| 1482.072 |
1482 |
King's Bench |
Attaint (Trespass on the Case) |
|
Pygot, Richard Sjt Pigot (for P)
Pygot, Richard Sjt Pigot
Townshend, Roger Sjt Townes. (for P)
Sulyard, John Sjt
Fairfax, Guy JKB
Jenney, William JKB Genny
Pygot, Richard Sjt Pigot
the Justices |
Browne |
Robert |
|
|
|
Line, John, grand juror |
Kent (Canc'), County of
Melborne, manor of, in Kent
Common Pleas (l' un Bank & l' auter) |
|
Fitzherbert Challenge 64
Brooke Attaint 95 (not 59), Challenge 185, Forfeiture de terre 68 |
27 Hen. 6, fol. 10
21 Edw. 4, fol. 80
14 Hen. 7, fol. 2
8 Hen. 4, fol. 22 |
statute 23 Hen. 8 (?) cited at end of report |
| Attaint fuit port per un Rob. Browne en Bank le Roy d' un faux serement done en brief de Transgressioun |
29 |
(Defendant had brought Trespass on the Case against plaintiff.
Plaintiff (then defendant) had pleaded that defendant (then plaintiff) was plaintiff's (then defendant's) villein regardant to his manor.
Defendant (then plaintiff) had replied that he was free and of free estate.
It had been found for defendant (then plaintiff).
Plaintiff brought Attaint on a false oath given in the writ of Trespass on the Case brought by defendant.
Process continued against the (grand) jury of attaint until the Distraint.
At which day (return of Distraint), the grand jury appeared.
Plaintiff prayed that defendants the petty jury be demanded.
Defendants the petty jury were demanded.
Three or four of defendant petty jurors appeared.
The rest of defendant petty jurors defaulted.
It was said that the Attaint (judgment?) would be taken on the default of the rest of defendant petty jurors.
This was done.
The twenty-four (grand jurors) were demanded.
Plaintiff challenged one of the grand jurors because the grand juror held certain land of one of defendant petty jurors for a certain service.
The challenged grand juror was examined by voir dire.
The challenged grand juror confessed (that he held land of a defendant petty juror.
The triors found the same.
The challenged grand juror was dismissed without inquiry as to favour (partiality, bias), because it was a principal challenge.
Plaintiff, by another counsel, challenged another grand juror because one of the defendant petty jurors held of the challenged grand juror and under his distraint.
Defendant (?) told plaintiff that this was no challenge unless plaintiff said 'and thus favourable', because this was not a principal challenge.
Fairfax JKB said that the second challenged grand juror would be presumed favourable (partial, biased) toward defendant petty juror who was his tenant, so it was a principal challenge.
Jenney JKB said that the second challenge was not a principal challenge.
Plaintiff's first counsel argued that plaintiff's second challenge was a principal challenge.
Then by advice of the Justices of the one Court and the other, it (plaintiff's second challenge of the grand juror lord) was awared a principal challenge. |
a quel jour le grand jurie apparust
il fuit examine per voire dire & confesser
Sjt Pygot (for P): en cest case si ascun tenant de ascun de grand jurie soit attaint, le Seignior serra a grande mischief, car son meason serra debruse, & lour prees (= meadows) ayres (= arrer, ploughed up), & lour boys discutie (= cut down?), issint que le Seignior n' avera son service sibien come il avoit devant, s' il soit attaint, & auxy si le tenancy vient a luy per le nonage de issue de son tenant, il n' avera cy bon avantage, c. ou si le tenancy eschetera a luy , il serroit grandde disavantage a luy si son tenant fuit attaint, car le meason & les prees come devant, &c. per que moy semble un principal challenge adire que un e le petit jurie tient de luy |
Sjt Pygot and Sjt Townshend both spoke as counsel for plaintiff
Fairfax JKB: when one (prospective juror) is challenged because he (challenged juror) held of or was the servant of the party, etc. the law presumes (le ley entende) that he (the challenged juror) is favourable (partial, biased), and this is for the affinity and the affection that the law presumes (le ley entende) in him, and namely when he (challenged juror) is under his (the party's) distraint, as his (the party's) tenant, or one of blood, because the law can presume (le ley poit entende) that some lands can desend to him (challenged juror), etc. the law presumes (la ley entende) that he (challenged juror) is favourable (partial, biased): so here, it seems that by the affinity and affection that the lord has toward his tenant, it seems to me that the law will presume (le ley entendera) him (challenged juror lord) favourable (partial, biased), so etc.
Jenney JKB: it seems to me the contrary, and I grant you well that it is a good principal challenge to say that one of the grand jurors held of one of the (defendant) petty jurors, etc. but not vice versa (econtra), for (car) the cause (cause) is because (pur ceo que) the law presumes (ley entende) the tenant favourable, because the tenant is under the distraint and the danger of his lord, but I say that the lord is not under distraint nor subjection of the tenant, so it seems to me that it is not a principal challenge
Sjt Pygot (for P): I grant you well that he (challenged juror lord) is not in danger, etc. in this case, but because in this case if any tenant of any of the grand jurors be attaint, the lord (grand juror) will be at grave (grande) mischief, because his (the tenant attainted juror's) house will be broken, and their meadows plowed (ayres), and their woods cut down (discutie), so that the lord wil not have his (the attainted juror tenant's) service as well as he had before, if he (petty juror tenant) be attiant, and also if the tenancy come to him (grand juror lord) by the infancy of the issue of his (defendant petty juror) tenant (incident of wardship), he (lord) will not have as good an advantage, etc. or if the tenancy will escheat to him (grand juror lord), it would be a grave (grande) disadvantage to him if his (defendant petty juror) tenant was attaint, because the house (will be broken) and the meadows (ploughed), as above, etc. so it seems to me a principal challenge to say that one of the (defendant) petty jury held of him (of the challenged grand juror lord) |
|
|
Fitzherbert Challenge 64, fol. 173v, dated this Mich. 22 Edw. 4, fol. 1 |
|
Attaint
Falsehood (faux)
Oath (serement)
False Oath
Trespass
Case
Trespass On The Case
(Action On The Case)
County
Writ Of Trespass
Pleading
Villein
Villein Regardant
Regardant
Manor
Freedom (frank)
Free Estate
Estate
Finding (trove)
Verdict (trove)
Process
Continuation
Jury
Jury Of Attaint
Distraint
Day
Grand Jury
(Jury Of Twenty-Four)
Appearance
Petty Jury
Demand
Rest (remnant)
Default
Taking (prise)
Attaint Taken In Default
Twenty-Four
24
Challenge Of Juror
Tenancy
Certainty
Service
Examination
Voir Dire (voire dire)
Truth (voire)
Speaking (dire)
Confession
Admission
Acknowledgement
Trior
Dismissal
Inquiry
Without Inquiry
Favour
Partiality
Bias
Inquiry Of Favour
Principal Challenge
Petty Juror
Petit Jury
Under (south)
Under His Distraint
No Challenge
And Thus Favourable
& Issint Favourable
Servant
Party
Presumption (le ley entende)
Understanding (entende)
Affinity
Affection
Namely
Tenant
Blood (Sank)
One Of Blood
Descent
Lord
Seeming
Contrary
Grant
Granting Well
Good Challenge
Good Principal Challenge
Grand Juror
Vice Versa (econtra)
Caue
Danger
Under Danger
(At Mercy)
Subjection
In Danger
Case
Mischief
Grave Mischief (grande)
House
Breaking
Housebreaking
Meadow (prees)
Ploughing (ayres)
Woods (boys)
Cutting (discutie)
(Wardship)
Nonage
Infancy
Infant
Issue
Advantage
Good Advantage
Escheat
Disadvantage
Grave Disadvantage
Advice
Award
Note
Statute |
|
