and prayers and preachings by the chaplains shall be performed diligently. 22 Geo. 2. c. 33. art. 1. By 13 & 14 C. 2. c. 4. § 19. 20. 21. No person shall be re- 13 & 14 C. 2. ceived as a lecturer, or allowed to preach or read any lecture or c. 4. sermon, without licence from the bishop, and assenting to the Qualifications 39 articles, and reading the common prayer before his first of lecturer. sermon, and on the first lecture day of every month; on pain of three months imprisonment, for every offence, by two justices of the peace, on certificate from the bishop of the offence committed. By the 1 Mar. sess. 2. c. 3. If any person shall disturb a preacher 1 Mar. sess. 2. in his sermon by word or deed, he shall be apprehended and c. 5. carried before a justice of the peace, who shall commit him to Disturbers of safe custody, and within six days he and another justice shall public worship. examine the fact, and if they find him guilty by two witnesses, or confession, they shall commit him to gaol for three months, and further to the next sessions; and if at the sessions he repents and is reconciled, he shall be discharged on finding sureties for his good behaviour for a year; if not, he shall be continued in gaol till he does; saving the ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and he shall not be punished both ways. This statute, though made in queen Mary's reign, extendeth to the divine service now established. Gibs. 372. Disturbers of stat. 1 G. 1. By stat. 1 W. & M. sess. 1. c. 18. § 18. "If any person or persons, 1 W. & M. at any time or times after the 10th day of June (1688) do and shall c. 18. § 18. willingly and of purpose, maliciously or contemptuously come religious worinto any cathedral or parish church, chapel, or other congregation ship how pu permitted by this act, and disquiet and disturb the same, or misuse nished. any preacher or teacher, such person or persons, upon proof See also thereof before any justice of peace, by two or more sufficient witnesses, shall find two sureties to be bound by recognisance in the penal sum of 50l. and in default of such sureties shall be committed to prison, there to remain till the next general or quarter sessions; and upon conviction of the said offence at the said general or quarter sessions, shall suffer the pain and penalty of 201. to the use of the king's and queen's majesty's, their heirs and successors." st. 2. c. 5. § 4. See also Vol. I. title Riot, &c. Vol V. p. 695. The court of king's bench refused to grant a certiorari, to re- 1 Keb. 491. move an indictment at the sessions, for a person not behaving himself modestly and reverently at the church, during divine service; which although punishable by ecclesiastical censures, yet the court conceived it a proper cause within cognisance of the justices of the peace. And this was before the above-mentioned statute of the 1 W. & M. c. 18. By 50 Ed. 3. c. 5. 1 R. 2. c. 15. No clergyman shall be arrested Arresting a in any church or church-yard whilst he attends to divine service; clergyman aton pain of imprisonment of the offender and ransom at the king's tending divine will, and satisfaction to the party arrested. But the arrest notwithstanding, if not on a Sunday, is good in law. Watson, c. 34. And see titles Dissenters, Vol. I. and Popery, ante, p. 643. service. veyors. Purveyors. [12 C. 2. c. 24.] Abuses of pur- ANCIENTLY the king's court was supplied with necessaries from the ancient demesnes of the crown; and in respect thereof, the tenants of those lands had many privileges, which they still enjoy: But this method being found to be troublesome and inconvenient was by degrees disused; and afterwards the king was wont to appoint certain officers to buy in provisions for his household, who were called purveyors, and claimed many privileges by the prerogative of the crown. 2 Inst. 542. 1 Haw. c. 47. § 1. Purveyance taken away. The several laws which restrained the exorbitance of these purveyors, make up a pretty large title in the old books; but these laws proving ineffectual to remedy the evil complained of, at length by the 12 C. 2. c. 24. purveyance was entirely taken away; by which it is enacted that no sum of money, or other thing shall be taken for any provision, carriages, or purveyances for the king. And that no person under colour of purveyance shall take any timber, fuel, cattle, corn, grain, malt, hay, straw, victual, cart, carriage, or other thing, without consent of the owner: nor shall require any to furnish any horses, oxen, or other cattle, carts, plows, wains, or other carriages, for the use of the king or his household, without the owner's consent. On pain of being committed to gaol by a justice of the peace, and the constable, until the next sessions, to be there indicted; and also of paying to the party treble damages and treble costs on an action at law. END OF THE THIRD VOLUME. Printed by A. Strahan, Law-Printer to His Majesty, ADDENDA ΤΟ THE THIRD VOLUME. Indictment. The Description of the Indictor or Person indicting. Ante, p. 42. Upon an indictment for an assault upon E. E. it is suf ficient to prove that an assault was committed bearing that it appear that name, although two persons bore the same name, E. E. the elder, and E. E. the younger. REX v. Peace, E. 1 Geo. 4. 3 B. & A. 579. The defendant was indicted for an assault and battery, stated on the record to have been upon the person of Elizabeth Edwards. Plea, not guilty. At the trial at the last spring assizes for the county of Hereford, before Holroyd J., it appeared that there were two persons, a mother and a daughter, both of the name of E. E. and that, in point of fact, the assault had been committed on the upon a person daughter. It was objected, at the trial, that this proof varied from the indictment, inasmuch as E. E. must be presumed to be E. E. the elder. The objection was over-ruled, and the defendant convicted; and now, the defendant being brought up for judgment, W. E. Taunton renewed his objection. In Lepiot v. Brown, 1 Salk. 7. it was held that if father and son are both called A. B. by naming A. B. the father primâ facie shall be intended. So in Wilson v. Stubs, Hob. 330. the Court said that one being named Ralph Stubs, without addition, should never be accounted the younger, but the elder of the two of that name. Here the objection is, to the description of the prosecutrix, the person against whom the offence has been committed. There are two persons bearing the name of Elizabeth Edwards, and the person, therefore, in the indictment, must be taken to be the elder. And he cited Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, vol. 3. tit. Appeals, § 106. and Vin. Abr. vol. 14. tit. Indictment, n. 15. 16. 17. Per curiam. The crime charged in the indictment has been proved. For it is stated, that the defendant committed an assault on Elizabeth Edwards, and that has been proved. It is not absolutely necessary that the indictment should specifically describe the individual on whom the assault was, for otherwise, an indictment would be bad, which charged that the assault was committed on a person to the jurors unknown. The question here is, not whether the party assaulted has been rightly described, but who the party is, who is described in the indictment as having been assaulted. Here that has been sufficiently proved. The objection, therefore, is not sustainable. Judgment for the Crown. Abuses of purveyors. Purveyance taken away. Purveyors. [12 C. 2. c. 24.] ANCIENTLY the king's court was supplied with necessaries from the ancient demesnes of the crown; and in respect thereof, the tenants of those lands had many privileges, which they still enjoy: But this method being found to be troublesome and inconvenient was by degrees disused; and afterwards the king was wont to appoint certain officers to buy in provisions for his household, who were called purveyors, and claimed many pri vileges by the prerogative of the crown. 2 Inst. 542. 1 Hau. c. 47. § 1. The several laws which restrained the exorbitance of these purveyors, make up a pretty large title in the old books; but these laws proving ineffectual to remedy the evil complained of at length by the 12 C. 2. c. 24. purveyance was entirely taker away; by which it is enacted that no sum of money, or other thing shall be taken for any provision, carriages, or purveyances for the king. And that no person under colour of purveyance shall take any timber, fuel, cattle, corn, grain, malt, hay, straw, victual, cart. carriage, or other thing, without consent of the owner: nor sha require any to furnish any horses, oxen, or other cattle, carts, plows, wains, or other carriages, for the use of the king or his household, without the owner's consent. On pain of being committed to gaol by a justice of the peace. and the constable, until the next sessions, to be there indicted: and also of paying to the party treble damages and treble cost on an action at law. END OF THE THIRD VOLUME. Printed by A. Strahan, Law-Printer to His Majesty, ADDENDA TO THE THIRD VOLUME. Indictment. The Description of the Indictor or Person indicting. Ante, p. 42. REX v. Peace, E. 1 Geo. 4. 3 B. & A. 579. The defendant was indicted for an assault and battery, stated on the record to have been upon the person of Elizabeth Edwards. Plea, not guilty. At the trial at the last spring assizes for the county of Hereford, before Holroyd J., it appeared that there were two persons, a mother and a daughter, both of the name of E. E. and that, in point of fact, the assault had been committed on the daughter. It was objected, at the trial, that this proof varied from the indictment, inasmuch as E. E. must be presumed to be E. E. the elder. The objection was over-ruled, and the defendant convicted; and now, the defendant being brought up for judgment, W. E. Taunton renewed his objection. In Lepiot v. Brown, 1 Salk. 7. it was held that if father and son are both called A. B. by naming A. B. the father prima facie shall be intended. So in Wilson v. Stubs, Hob. 330. the Court said that one being named Ralph Stubs, without addition, should never be accounted the younger, but the elder of the two of that name. Here the objection is, to the description of the prosecutrix, the person against whom the offence has been committed. There are two persons bearing the name of Elizabeth Edwards, and the person, therefore, in the indictment, must be taken to be the elder. And he cited Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, vol. 3. tit. Appeals, § 106. and Vin. Abr. vol. 14. tit. Indictment, n. 15. 16. 17. Per curiam. The crime charged in the indictment has been proved. For it is stated, that the defendant committed an assault on Elizabeth Edwards, and that has been proved. It is not absolutely necessary that the indictment should specifically describe the individual on whom the assault was, for otherwise, an indictment would be bad, which charged that the assault was committed on a person to the jurors unknown. The question here is, not whether the party assaulted has been rightly described, but who the party is, who is described in the indictment as having been assaulted. Here that has been sufficiently proved. The objection, therefore, is not sustainable. Judgment for the Crown. Upon an indictment for an assault upon E. E. it is suf ficient to prove that an assault was committed upon a person bearing that name, although it appear that two persons bore the same name, E. E. the elder, and E. E. the younger. |