Briggs v. Clerke [1697].
[15 Lds. Jo. 36 (Briggs v. Clarke).]
Error in Parliament from Judgment in Exchequer-Chamber.—Writ of Error on a Judgment in B. R. affirmed in the Exchequer-Chamber, upon a Verdict in Debt for the Escape of one Cook; and none appearing for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error, the Judgment was affirmed with the Increase of Forty Pounds in Costs.
Vide the Case of Ellison and Warner, Mich. 18 Car. 2. B. R. 2 Keble 91. Whether a Writ of Error lies in Parliament after Judgment affirmed in the Exchequer-Chamber? Or if that proceeding in the Exchequer-Chamber doth not come in lieu of Error in Parliament, according to the Statute of Eliz.
[111] William Bridgman & al' v. Rowland Holt & al' [1693].
[15 Lds. Jo. 306, 311, 312, 315, 316, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 372. See also Macqueen, Pract. of House of Lords, p. 387.]
Assise of Novel Disseisin. Office of Chief Clerk for inrolling Pleas in B. R. by whom to be granted. The Case.—A Writ of Error and Petition in Parliament. The Case below was thus: William Bridgman brings an Assize for the Office of chief Clerk for inrolling of Pleas in the Court of King's Bench; and the Plaintiff declares that the Office of chief Clerk for inrolling of Pleas in the Court of King's Bench, was Time out of Mind granted and grantable by the Kings and Queens of this Realm; and that King Charles the Second, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of England, Dated the Second of June in the five and twentieth Year of his Reign, (after a Recital that Robert Henley and Samuel Wightwick were duly admitted to this Office for their Lives) granted this Office (upon the Petition of Eliott) to Silas Titus, so soon as it should become void; and that Wightwick was dead, and Titus had surrendred his Patent, did, in Consideration of Service done by the Earl of Arlington, grant this Office to the Plaintiff and his Heirs, for the Lives of the Earl of Arlington, Duke of Grafton and Duchess of Grafton, and the longer Liver of them, from and after the Death, Forfeiture or Surrender of Sir Robert Henley, and that Sir Robert Henley was dead, and that thereupon the Plaintiff became seised, and was seised of the Office till the Defendants did disseise him. &c.
The Defendants pleaded that they did not wrong or disseise the Plaintiff.
Proceedings below in B. R.—Upon the Trial of this General Issue at the Bar of the King's Bench before the three puisne Judges (the Chief Justice then sitting near the Defendant's Counsel upon a Chair uncovered) the Plaintiff gave in Evidence the Letters Patent of 2 June 25 Car. 2. Then it was proposed by the Counsel for the Defendant, That they would prove their Allegation, that the Office was anciently granted by the Kings and Queens of England, as was declared; but no Evidence was given besides this Patent of Car. 2.
Then the Counsel for the Defendant, waving the just Exception which they might have taken to the Plaintiff's Grant as to him and his Heirs (which ought not to be of such an Office, for that by that Means it might come to an Infant ) insisted upon the mere Right of Granting the said Office, viz. that it was not grantable by the Crown, but was an Office belonging to the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and grantable by him.
[112] Then to prove this, it was shewn, That this Officer is to inroll Pleas between Party and Party only, and had nothing to do with any Pleas of the Crown or Criminal Matters; that all the Rolls and Records in this Office were in the Custody of the Chief Justice; that all the Writs to certify or remove the Records in this Clerk's Office, are directed to the Chief Justice; and from the Nature of the Imployment, 'twas insisted, that in Truth he was but the Chief Justice's Clerk; and that consequently the same must be granted by the Chief Justice.
Evidence by Precedents for the Defendant in Error.—And for further
76
