Reports of that grave and learned judge, Sir John Bridgman, knight, serjeant at law, sometime chief justice of Chester to which are added two exact tables, the one of the cases, and the other of the principal matters therein contained.

Trinit. 14 Jacob. Weal against Wells.

IN an Action on the Case, for that the Defendant the 22 of Novemb. the 13 of King James, crimen Felonie querenti false & malitiose imposuit: and did cause him to be arrested and taken for the Felonious taking and stealing of five Heifers of the Defendant, and caused him to be brought before Sir Thomas Bennet, one of the Iustices of Peace, &c. and out of malice also, at the Sessions of Peace at the Guild-hall, London, before the Major and other the Iustices of Peace, &c. did cause him to be indicted maliciously and falsly for the Felony of steal∣ing of five Steers the 23 Octob. 13 Jacob. and did cause him to be detained in the Gaol of Newgate, until he was legally acquitted at the Gaol delivery the first of December the 13 Jacob. to his damage, &c. 100 l. and did aver the matter in the indictment to be false.

The Defendant said, that the 18 Novemb. 13 Jacob. he was possess∣ed of five Steers, and that certain Malefactors unknown to him did

steal them from him at Broughton in the County of Bucks: and that the 22 of Novemb. 13 Jacob. the Defendant pursued them to London, and there did search for the Steers, and found them in the possession of the Plaintiff, and did require the Plaintiff to shew them unto him, and how they came into his possession: and because that the Plaintiff did deny to deliver them unto him, and did refuse to permit him to see them, and to shew how he came by them, and that the Plaintiff gave him such incertain answers, that the Defendant did suspect the Plaintiff had committed the Felony: and the Defendant, for better examination of the promisses, and restitution of the said Cattel, did inform the said Sir Thomas Bennet of the premisses, and did procure a Warrant from him to bring the Plaintiff before him to be examined concerning the said Cattel: whereupon the Plaintiff was brought before him, and examined; and because he could not make it appear how he came by them, and for that he gave very uncertain answers, and for that the said Sir Thomas did suspect him, he did therefore binde him in a Re∣cognizance of 50 l. to appear at the next Goal delivery, and did binde the Defendant in a Recognizance of 20 l. to prosecute, whereupon the 29 Novemb. 13 Jacob. the Defendant did exhibit a Bill of In∣dictment, and did give evidence to the Iury that the Cattel were stoln from him, and that he found them in the Plaintiffs possession, and that he denyed the Defendant the view of them, or to shew how they came to his hands: whereupon the Iury found the Bill, and thereupon the Plaintiff did appear at the next Goal-delivery the first Octob. 13 Jacob. and was there imprisoned until he was legally acquited; which is the same imprisonment for Felony, and procurement to be indicted, and detainment in prison, whereof the Plaintiff com∣plains.

The Plaintiff confessed the Felony,* 1.1 but says that the 23 Octob. 13 Jacob. Thomas Burley was possessed of the said five Steers at Barnet in the County of Hertford, and did then and there sell the said Cattel in open Market to the Plaintiff for 17 l. being a Butcher; and that the said sale was entered in the Toll-book, and the Toll payd: where∣fore the Plaintiff was possest of them, and did drive them to his house in London the 24 Octob. 13 Jacob. and that the 21 Novemb. 13 Jac. he killed four of the said Cattel: and then the said 22 of November the Defendant came to his house to search for the said Cattel, and the Plaintiff did acknowledg to him that he had the said Cattel, and that he had killed four of them, and that he had bought them as aforesaid, and did then also shew unto him the Steer that was then living, and that the Defendant had sufficient notice that the Plaintiff had bought the Cattel in the Market; and that although the Defendant did know that the Plaintiff had bought them, and was not guilty of the Felony, yet the Defendant out of malice, and against his knowledg, did charge the Plaintiff with Felony, &c. as he hath declared, absque hoc, that the Plaintiff did refuse to permit the Defendant habere visum of the said five Steers, or to shew how he came by them.

Whereupon the Defendant demurred in Law,* 1.2 and shewed that the matter of Inducement to the Travers was insufficient, and that the Travers was insufficient, and the matter not traversable.

And I conceive that the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgment.

For in the 7 Ed. 4.20. In a false Imprisonment: The Defendant said, that before the imprisonment one B was killed by certain per∣sons, in whose company the Plaintiff was; and the report of the

County was, that the Plaintiff was party to the Felony; whereupon he arrested the Plaintiff for suspicion, and did commit him to the Sheriff. And Bryan did Travers the Indictment without that, that the Plaintiff was in their company, and without that, that the report was so, &c. And Nidkam said there, that issue could not be taken up∣on the report, but upon the matter in fact. For if men say in the Country, that I am a Thief, that is no cause to arrest me, but matter in fact ought to be shewed which is Traversable: whereupon issue was taken upon the first matter onely; and in the ninth of Ed. 4. it is holden that a man ought to shew some matter in fact to prove that the Plaintiff is suspected. And 11 Ed. 4. 46. in a false Imprisonment; The Defendant who justifies upon a false imprisonment for Felony, ought to shew some matter in fact to induce his suspicion, or that his goods were in his possession, of which the Country may take notice. And in the 17 Ed. 4. 5. in a false imprisonment, the Defendant justified, because that A. and B. did rob another, and did go to the house of the Plaintiff; whereupon the Constable did suspect him, and did re∣quire the Defendant to assist him in arresting him, &c. and holden there, that they ought to surmise some cause of suspicion, or otherwise the plea was not good. 7 H. 35. Suspicion cannot be tryed, because it is but the imagination of a man, which lies in his own conceit. 5 H. 7. 4. In a false Imprisonment, the Defendant justified, because that A. was poysoned, and the common voyce and fame was that it was done by the Plaintiff, whereupon he was taken; and there it was argued, if this were sufficient cause; some said that he ought to shew some special cause, but it was agreed in conclusion that it was: but all agreeo, that suspicion only is not enough, without alledging cause of suspicion: and says, 2 H. 7. 16. and 7 Elizab. Dyer 236. In an action on the Case for calling one Thief, the Defendant justified for common voyce and fame, and adjudged insufficient; but this with suspicion had been sufficient cause to arrest one, and carry him to the Goal. And Michaelm. 38 and 39 Elizab. In the Common-Pleas, in an Action on the Case by Damport against Symson, for giving a false testimony, adjudged that the intent of the swearers cannot be put in issue or tryed. 2 H. 4. 12. B. 46 Ed. 3. 4.

2 H. 7. 3. In a Trespass, the Defendant justified that he was robbed in the County of B. and did suspect the Plaintiff in the County of Staf∣ford: The Plaintiff pleaded, De son tort demesne, &c. and it was there agreed, that all the case was in issue. And Tow said, that it should be tryed by both Counties, if they could joyn; but he doubted if they could joyn: but in the 16 of H. 7. 3. B. this case is reported to be adjudged, that if the Counties could not joyn, it was no plea, be∣cause it ought to be tryed by both: And so de son tort demesne shall be full of multiplicity, and therefore it is no plea, as in Crogates Case.

Also the Bar is not good, because the Defendant says, he was pos∣sessed of five Steers, and doth not say, of the aforesaid. 9 H. 6. 16. In a Quare Impedit brought by the King of a Chantery in the Chappel of St. Thomas in D. and made title to it, and the Defendant pleaded that there was a Chantery in the said Chappel, and made title to it, and traversed the title of the King, and adjudged to be no plea, because he did not answer to the Chantry whereof the King had declared. And Pasch. 14 Elizab. Downing against Hayward: In a false imprison∣ment in Suffolk, the Defendant did justifie as servant to A. to whom

a Commission of Rebellion of Chancery was directed, and the Plaintiff pleaded De son tort Demesne, and found for the Plaintiff, and reversed again by Error in the Star Chamber, because that when the matter of justification, is upon matter of Record and matter in fact, or of matters done in two Counties that cannot joyn, the Issue ought to be upon one only.

And Pasch. 15 Jac. Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff by the opinion of Mountague, Crook, and Doderidge, because that all that was done after Sir Thomas Buriets Warrant was illegall, but they agreed that the Plaintiff might have an Action for the charging of Felony, and for all that was done before the said Warrant. But Haughton disagreed, who conceived that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff, because the Plea of the Defendant was no justification for what was done before the warrant: but at last Iudgment was given for the Defendant.* 1.3

Notes

• * 1.1

  Replication.
• * 1.2

  Demur.
• * 1.3

  Judgment.