicke</HI> were duly admitted to this Office for their lives) granted this Office (upon the Petition of <HI>Elliot</HI>) to <HI>Silas Titus</HI> &s;o &s;oon as it &s;hould become void, and that <HI>Wightwicke</HI> was dead, and <HI>Titus</HI> had &s;urrendred his Patent) did, in con&s;iderati|on of &s;ervice done by the Earl of <HI>Arlington,</HI> grant this Office to the Plaintiff and his heirs, for the lives of the Earl of <HI>Arlington,</HI> Duke of <HI>Grafton,</HI> and Dutche&s;s of <HI>Grafton,</HI> and the longer liver of them, from and after the death, forfeiture, or &s;urrender of Sir <HI>Robert Henly.</HI> And that Sir <HI>Robert Henly</HI> was dead; and that thereupon the Plaintiff became &s;eized, and was &s;eized of the Of|fice till the Defendants di&s;&s;eized him, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>The Defendants pleaded that they did no wrong or di&s;&s;eizin to the Plaintiff, which is the General I&s;&s;ue.</P>
<P>The Recognitors were,
<LIST>
<ITEM>Sir <HI>John Wol&s;tenholm</HI> of <HI>Enfeild,</HI> Bar.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Sir <HI>William Hedges</HI> of <HI>Finchley,</HI> Knight.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Ralph Bucknell,</HI> of St. <HI>Giles in the Fields,</HI> E&s;quire.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>George Ford,</HI> of <HI>Bromely,</HI> <ABBR>E&s;q</ABBR></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>William &V;nderhill,</HI> of <HI>Cripplegate,</HI> <ABBR>E&s;q</ABBR></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>John Raymund,</HI> of <HI>Highgate,</HI> <ABBR>E&s;q</ABBR></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>John Smith,</HI> of <HI>Hackney,</HI> <ABBR>E&s;q</ABBR></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>William Northy,</HI> of the &s;ame, <ABBR>E&s;q</ABBR></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Edward Harris,</HI> of <HI>Southgate,</HI> <ABBR>E&s;q</ABBR></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Daniel Thomas,</HI> of <HI>Highgate,</HI> <ABBR>E&s;q</ABBR></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Abraham Da&s;hwood,</HI> of <HI>Cripplegate,</HI> <ABBR>E&s;q</ABBR></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Arthur Baily,</HI> of <HI>Mile end,</HI> <ABBR>E&s;q</ABBR></ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>The Plaintiff gave no Evidence but the Letters Patents of 2 <HI>June,</HI> 25 <HI>Car.</HI> 2. And being put to &s;hew that the Office was
<PB N="2" REF="2">
anciently granted by the Kings and Queens of <HI>England,</HI> accord|ing as he had declared; he did &s;hew none but the Patent of King <HI>Charles</HI> II.</P>
<P>Though the Plaintiffs Grant were to him and his heirs (which ought not to be of &s;uch an Office, for &s;o it might come to an In|fant) yet the Defendants Councel waved that ju&s;t exception, and in&s;i&s;ted upon the meer right of Granting the &s;aid Office, <HI>(viz.)</HI> That it was not grantable by the Crown, but was an Office be|longing to the chief Ju&s;tice of the <HI>Kings Bench,</HI> and only grant|able by him.</P>
<P>And for proof hereof it was &s;hewed, that this Officer is to in|roll the Pleas between party and party only, and had nothing to do in the Pleas of the Crown, or Criminal matters. That all the Rolls and Records in this Office were in the cu&s;tody of the Chief Ju&s;tice; who with his own Money pays for the Parchment of all tho&s;e Rolls and Records, and all Writs to certifie or re|move the Records in this Clerks Office are directed to the Chief Ju&s;tice; and this Officer is in truth but his Clerk, and the Office grantable by him alone, for any life, or two lives, when void.</P>
<P>And for further proof of the Chief Ju&s;tices right to grant this Office, it was &s;hewed and proved by the Records of the Court, that for the &s;pace and time of 235 years la&s;t pa&s;t, this Office, when void, had been granted &s;ucce&s;&s;ively by the Chief Ju&s;tice for the time being, to whom he plea&s;ed, and enjoyed accord|ingly by &s;uch grants; which was plainly made out by the follow|ing Records.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Trin.</HI> 36 <HI>H.</HI> 6. <HI>Rot.</HI> 36. <HI>int. placita Reg. A. Dom.</HI> 1458. 235 years &s;ince.</NOTE>It is inrolled thus: Be it remembred that the tenth of <HI>July</HI> this Term, in the Court of our Lord the King at <HI>We&s;tmin&s;ter,</HI> came <HI>William Sonde,</HI> Chief Clerk of our Lord the King for enrolling Pleas before the King him&s;elf in his proper per&s;on, and in the &s;ame Court, of his Free Will did &s;urrender his &s;aid Office into the hands of Sir <HI>John Forte&s;cue,</HI> Knight, Chief Ju&s;tice of the Court (to whom of right it doth belong to grant that Office to whom&s;oever he plea&s;eth, when&s;oever that Office &s;hall be void, during the time that the &s;aid Sir <HI>John Forte&s;cue</HI> &s;hall be Chief Ju|&s;tice,) and that Office doth re&s;ign and relinqui&s;h to the u&s;e of <HI>William Brome.</HI> And the &s;aid Chief Ju&s;tice doth accept the &s;ame &s;urrender, and the &s;ame day grants the &s;aid Office to the &s;aid <HI>William Brome,</HI> who is pre&s;ently admitted to the &s;aid Office for his life, and &s;worn accordingly.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Mich.</HI> 1. <HI>E.</HI> 14. <HI>Rot.</HI> 51.</NOTE>Upon <HI>Bromes</HI> &s;urrender to Sir <HI>John Markham,</HI> then Chief Ju|&s;tice; the Chief Ju&s;tice grants it to <HI>William Sonde,</HI> who is admit|ted for life, and &s;worn.</P>
<P><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Mich.</HI> 8 <HI>E.</HI> 4. <HI>Rot.</HI> 26. 1467.</NOTE>Upon the &s;urrender of <HI>William Sonde</HI> to the &s;aid Sir <HI>John Mark|ham,</HI> then Chief Ju&s;tice; he grants it to <HI>Reginald Sonde,</HI> who is admitted and &s;worn.</P>
<P><HI>Reginald Sonde</HI> enjoyed this till the time of <HI>H.</HI> 7. and then <HI>Bray</HI> came in, and was Clerk till 13 <HI>H.</HI> 7. and then came in <HI>Roper.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="3" REF="2">Upon Surrender of this Office to Sir <HI>John Fineux</HI> Chief Ju&s;tice,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Hil.</HI> 9 <HI>H.</HI> 8. <HI>Rot.</HI> 3. 1518.</NOTE> by <HI>John Roper,</HI> the Chief Ju&s;tice grants the Office to Sir <HI>John Ro|per</HI> and <HI>William Roper,</HI> who are admitted for their lives, and &s;worn.</P>
<P>Upon Surrender of <HI>William Roper</HI> (Sir <HI>John</HI> being dead) to Sir <HI>Richard Li&s;ler</HI> then Chief Ju&s;tice,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Hil.</HI> 1 <HI>&amp;</HI> 2 <HI>E.</HI> 6. 1547.</NOTE> he grants the Office to <HI>Willi|am Roper</HI> and <HI>Richard Heywood</HI> for their lives, and they are ad|mitted and &s;worn.</P>
<P>Upon Surrender of <HI>William Roper (Heywood</HI> being dead) to Sir <HI>Robert Catlin</HI> then Chief Ju&s;tice,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Hil.</HI> 15 <HI>El.</HI> 1573.</NOTE> he granted this Office to <HI>John Roper</HI> and <HI>Thomas Roper</HI> for their lives, and they are ad|mitted and &s;worn.</P>
<P>Upon Surrender of <HI>John Roper (Tho.</HI> being dead) to Sir <HI>Henry Montague</HI> then Chief Ju&s;tice,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Mich.</HI> 14 <HI>Jac.</HI> 1. <HI>Rot.</HI> 2. 1616.</NOTE> he grants this Office to <HI>Robert Heath</HI> and <HI>Robert Shute</HI> for their lives, who are admitted and &s;worn thereupon.</P>
<P><HI>Shute</HI> being dead,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Hil.</HI> 14. <HI>Jac.</HI> 1. 1620.</NOTE> upon Sir <HI>Robert Heath</HI>'s Surrender to Sir <HI>James Leigh</HI> Chief Ju&s;tice, he grants the Office to Sir <HI>Robert Heath</HI> and <HI>George Paul</HI> for their lives, and they are &s;worn, and admitted in Court.</P>
<P>Upon the Surrender of Sir <HI>Robert Heath</HI> and Sir <HI>George Paul</HI> to Sir <HI>Nicholas Hide</HI> then Chief Ju&s;tice,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Mich.</HI> 5 <HI>Car.</HI> 1.</NOTE> he grants it to <HI>Robert Henly</HI> and <HI>Samuel Wightwicke</HI> for their lives, and they are admitted and &s;worn.</P>
<P>Upon <HI>Wightwicke</HI>'s Surrender to <HI>H. Roll</HI> then Chief Ju&s;tice,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Trin.</HI> 1654. <HI>Rot.</HI> 1.</NOTE> (<HI>Henly</HI> being then under Seque&s;tration) the Chief Ju&s;tice grants it to <HI>Samuel Wightwicke</HI> and <HI>Robert Henly</HI> junior, for their lives, and they are admitted and &s;worn.</P>
<P>Upon the Surrender of <HI>Samuel Wightwicke</HI> and <HI>Robert Henly</HI> to Sir <HI>Robert Fo&s;ter</HI> then Chief Ju&s;tice,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Mich.</HI> 12 <HI>Car.</HI> 2. <HI>Rot.</HI> 2.</NOTE> he grants it to <HI>Henly</HI> and <HI>Wightwicke</HI> for their lives, and they were admitted and &s;worn.</P>
<P><HI>Wightwicke</HI> dyed &s;oon after, and Sir <HI>Robert Henly</HI> enjoyed it under that Grant 32 year.</P>
<P>Note, In every one of the&s;e Records (except the la&s;t) after the mention of the Surrender to the Chief Ju&s;tice, are the&s;e words, (To whom of Right it doth belong to grant that Office to whom&s;oever he plea&s;eth, when it &s;hall be void, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>)</P>
<P>It was then in&s;i&s;ted by the Defendants, and proved that there was three Officers con&s;iderable in the Court of <HI>Kings Bench,</HI> all of the nature of Clerks.</P>
<P>The fir&s;t and chiefe&s;t is the Clerk of the Crown, called &s;ome|times <HI>Coronator. &amp; Attornat. Domini Regis, &amp;c.</HI> His bu&s;ine&s;s is to draw all Indictments, Informations, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> in Pleas of the Crown, and Criminal matters. This Officer being the Chief Clerk in this Court, is always made by Patent under the Great Seal.</P>
<P>The &s;econd Officer is this Prothonotary, or Chief Clerk, for enrolling Pleas between party and party in Civil matters. He,
<PB N="4" REF="3">
and his Under Clerks, enroll all Declarations, Pleadings, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> in Civil Cau&s;es, e&s;pecially where the proceedings are upon Bill. This Officer files in his Office all Bills, Declarations, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and all the Writs of this Court in Civil matters are made by him and his Under Clerks. and te&s;ted by the Chief Ju&s;tice; and he hath the cu&s;tody of all Returns of <HI>Elegits,</HI> Executions, <HI>Scire fac.</HI>'s, and the fileing all Bails: All which are in the eye and Judgment of the Law, in the hands of the Chief Ju&s;tice, who&s;e Clerk in truth this Officer is.</P>
<P>The third Officer is the <HI>Cu&s;tos Bre.</HI> who keeps all the Rolls and Records of Judgments in this Court, which are yet &s;aid to be in the Cu&s;tody of the Chief Ju&s;tice; and this Office is in the gift and di&s;po&s;al of the Chief Ju&s;tice, when void.</P>
<P>It was further &s;hewed by the Defendants, that in the Stat. of <HI>E.</HI> 6. again&s;t the Sale of Offices, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> there is yet a Salvo to the two Chief Ju&s;tices and Ju&s;tices of A&s;&s;ize, to di&s;po&s;e of the Of|fices in their di&s;po&s;ition, as they u&s;ed formerly; and ever &s;ince that Statute, the&s;e Offices of Chief Clerk to enroll the Pleas, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and the <HI>Cu&s;tos Bre.</HI> have without controll been di&s;po&s;ed by the Chief Ju&s;tice of this Court; and are in truth the only con&s;i|derable Offices in his gift.</P>
<P>It was ob&s;erved that in the Grant of this Office to Mr. <HI>Bridg|man</HI> the Plaintiff, it is recited that <HI>Henly</HI> and <HI>Wightwicke</HI> were <HI>debit. modo</HI> admitted to this Office, yet they never had any Grant from the Crown, nor no other Grant &s;ave that of the Chief Ju&s;tice before-mentioned.</P>
<P>And then to prove that the Defendants have a good Title to the Office, the Grant of the now Chief Ju&s;tice to them for their lives was produced, and proved that they were admitted, and &s;worn in Court.</P>
<P>To an&s;wer all this Evidence: The Plaintiffs Council produced the Copy of an Act of Parliament, which was made 15 <HI>E.</HI> 3. to this effect; It is con&s;ented, that if any of the Offices afore&s;aid (which are other great Offices mentioned in the Act) or the Con|troller or Chief Clerk in the Common Bench or <HI>Kings Bench,</HI> by death or other cau&s;e be ou&s;ted of their Office, the King, with the con&s;ent of the great men, <HI>&amp;e.</HI> &s;hall put another fit per&s;on in &s;uch Office.</P>
<P>From whence the Plaintiffs Councel would infer, that the King had a right to grant this Office; and that this Act was declara|tory of &s;uch his right; and that all the Grants by the Chief Ju|&s;tices &s;ince, were but u&s;urpations on the Crown; but no u&s;age of granting it by the Chief Ju&s;tices, how long &s;oever &s;uch u&s;age hath been, would prevail again&s;t the Kings right.</P>
<P>To this the Defendants an&s;wered, That this Act was repealed, which appears by the Statute of 17 <HI>E.</HI> 3. Note, The rea&s;ons of the Repeal are expre&s;&s;ed; becau&s;e the &s;aid Statute of 15 <HI>E.</HI> 3. is contray to the Law and U&s;ages of the Realm, and the Rights and Prerogatives of the King.</P>
<P><PB N="5" REF="3">But for a full and plain an&s;wer,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Stat.</HI> 2 <HI>H.</HI> 4. made again&s;t the extortion of this Officer on the Crown &s;ide calls him Clerk of the Crown.</NOTE> they &s;hewed that the Office in que&s;tion was not the Office mentioned in that Act; for that Act mentions the Chief Clerk in the <HI>Kings Bench,</HI> which is the Clerk of the Crown, who is not only called the Chief Clerk, but in reallity is the Chief Clerk in that Court, and hath the preceden|cy of this Officer, both in Court and el&s;ewhere. And the Officer who&s;e Office is now in que&s;tion was never &s;o much as called Chief Clerk in the <HI>Kings Bench:</HI> But it's true he is the chief of tho&s;e Clerks that are for the inrolling of Civil Pleas in that Court, and therefore is called Chief Clerk for the inrolling of Pleas, to di|&s;tingui&s;h him from the Under Clerks who&s;e bu&s;ine&s;s is likewi&s;e to inroll Pleas there.</P>
<P>And the Defendants further in&s;i&s;ted, that the u&s;age doth de|mon&s;trate that this Chief Clerk in the <HI>Kings Bench,</HI> in that Act named and intended, was the Clerk of the Crown in that Court; for that Office hath ever &s;ince been granted when void by the Kings Letters Patents, and that it was not this Officer that is na|med and intended by that Act; for that this Office was never enjoyed one day by vertue of any Grant from the Crown.</P>
<P>And the Defendants further in&s;i&s;ted, that it was a &s;candal and unworthy imputation upon all tho&s;e Chief Ju&s;tices, per&s;ons of clear and un&s;potted reputations to &s;ugge&s;t that they would im|po&s;e upon the Crown, and u&s;urp upon it, if the right of grant|ing this Office had been in the Crown. And Sir <HI>Robert Heath,</HI> that was then the Kings Sollicitor took a grant of the Office in que|&s;tion, from the Chief Ju&s;tice; and upon his Admittance, the Chief Ju&s;tices Right of granting is a&s;&s;erted upon Record.</P>
<P>And all this Evidence on both &s;ides being given, and fully heard, the Court briefly &s;ummed up the &s;ame, and particularly the Evidence of the Act 15 <HI>E.</HI> 3. and what was urged from the &s;ame by the Plaintiff and the Defendants an&s;wer thereunto, and left the matter to the Jury upon the whole Evidence: And this at the de&s;ire of the Plaintiffs Councel.</P>
<P>The Jury withdrew, and after &s;ome time of Con&s;ideration, gave a Verdict for the Defendants.</P>
<P>Upon this Verdict given, the Plaintiffs Councel prayed leave to bring in a Bill of Exceptions; and after &s;everal days meeting by the Plaintiffs Councel, they produced in Court, and tendred to the three Judges to be &s;ealed, a Parchment writing, which they called a Bill of Exceptions, formed in &s;uch a manner, and &s;tuffed with &s;uch matter as was never before known; and is hoped, that for the honour of Ju&s;tice, and for the &s;ake of Property, will never again be offered in any ca&s;e. In which, after a re|cital of the Record of the Declaration and I&s;&s;ue in the Cau&s;e, it is alledged that the Plaintiffs Councel produced in Evidence the Grant of the Office to the Plaintiff, and &s;hewed to the Court and Jury, that the Office is of the grant of the and Crown; that to make out the right of King <HI>Charles</HI> II. to grant this Office to
<PB N="6" REF="4">
the Plaintiff, they gave in Evidence the Act of 15 <HI>E.</HI> 3. which in the Bill is &s;et out at large, (and is in &s;ub&s;tance as is herein be|fore &s;et forth) and in the Bill it is alledged, that the Ju&s;tices re|fu&s;ed to allow, admit, and receive the allegations and matters given in Evidence, as &s;ufficient to prove the Plaintiffs Title to this Office, by rea&s;on whereof the Jury found the Defendants did not di&s;&s;ei&s;e the Plaintiff. And the Bill prays that the Ju&s;tices would put their Seals thereunto, according to the Staute of <HI>We&s;tm.</HI> 2.</P>
<P>And the Ju&s;tices, upon reading the Bill of Exceptions, refu&s;ed to Seal it, and that upon very good rea&s;on: The matter and ground of that Bill being fal&s;e, idle and frivolous. 1. Becau&s;e it is therein po&s;itively a&s;&s;erted that Mr. Attorney, and others the Plaintiffs Councel, did (be&s;ides the Patent in que&s;tion, and the Act of 15 <HI>E.</HI> 3.) &s;hew to the Court, and the Recognitors of the A&s;|&s;ize, that the Office was of the gift and grant of the King of <HI>England,</HI> when&s;oever it &s;hould be void. But there was no Evi|dence to &s;hew any &s;uch Right in the King, unle&s;s the Councels affirmation, without proof as well as rea&s;on, &s;hall be accounted a demon&s;tration. 2. The allegation in the Bill is, (that the Ju&s;tices refu&s;ed to allow, admit, and receive the Allegations and Matters given in evidence for the Plaintiff, as &s;ufficient to main|tain his Title) if it be thereby intended that tho&s;e matters &s;hew|ed by the Plaintiff in the Tryal of the Cau&s;e, were not by the Judges allowed and admitted to be Evidence, or to be given as Evidence. This is notoriou&s;ly fal&s;e in Fact, for as they were gi|ven in Evidence by the Plaintiff, &s;o they were &s;ummed up by the Court in their directions to the Jury, as part of the Plaintiffs Evidence, together with the Defendants an&s;wer to them.</P>
<P>But if by that Allegation in the Bill it is intended, that the Court did not allow the&s;e matters &s;hewed by the Plaintiff at the Tryal to be a &s;ufficient evidence to maintain his Title, this is as frivolous as the other was fal&s;e: For it's not the bu&s;ine&s;s of the Court in Tryals to determine what Evidence is &s;ufficient to maintain the Title in que&s;tion; that is the work of the Ju|ry, unle&s;s it be referred to the Court, upon a Demurrer to the Evidence (in which ca&s;e the Jury is di&s;charged) which was not in this Ca&s;e: But the matter upon the Plaintiff and Defendants Evidence was left fairly to the Jury, both for the truth and validity of it (as in &s;uch Ca&s;es it ought to be) and they having found the Defendants did not di&s;&s;ei&s;e the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff conceive him&s;elf aggreived, he hath a plain reme|dy by an Attaint, wherein the truth or fal&s;ity, &s;ufficiency or in|&s;ufficiency, both of the Plaintiffs and Defendants evidence will be fairly tryed again by another Jury.<NOTE PLACE="marg">V. Stat. VVe&s;t. <HI>2.</HI> C. <HI>31.</HI></NOTE> But no Bill of Exceptions will lye in &s;uch Ca&s;e, by the Statute, when the Evidence given is admitted as evidence, and left to a Jury by the Court.</P>
<P>And then to mend the matter, It is alledged as a fault of the
<PB N="7" REF="4">
Judges, that they did not admit of Allegations, together with the matters given in evidence as &s;ufficient to maintain the Plain|tiffs Title, whereby it plainly appears, that the Plaintiffs Coun|cil would not rely upon the evidence given, but they were forced to &s;upply the defect of it by bare Allegations. And this is the fir&s;t time that ever Allegations were thought of any force to make out a Title, or to &s;upply the defect of evidence: And if this &s;hould be admitted, mens Titles may ea&s;ily be defeated. By all which con&s;iderations, and divers other rea&s;ons it will appear that this pretended Bill of exceptions is groundle&s;s, fal&s;e and impertinent. And if the Ju&s;tices had not refu&s;ed to &s;eal it, they had done an apparent inju&s;tice to the Defendants.</P>
<P>It is next to be con&s;idered, that unle&s;s the Judges, or one of them had &s;ealed it, the matter of it cannot be examined upon a writ of Error, for it is the Ju&s;tices &s;ealing makes it a&s;&s;igneable upon Record, for &s;o doth the Statute of <HI>We&s;tm.</HI> 2. require. And if it be objected, that then it will be in the power of the Judges, by refu&s;ing to &s;eal the Bill, to deprive the party of the benefit of the Statute.</P>
<P>It is an&s;wered,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Re&s;p.</NOTE> The party grieved may have his Action upon the Statute again&s;t the Judges that &s;hall refu&s;e to &s;eal a Bill, when by law they ought; and he &s;hall recover damages proportion|able to the injury received.</P>
<P>If therefore the Plaintiff thinks him&s;elf aggrieved by the Judges, the cour&s;e of common Ju&s;tice is open, and he may pur|&s;ue his remedy, and have &s;atisfaction if he be injured.</P>
<P>And there can be no failure of Ju&s;tice, for the Judges may be &s;ued in either of the two Courts of <HI>We&s;tmin&s;ter-Hall,</HI> in the <HI>Common Pleas,</HI> or the <HI>Exchequer;</HI> for the three Judges are to be Defendants. And the Chief Ju&s;tice, tho not a party upon the Record, yet his Title and intere&s;t being the que&s;tion, he ought not to try the Action again&s;t the other Judges; therefore they are ou&s;ted of having the priviledge of being &s;ued in the <HI>Kings Bench.</HI> There lyeth al&s;o a Writ out of <HI>Chancery,</HI> to com|mand the Judges to &s;eal a Bill of Exceptions.</P>
<P>And this further ob&s;ervation may be added, that if the inhe|ritance of this Office may be granted (as it is by the Patent in que&s;tion, to the Plaintiff and his Heirs determinable upon three lives; and by another in Rever&s;ion to <HI>Babington</HI> and his Heirs in tru&s;t for the Earl of <HI>Arlington</HI> and his Heirs) it would be a great inconvenience, for then it may de&s;cend to Women and Children, who cannot be Clerks. And tho the Defendants did not take advantage of this upon the Tryal, yet are they not hindered from in&s;i&s;ting upon it at any time, &s;ince it is a matter that appears up|on Record, and might have been moved in arre&s;t of Judgment, if a Verdict had been given again&s;t them. Moreover, it is to be ob&s;erved, that if the Crown &s;hould grant this Office, the Cheif Ju&s;tice will be no longer an&s;werable for the Keeping of the Re|cords, if the Officer &s;hould be in&s;olvent.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="colophon">
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed for <HI>I&s;aac Cleave,</HI> next <HI>Serjeants</HI> Inn, in <HI>Chancery-lane,</HI> 1694.</P>
<PB REF="5">
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
