Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/330

consequences happening to persons accused; and respondent submitted, that no case before the Lords ever deserved more compassionate consideration than this; and that the Lords ought to let the respondent have all the benefit the law had given him, since all the equity, justice, and right of the question, was intirely with him, because it was a verdict given upon the evidence of a single person, who ought not to be credited as a witness for his former convictions for felony, in stealing a silver tankard, and for manslaughter; and that what he swore in this matter had been since, in point of law, falsified, by his conviction of perjury in the very thing sworn, besides his swearing to acquit himself of his bond; so that if the strict rules of law had been against Ford, his case seemed to require favour and compassion; and he submitted, that even after a decree, or judgment, affirmed in Parliament, if the person upon whose evidence such decree or judgment was grounded, were convicted of perjury for such evidence, the party aggrieved had obtained relief against the same: And contended further, that this inquisition and intended forfeiture was to affect the right of several innocent persons, for a supposed offence committed by Ford, of which it was plain he was no way guilty, and to give it to a third person who had no right but what he had created to himself by the oath of a profligate fellow, after begging a prosecution of a forfeiture for [336] his own benefit, contrary to law: And that even supposing the fact true, it appeared by the record Ford took nothing for it; and the plaintiffs in the original action, were satisfied before the inquisition taken: And that it would be unprecedented, to make a man forfeit his office for doing an act which was no injury either to her Majesty, or any of her subjects, nor any benefit to himself And that the Lords had upon reading Ford's petition for receiving the bill of exception, the 28th of February last, intimated their judgment to be, that this writ of error was only upon the judgment of discontinuance; and submitted that in a case thus circumstanced, the observing and holding unto the strict rules of law, could not be thought a hardship to the prosecutor, when all equity is against him. (St. John Broderick.)

Die Martis, 1 Martii, 1703. After hearing council to argue the errors assigned upon this writ of error, it was adjudged by the Lords that the judgment given in the Court of Queen's Bench should be reversed, and the record remitted to that Court; and that the Court should proceed as if no such judgment of discontinuance had been given, but should give judgment on the merits of the cause, and in order thereto, that the record should be amended, and made as delivered the first day of terra. Lords Journ. vol. xvii. p. 475.

It appears from the journal, that another writ of error in parliament was brought by Ford, 13th November, 1704; and that Ford, 20th November, petitioned the Lords, that Lord C. J. Holt, and Justice Gold, before whom be had upon the late trial prayed a bill of exceptions, on account of the inadmissibility of a witness examined for the Queen, might attend to acknowledge their seals to the bill of exceptions, and that they were accordingly ordered to do so; and that on the 24th November, the Judges accordingly attended, and acknowledged their seals; and that Ford afterwards, 19th December, withdrew his writ of error, and prayed that the judgment of the Queen's bench for her Majesty might be affirmed, and it was so. Journ. xvii. p. 577, 582, 585, 605.

The appellants made this case: That Edmund, bishop of Worcester, 13th November, 31 Eliz. demised to the Queen the scite of the manor of Tredington, in the county of Worcester, and divers lands there (called Tredington farm) of the yearly value of 140l. to hold from the determination of such estates thereof as were then in being, for the term of 90 years at the rent of 10l. which lease by mesne assignments came to the Sheldons of Boeley in Worcestershire, who held it till 1676; and that the estates in being at the time of the making the lease by the bishop determined in 1642; and that the lease for 90 years then commenced, and would not