[116 a] be against the law of another state, the contrary not appearing. Ib. The purchase of land during the pendency of a suit concerning it, if made with a knowledge of the suit, and not in consummation of a previous bargain, is champerty, and the purchase is void. 8 Johns. 479, Jackson v. Ketchum. 20 Johns. 386, Thalimer v. Brinckerhoff. Buying and selling lands out of the possession of the vendor, and held adversely at the time, is buying and selling a pretended title, and is not a valid consideration for a promise. 2 Johns. Ca. 58, Whitaker v. Cone. Where a person undertakes to sell land which is held adversely to him, it is immaterial whether his title were good or bad. 13 Johns. 289, Tomb v. Sherwood. Advancing money to a poor person to enable him to prosecute his suit is not maintenance. 3 Johns. Ch. Rep. 508, Perine v. Dunn, Habeas corpus. Bail cannot render the body of the decommon fendant in the pleas after writ of error brought by him. 2 Ro. 491. 1 Brnl. 63. Cr. Jac. 109. WICKSTEAD vs. BRADSHAW. Bail cannot surrender the principal in the common pleas, while a writ of error brought by him is pending; but he may after the return day of the writ of error is passed and the record not removed. WICKSTEAD recovered against Bradshaw sixty pounds debt, and fortysix shillings eight pence damages; and now this term Bradshaw was brought to the bar by habeas corpus procured by his bail, with purpose to save themselves. And so both the plaintiff prayed that he might 1 Ro. 334. Br. be committed in execution, and also the bail, that he Error, 55. Noy. 11. Mo. 850. might be received in their discharge. But it appeared to the court that Bradshaw had already brought a writ of error which was allowed by me, and the return of it not yet come; so that the court was disabled either to award execution, or to put him in execution. And this also was the cause that the bail could not be discharged; for the end of the bail is not only to bring the body, but that he come subject to the court, according to the meaning of the bail, which cannot be in this case, because of the writ of error; for the entry in discharge of the bail must be, that the defendant reddidit se to the court, to be in execution, if the plaintiff will, which cannot be so here. And quare, whether this hath not so disabled this defendant by his own act, that the bail is forfeited, (note, the bail have not disabled themselves) though afterwards he proceeded not in his writ of error. And so execution may be taken here. But note, that afterwards this term Bradshaw the de- [116b] fendant was brought again to the bar by another habeas corpus, and the plaintiff prayed him in execution; which was granted, because the day of the return of the writ of error was passed, and he had not caused the record to be Dy. 245. a. removed, and therefore this court was reenabled to award execution. WALTER US. PIGGOT. In debt on an obligation, the plaintiff declares for septingent. et quinquagint. libris, and the obligation is for septuagint. et quinquaginl. libris; held that the obligation is good, and the variance not material. Obligation. septingent. 190. 3 Cr. 896. Ant. 18, 19, 20, 75. 9 H. 6. 7. Moor f. 645. 3 Cro. 896. 10 Co. 133. a. Yel. 96. Styl. WILLIAM WALTER brought an action of debt against Septuagint for Thomas Piggot, and declared, that the defendant stood 2 Cro. 147, bound to him in septingent. et quinquagint. libris, and 2 Ro. 147. produced his writing obligatory, upon oyer whereof the words were septuagint. et quinquagint. libris. Whereupon the defendan pleaded the variance, and thereupon a demurrer, and adjudged for the plaintiff, that it was no 257. Post 119. cause to abate the writ; and the defendant put to further answer, who pleaded non est factum. And the jury found, that the aforesaid writing obligatory de summa septuagint. et quinquaginta librarum per quod prædictus Willielmus Walter per bre. suum exegit de præfat. Tho. Piggot infra-script. septingent. et quinquaginta libras was sealed and delivered by Piggot to Walter as his deed; sed utrum super tota materia &c. And thereupon the court adjudged the plaintiff should recover the seven hundred and fifty pounds demanded, and damages and costs. Note, there was nothing either pleaded by the party, or found by the jury, that it was meant for seven hundred pounds. Upon this judgment a writ of error was brought, but it appears not what was done upon it. (1) Vide ante pp. 18, 19, 20 and 75. [116 c] 1 Brnl. 235. [117] 2 Cro. 67, 502, 589. Yel. 65. 1 Cro. 80, 93. 3 Cr. 455. BLACKFORD vs. ALKIN. A traverse, that seems to contain more than the plea, may be restrained and applied to the plea by a prædictus. action of trespass against The defendant pleaded fee, and so seized, grant THOMAS BLACKFORD brought an John Alkin, for taking his horse. that one John Holt was seized in ed a rent of 41. per annum to John Alkin, with clause of distress, and conveys the rent to the defendant; and for 40s. he destrained. The plaintiff replied, that long before the grant supposed, William Holt was seized, and had issue John Holt the elder, and John Holt the younger; that he devised his land to his said two sons in tail, and died; that John the eldest died without issue, and that John the younger had issue A. and died; and that A. gave license to the plaintiff to put in his horse, absque hoc, quod præd. Johannes Holt pater fuit seisitus in domino suo ut de feodo, prout. Sur que, issue, and found for the plaintiff. And it was said in arrest of judgment, that there was no issue; for it was not pleaded, that John Holt, pater, was seized in fee as the traverse was. But yet judgment was given for the plaintiff; for though pater be added, yet præd. Johannes Holt, prout the defendant alleged, binds it to that person that the defendant had pleaded; and that pater is but John, and can do no hurt, especially since it may stand true that he was pater; as if it had been traversed absque hoc quod præd. Johannes Holt generosus, &c. otherwise it had been absque hoc. ad præd. Willielmus Holt, which could not be taken for the same person; yet perhaps that might have been amended, though hardly. (1) (1) See post 330, Wilson v. Stubbs, and note. Box vs. BARNABY. The words Thou art a common maintainer of suits,' spoken of an attorney, are not actionable: secus of the words, thou art a champertor.' In an action of slander for speaking English words, it is not necessary to aver the sense, or that the hearers understood them. 6 [117 a] called a cham 43. Post. 268. 3. Ant. 62,115. low's Reports, Box, an attorney, brought an action upon the case Attorney is against Barnaby for these words; Thou art a common pertor. 1 Roll. maintainer of suits, and a champertor, and I will have 1 Bral. 15. thee thrown over the bar the next term.' And after a ver- Champerty, B. dict for the plaintiff, upon a motion in arrest of judgment, V. in Brownthe court gave judgment for the plaintiff only upon the 15. the same case adjudged word champertor: for there is maintenance lawful and un- as here. Moor lawful; and where the word is indifferent it shall be taken in mitiorem partem. Now an attorney may and ought, by his office, to maintain his client's causes. And yet in an action of maintenance he cannot plead not guilty, but must justify. And an attorney may well be said a common maintainer, because he is common to as many as will retain him. (1) And the words of throwing over the bar 867. are utterly of an uncertain sense; but indeed it is a slan- 1 ̧Cro. 192, 229. der to an attorney, and that in his vocation of attorney, to be a champertor, for that is not only beyond, but against, his office. And therefore 20 or 21 E. 1. Rastal. Tit. Champerty, 3, that pleaders and attorneys take pleas to champerty. And I hold that if an attorney follow a cause, to be paid in gross when it is recovered, that is champerty. 268. But when it is objected that the word champertor was Post. 126, 191, a word of art, not to be understood by the vulgar, and so no damageable slander, no more than words in Latin or Welsh, except you say, that the hearers understood it; it was resolved, that this being English, and of a certain and single sense, the court cannot doubt but it was understood. (1) See ante p. 6, Miles v. Jacob, and n. (1.) [117 b] Ant. 112. Verdict seeming against lav and sense. 2 Cr. 67. NAPPER VS. JASPER & al. A verdict taken upon an issue literally inconsistent and absurd, but substantially right, is good. In an action of trespass, brought by Robert Napper against Charles Jasper and Robert George, issue was taken, that Richard Johnson, prebendary of the prebend of Preston in the church of Sarum, and all his predecessors, prebendaries, &c. had used, time out of mind, to keep a shepherd of certain sheep of theirs, following the same sheep for the better keeping of them, feeding together in a certain pasture, from the sheep of Thomas Earl of Suffolk, in the same place, and the issue was found accordingly. And it was moved that this was a void verdict; for the prescription was senseless and could not stand, that the sheep could be kept time out of mind from the sheep of the Earl of Suffolk, being but one man's life. But yet judgment was given, according to the verdict, for the plaintiff; for the substance of the issue was the keeping of the sheep of the prebendary feeding together, and the other part was but a consequent of it, that thereby they were kept from the sheep of the earl. (1) (1) Vide ante 52, Foster v. Jackson, n. (4.) 112b, Tasker v. Salter. 113 a, Stukely v. Underhill. [118] Quare impedit. V. case. Mo. 866. Hutt. 57. BRICKHEAD US. BISHOP OF YORK. Writ may be amended by the cursitor's book. IN a quare imped. between Brickhead, plaintiff, and the archbishop of York and Coke defendant, for the vicarage of Leeds, after demurrer joined, and one or two arguments at the bar, it was found in the writ, instead of vicariam, vaccariam. And so it was prayed to be amended, whereupon the cursitor was called into the court. And because it appeared to the court by his book, that his in644. 1 And. 24. structions were vicariam, and he deposed that the titling was delivered unto him accordingly, he was ordered to amend the writ in open court, and so did. Amending an original. 8 Co. 159. Cr. Car. 74. Post. 128, 184. 3 Cr. 119, Noy. 73. |