4 Mod. 247. 2 Vent. 321. 1 Show. 36. Comb. 50. 77. 229. Carth. 3. 158. Skin. 388. Holt. 197. Viner. ix. 328. 339. xi. 6. 298. xiii. 262. 277. 282. 296. xv. 362. xvi. 502. xviii. 298. xix. 218. 552. 566. 570. xx. 68.— That this was a cause of great legal expectation, appears by numerous books in which it is detailed, and by the time and solemnity with which it was determined by the Lords; for the Chief Justice of the King's Bench brought up the writ of error to the Lords, 6th March, 1698. Monday, 13th March, defendant, in error, was ordered to join issue by Thursday next, and that day, 16th March, the Lords appointed Wednesday next to hear Council argue the errors; and, 20th March, on defendant's petition, appointed the argument for Friday, and no other business to intervene. And, on that day, 31st March, after hearing Council to argue the errors, ordered that the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas (who that day sat Speaker) should report to the House what was offered thereupon, on Thursday the 20th of April next, and that all the twelve Judges should then attend the House: And on that day the report was further adjourned to Monday next, and ordered that all the Judges in town do then attend, and all the Lords to be summoned; and on that day, 24th April, ordered that the report be made on Thursday next, all the Judges to attend, and all the Lords to be summoned; and, Die Jovis, 27th April, 1699, upon report of what was offered by Council the one-and-twentieth of March last, to argue the errors assigned upon a writ of error brought into this House the 6th day of March last, from his Majesty's Court of King's Bench, wherein judgment is entered for Bernard Grenville, Esq; and afterwards affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber, against Christopher Dighton; and after hearing the Judges, and due consideration of the case, It was ordered and adjudged by the Lords, that the judgment given in the King's Bench, and the affirmation thereof in the Exchequer Chamber, be affirmed, and the record remanded. Lords Journ. vol. xvi. p. 395. 399. 406. 407. 429. 444. 448. 454.
[70] Case 14.—Philip Owen Esq.,—Plaintiff; Robert Saunders, Gent.,—Defendant (in Error) [1699].
[See Fox v. Harcourt, Shower, p. 158.]
The writ of error was brought to reverse a judgment given in the King's Bench, for reversing a judgment given in the Common Pleas, in an assize of novel disseisin, for the office of Clerk of the Peace for the county of Kent; and the plaintiff Owen, made this case: That by an Act made 1st William and Mary, intituled, An act for enabling Lords Commissioners for the Great Seal, to execute the office of Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, it was (inter alia) enacted, That the Custos Rotulorum, or other person to whom of right it should belong, to nominate or appoint the Clerk of the Peace for any county, &c. should, from time to time, where the office of Clerk of the Peace should be void, nominate and appoint one able and sufficient person residing in the county, for which he is so appointed or to be appointed Clerk of the Peace, to execute the same by himself, or his sufficient deputy; and to take and receive the fees, profits and perquisites thereof, for so long time only as such Clerk of the Peace should well demean himself in the said office. And that 15th July, 1689, Heneage, Earl of Winchelsea, then Custos Rotulorum of said county, nominated and appointed Owen to the office of Clerk of the Peace for said county, then vacant; he, Owen, being a person skilled in the law, and fit and sufficient to execute said office, and then and yet residing at Maidstone, in said county; and that thereupon he, on that day, was sworn and admitted into said office, and held and enjoyed the same, and well behaved himself therein; and was thereof seized in his demesne as his freehold, for the term of his life, until the defendant disseized him of his said office at Maidstone aforesaid, and prayed the assize might be taken.
Defendant pleaded, that Owen was never seized of the office of such estate whereof he might be disseized, and thereupon issue was joined. And 23d July, 1695, the assize was taken in the county of Kent, and a special verdict found, whereby the jury found the act of Parliament, and that their Majesties, by their
185
