CCXX. Dicksey and Spencer's Case. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas.
THe Case between Dicksey and Spencer, see H. 29 Eliz. Not∣withstanding the Opinion of the Court of Common Pleas, The Mayor and Aldermen of London reversed the Iudgment gi∣ven in an Assise of Freshforce; Vpon which, Dicksey sued a Com∣mission, directed to Anderson, Manwood, and Periam, to examine the said Iudgment, & ad errorem corrigendum. And the Case was often Argued; The principal matter was, That Lessee for years in an Action of Debt brought against him for the Rent reserved, clai∣med Fee by bargain and sale of his Lessor; the which bargain and sale the Plaintiff traversed. And it was argued, Because this bar∣gain and sale was traversed, there was not any forfeiture in the Case; for upon that, both parties are at large. As in a Praecipe quod reddat, The Tenant disclaims, and the Demandant avers him Tenant, he shall not enter for that Disclaimer. But all the three Iustices were clear of Opinion, That notwithstanding the Traverse, it is a forfeiture; for the very claim is a forfeiture, which cannot be saved by matter subsequent. See 9 H. 5. 14. If Tenant for life be impleaded in a Writ of Right, and joyns the Mise upon the meer Right, it is a forfeiture. Another Error was assigned, Because where it is found, that both the Defendants Disseisive∣runt the Plaintiff, but Spencer only with force, and the Iudgment in the Assise of Freshforce was, that ambo Capiantur, where no force is found in Clark, one of them; yet such a Iudgment is good enough: For the Assise have found a Ioynt Disseisin, and that Clark was present at the said Force; and then he particeps Crimi∣nis. And of that Opinion were all the 3 Iustices. And it way Ob∣jected, That forasmuch as Clark is Convicted of force upon the