For full access to this item, please  Login

Add to bookbag
Author: England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.
Title: The reports and arguments of that learned judge Sir John Vaughan Kt. late chief justice of His Majesties court of Common Pleas being all of them special cases and many wherein he pronounced the resolution of the whole court of common pleas ; at the time he was chief justice there / published by his son Edward Vaughan, Esq.
Publication info: Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, Digital Library Production Service
2012 November (TCP phase 2)
Availability:

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.

Print source: The reports and arguments of that learned judge Sir John Vaughan Kt. late chief justice of His Majesties court of Common Pleas being all of them special cases and many wherein he pronounced the resolution of the whole court of common pleas ; at the time he was chief justice there / published by his son Edward Vaughan, Esq.
England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas., Vaughan, John, 1603-1674., Vaughan, Edward, d. 1688.

London: Printed by Thomas Roycroft for Richard Marriott to be sold by Thomas Basset and George Marriott ..., 1677.
Notes:
Reproduction of original in Huntington Library.
Subject terms:
Law reports, digests, etc. -- England.
URL: http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A64753.0001.001

Contents
frontispiece
title page
TO THE READER.
license
REPORTS OF Sir John Vaughan LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Of the COURT of COMMON-PLEAS.
Hil. xvii. & xviii. Caroli 2. Reg. C.B. Ro. 1032.
Pasc. 19. Car. 2. Rot. 484. C. B. Henry Edes Plaintiff in a Quare Impedit against Walter Bi∣shop of Oxford.
Objections.
Hill. 19 & 20 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 1785. Baruck Tustian Tristram Plaintiff, Anne Roper Vicountess Baltinglass Vidua, Defendant, in a Plea of Trespass and Ejectment.
Hill. 21 & 22 Car. II. Rot. 2259. C. B. Ralph Dixon Plaintiff, versus Dean Harrison Defendant; In a Replevin, Quare cepit Averia ipsius Radulphi, & ea detinuit contra vadios & plegios, &c.
Enlargement of Estate by descent.
Diminishing of Estate.
Objections.
Trin. 21. Car. II. C. B. Rot. 1714. The King Plaintiff, in a Quare Impedit, per Galfridum Palmer Atturnatum suum Generalem. Robert Bishop of Worcester, Thomas Jervis Esquire, and John Hunckley Clerk, Defendants.
Imperfections in the Pleading.
Certain Premisses.
The Case in brief, and the Question upon it.
The Law in Case of a Common Person.
How far, in the King's Case, the Law differs not from a Common Persons Case.
Wherein the Law differs in the Kings Case from a Common Persons Case.
Hill. 21 & 22. Car. II. C. B. Rot. 606. Thomas Rowe Plaintiff, and Robert Huntington Defendant, in a Plea of Trespass and Ejectment.
The Context of the Verdict explain'd.
Trin. 22. Car. II. C. B. Rot. 461. Richard Edgcomb Knight of the Bath, Executor of Pierce Edgcomb Esquire, his Father, is Plaintiff. Rowland Dee Administrator of Charles Everard Esquire, during the Minority of Charles Everard, Son of the Intestate, Defendant.
In an Action of the Case upon an Assumpsit.
Hill. 18 & 19 Car. II. C. B. Thomas Price is Plaintiff, against Richard Braham, Eliza∣beth White, Elianor Wakeman, and Richard Hill Defen∣dants, In an Action of Trespass and Ejectment.
Pasch. 19 Car. II. Henry Stiles Plaintiff; Richard Coxe Baronet, Richard Coxe Esquire, John Cromwell, Thomas Merrett, and Charles Davies Defendants; In an Action of Tres∣pass, of Assault, Battery, and False Imprisonment.
Pasch. 21 Car. II. in Banc. William Hayes Plaintiff, and Charles Bickerstaff Defen∣dant, In Arrest of Judgment.
Inconveniencies if the Law should be otherwise.
Application of the Reason of Law to the Case in Question.
The Difference between this Covenant and a general Covenant against all men.
Objections.
Hill. 22 & 23 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 680. William Shute Plaintiff, John Higden Defendant, In Trespass and Ejectment.
Bushell's Case.
Objections out of the Ancient and Mo∣dern Books.
Presidents. That the Court of Common Pleas, upon Habeas Corpus, hath discharg'd Persons imprison'd by other Courts, upon the insufficiency of the Retorn only, and not for Priviledge.
Hill. 23 & 24 Car. II. B. C. Rot. 615. Edmund Sheppard Junior, Plaintiff, In Trespass, against George Gosnold, William Booth, William Hay∣gard, and Henry Heringold, Defendants.
Hill. 23 & 24 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 695. Richard Crowley Plaintiff, In a Replevin, against Thomas Swindles, William Whitehouse, Roger Walton, Defen∣dants.
Trin. 16 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 2487. But Adjudg'd Mich. 20 Car. II. Bedell versus Constable.
Hill. 19 & 20 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 506. Holden versus Smallbrooke.
Trin. 20 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 2043. Harrison versus Doctor Burwell. In a Prohibition, for his Marriage with Jane, the Relict of Bartholomew Abbot, his Great Uncle.
Observations upon those two Acts 25 & 28 H. 8.
In what sense any Marriages and Copulations of Man with Woman, may be said to be Natural, and in what not.
Marriages forbidden in Leviticus lawful before.
Marriages lawful after restoring the World in Noah.
How things become unnatural by Cu∣stome.
Of transgressing natural Laws, and in what sense that is to be understood.
In what sense a man is said to act unnaturally against Civil Laws or Agreement.
The Levitical Prohibitions of Marriage are no general Law, but particular to the Israelites.
Concerning universal Obligation to the Levi∣tical Prohibitions in Cases of Matrimony and Incest.
Third Question.
Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum ex Authoritate primum Regis Henrici 8. inchoata, deinde per Regem Edwardum 6. provecta, de gradibus in Matrimonio prohibitis.
Faults in the Pleading.
Mich. 20 Car. II. C. B. Sir Henry North Plaintiff, William Coe Defendant.
Exceptions to the Pleading.
The Statute of Merton is, cap. 4.
Hill. 20 & 21 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 1552. Adjud'gd 23 Car. II. C. B. Gardner vers. Sheldon. In Ejectione Firmae for Lands in Sussex. Ʋpon not Guilty pleaded,
Hill. 21 & 22 Car. II. C. B. Craw versus Ramsey. Philip Craw is Plaintiff, and John Ramsey Defendant, In an Action of Trespass and Ejectment.
The Questions upon this Record will be three.
There are four ways by which men born out of England may inherit in England, besides by the Statute of Edward the Third, De Natis ultra Mare.
Inconveniences.
Considerations.
Ireland.
What things the Parliament of Ireland cannot do.
Laws made in the Parliament of England binding Ireland.
Ireland receiv'd the Laws of England by the Charters and Commands of H. 2. King John, H. 3. &c.
Tempore Regis Johannis.
Pat. 6. Johan. m. 6. n. 17.
Pat. 6. Johan.
Claus. 7. Johannis.
Pat. 6. Johan. m. 6. n. 17.
Claus. 12 H. 3. m. 8.
Patentes 30 H. 3. m. 1.
Out of the Close Rolls of King Henry the Third his Time.
Clause 1 H. 3. dorso. 14.
Clause 3. H. 3. m. 8. part 2.
Clause 5. H. 3. m. 14.
The Close Roll. 5 H. 3. m. 6. Dorso.
Clause 7. H. 3. m. 9.
Clause 28. H. 3. m. 7.
Clause 40. E. 3. m. 12. Dorso.
As for the Judgment,
Trin. 25 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 1488. Thomas Hill and Sarah his Wife are Plaintiffs. Thomas Good Surrogat of Sir Timothy Baldwyn Knight, Doctor of Laws, and Official of the Reverend Father in God, Herbert Bishop of He∣reford is Defendant, In a Prohibition.
Vide for these Rules Selden's Uxor Ebraica, l. 1. cap. 4, 5.
The second Assertion.
The third Assertion.
In Camera Scaccarii.
Offences against penal Laws to be di∣spens'd with.
Offences not to be dispens'd with.
Dispensations void against Acts of Parliament for maintaining Native Artificers.
Trin. 2. Jac.
precedent
Other Presidents of Licences to Corpo∣rations.
6 H. 8. 1.
1 E. 6. 4.
2 E. 6. 3.
7 E. 6. 6.
1 E. 6. 7.
2 R. 3. 1.
9 Eliz. 3.
27 H. 8. 2.
36 Eliz. 3.
26 Eliz. 7.
1 M. 2.
1 M. 11.
2 Jac. 22.
4 Eliz. 2.
6 Eliz. 11.
5 Car. 1.
Objections against the Patent 9 Jac.
Mich. 25 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 253. John Bole Esquire, and Elizabeth his wife, and John Ely Gent. and Sarah his wife, Demandants, against Anne Horton Widow, Tenant of
The Case upon the Pleading.
The Argument.
Objections.
Objections from Modern Reports.
To prove this are full in the point,
CONCERNING PROCESS Out of the COURTS at WESTMINSTER INTO WALES Of late times, and how anciently.
An Exact and Perfect TABLE TO THE REPORTS and ARGUMENTS OF Sir JOHN VAƲGHAN, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas.
ERRATA.
A TABLE of the Names of the Principal CASES contained in this BOOK.
B.
C.
D.
E.
G.
H.
K.
N.
P.
R.
S.
T.
W.