This was the ancient Form of Pleading; and (as all those ancient Pleas were) founded upon Reason; being such as the subject Matter is capable of.
In the Case of a Coroner it is a good Cause to remove him, quia fuit minime idoneus ad exequendum officium istud, and no Charge of any particular Insufficiency assigned. Fitz. Nat. Brev. 163. and there is no Question but that 'twould be a good Cause, and sufficiently certain. In a Scire Facias to Repeal, Vacate or Cancel Letters Patent for an Office in the Law, to say in Legibus hujus Regni Angliæ minus sufficient instructus, without assigning any particular Case or Statute that a Man blundered at, or was ignorant in. Suppose an Office in the Law, to which the King or a private Person hath the Nomination, and the Court refuses to admit a Man so named, and an Action brought for that Refusal, &c. would it not be a good Plea to say the Party was minus sufficiens in Scientia Legum & ea Ratione inhabilis; and particular Instances are Evidences.
This is in the Negative, like a Non fuit dampnificatus, and there you never need to shew how; unless 'twere a particular Incumbrance at the Time of the Contract: Otherwise 'tis always a good Plea.
In Non Compos 'tis never shewn in particular wherein, or what Feats of Frenzy. Non compos implies that he had a general Defect, disabling him at that Time to do an Act Obligatory and Valid. And that resembles this; for you need not shew wherein; but the Particulars are Evidence.
Difference between Pleading a Negative and an Affirmative.—The Reason of the Thing proves the Convenience and Solidity of the Distinction between Pleading a Negative and Affirmative. For instance in this Case; the Negative pleaded implies an intire Denial of sufficient Learning to qualify him for a Cure of Souls, and that justifies the Ordinary. And our Law Books are full of this Distinction. Mode and other Circumstances of Quality, Time, and Place, are requisite in Affirmative Pleas, none of which are necessary in Negatives. There might be cited infinite Numbers of Cases to that Purpose, as Mauser's Case, 2 Rep. 4. Broughton's Case, 5 Rep. 24. Aston and Hill, 3 Cro. 253. Hutchinson versus Leuson, 3 Cro. 393. Wild and Dowse, Latch 159. And as the [98] Foundation of all those, is the 40 E. 3. 30. which is the Ground of all these, and many more subsequent Authorities to the like Effect. But besides, there's one Modern Case, 'tis Church versus Brunswick, Sid. 334. Bond to pay from Time to Time a Moiety of all such Monies as from Time to Time he should receive; and Payment of a Moiety generally, without shewing the Particulars in certain, was held a good Plea. And the Reason of that Judgment maintains the Rule now contended for: Which was, because 'tis of what he should receive from Time to Time: Otherwise if those Words had been omitted; because in that Case there would be a stuffing of the Rolls with a Multiplicity of Particulars: And the same Reason holds in the Case at Bar.
Then 'tis considerable, and deserving of a Thought, That if Learning be requisite to an Office Temporal, for a Slander in which an Action lies, there these very Words would bear an Action. As to say of a Judge, or the like, the very Words here mentioned, with Reference to his Office, 'twould be deemed Scandalous and Actionable: Now our Law will not allow uncertain, doubtful and ambiguous Words to be so.
General Pleading where allowable even in Affirmatives.—Even in Affirmatives our Law allows of general Pleading, where Particulars would be many: As in Bond for Performance of Covenants upon an Apprentice's Indenture for finding him Meat, Drink, Washing, Lodging and other Necessaries, held that invenit Meat, Drink, Washing, Lodging, & alias res necessarias, is a good Plea, tho' intirely uncertain what or how much. And the Reason is not only, because 'tis in the Words of the Covenant, for that Reason doth not always hold; for many Times you must shew how, and are forced to vary from the Words of the Covenant in the Breach; as in Case of quiet Enjoyment, Breach must alledge how and by whom, and under what Title the Man was disturbed: But there's another Reason, because the Particulars would be many.
Cryps versus Sir Henry Baynton, 3 Bulstrode 31. Case sur assumpsit, That J.S. being a Friend of the Defendant's, and coming to the Plaintiff's House, he fell sick; the Defendant, in Consideration that the Plaintiff would provide for him such Necessaries as he should want, he would bene & fideliter solvere proinde: The
67
