ported in 2 Ventr. 316),* the indictment against him was for high-treason, and did set forth that he adhered to the king's enemies. The jury found; that be listed and sent soldiers to the French king, then an enemy to our king and queen: but the court held the indictment too short there, because it mentioned hostibus 'et inimicis' generally; whereas it should have set forth who those enemies were, that the court might take notice whether they were enemies, as the law intended.

be required in pleading an attainder that makes a title to an estate. that attainder must needs be as fully, as clearly, and as certainly set forth; that is the ground-work and foundation of an indictment for that which is called a very great offence, which is not for absolving two persons in the parish of Paddington, nor for absolving twoimpenitent traitors, but for absolving two per sons attainted of high-treason, who did not re pent of that treason of which they were attainted.

had wreck appendant, and that he was de alta proditione dedito modo attinctus,' and that found before the escheator; and shewed further, that that manor descended to queen Mary, who granted the same to the earl of Westmoreland, who granted the same to the defendant: upon which it was demurred; and exception was taken to the plea, because the attainder is not fully and certainly pleaded. It was argued by Plowden, counsel for the defen dant, that the attainder was certainly pleaded, In the case of Woodly and Bezly, 2 Cro. 'scilicet, debito modo attinctus:' For, says he, 291. Yelverton 213. 1 Brownlow 114. In it is shewn that the wreck is appendant to the debt for rent upon a lease for years, the plain- manor, and then if he hath the manor, he hath tiff derives his title by the grant of the rever- the wreck also: and if he had the manor, it is sion by way of bargain and sale in fee from the not material to the queen how he hath it; for first lessor, and declares, that by indenture of the queen doth not claim the same, but im such a date, one grants, bargains and sells for peacheth the defendant for using there such money to him the reversion in fee, which in- a liberty. But he there grants, that if the denture was inrolled such a day secundum heir of the duke had demanded the manor there 'formam statuti;' and on nil debet pleaded, against him, the attainder ought to have been there was a verdict for the plaintiff: yet judg-pleaded certainly. And if so much certainty ment was arrested, because the plaintiff had not shewn in what court the indenture was inrolled; though it might have been, and undoubtedly it was alledged, that it was but a Conveyance to the title, and an inducement to the action, and secundum formam statuti' shews it was debite et legitime.' So in Allen 19. King against Somerland. In debt for rent the plaintiff declares on a lease for years made by a stranger, who bargained and sold the reversion per indenturam debito modo inrotulat' in Curia Cancellaria.' After a verdict for the plaintiff, on nil debet pleaded, it was moved in arrest of judgment, that he had not alledged the inrollment to be within six months, nor 'secundum formam statuti;' and though it were said to be debito modo, yet that would not mend the matter, nor aid the incertainty, and therefore judgment was arrested. So in the same book and folio, Colman against Painter. In an action by the lessee against his lessor on a covenant for peaceable enjoyment, he assigns for breach a former lease to J. S. The defendant pleads, that the lease to J. S. was with condition of re-entry for non-payment of rent, and that before the lease made to the plaintiff, the rent was behind, and legitime demandat' 'secundum formam indenturæ,' and upon nonpayment be re-entered, and made the lease to the plaintiff: and upon demurrer it was resolved, that the demand was insufficiently alledged; for, says the book, he ought to set forth certainly, when and where it was made, that it might appear to the court to be legal.

I shall trouble your lordship but with one ease more to this point; it is in 3 Lennard 72. A Quo Warranto was brought by the queen against sir John Constable, who claimed cer tain wreck in the county of York. The defendant pleaded, that Edward duke of Buckingham was seized of such a manor, to which he

See, also, in vol. 12, p. 648. of this Collection, a Note of Patrick Harding's Case from the MSS. of sir William Williams. VOL, XIII.

There are, my lord, I think, some other faults in the indictment. It mentions, That sir John Freind and sir William Perkins were attainted for high-treason, in compassing the king's death, and adhering to his enemies which were two treasons in each of them, and consequently four in all. Yet afterwards the indictment says, that these defendants intending to justify the horrid treason aforesaid (in the singular number.) So in the conclusion, that the absolution was given absque aliqua pænitentia pro alta proditione prædicta prius 'declarata,' without shewing which treason in particular was unrepented of; and each of them was not obliged to repent of all the trea sons, for they were not all his own. And is like the case this very term in this court, where a rescous was returned against two persons, that they had rescued J. S. prædict' without shewing which, and there was J. S.senior, and J. S. junior before-mentioned; and for this incertainty that return was quashed. And it seems to me to bear some resemblance to the case of Tindall and Cobbs, 3 Lennard, fol. 9, 10. In an action of waste, the declaration shews the demise of the manor of Wolverton and other lands, and assigns the waste in quodam bosco

vocat' Wolverton Wood, parcel' præmissor'; and it was held insufficient, for that it could not be parcel of the manor and other lands

also.

I must likewise humbly submit it to your lordship, whether the fact itself be sufficiently set forth, ' et eos absolvi pronuntiaverunt,' pro2 G

392. The Trial of JOSEPH DAWSON, EDWARD FORSEITH, WILLIAM MAY, WM. BISHOP, JAMES LEWIS, and JOHN SPARKES, at the Old-Bailey, for Felony and Piracy: 8 WILLIAM III, A. D. 1696.*

Admir. Angl.st. THE Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, and gaol delivery, held for our sovereign lord the king, for the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, at Justice Hall in the Old Bailey, in the suburbs of the city of London, on Monday the 19th day of October, in the 8th year of the reign of our said sovereign lord king William the 3d, over England. &c. before the right hon. Edward Russel, esq. Henry Priestman, esq.; sir Robert Rich, kt. and bart. ; sir George Rooke, kt. sir John Houblon, kt. and James Kendal, esq. Commissioners for executing and exercising the office and place of Lord High Admiral of England, respectively assigned and deputed; the right worshipful sir Charles Hedges, kt. Doctor of Law, Lieutenant in the High Court of Admiralty of England, Commissary General of our sovereign lord the king, and President and Judge of the said court; the right hon. sir John Holt, kt. Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench; sir George Treby, kt. Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas ; sir Edward Ward, kt. Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer; sir Thomas Rokeby, kt. and one of the Justices of the King's Bench; sir Samuel Eyre, kt. another of the Justices of the King's Bench; sir John Turton, kt. another of the Justices of the King's Bench; sir John Powell, kt. one of the Justices of the Common Pleas; sir Littleton Powis, kt. one of the Barons of the Exchequer; William Bridgeman and Josias Burchet, esqrs.; Secretaries of the Admiralty of England; Thomas Lane, William King, and John Cooke, respectively Doctors of Laws; and others his Majesty's Justices named in the said Commission.

* 'This case, under the name of Rex v. May, Bishop and others, is cited in East's Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown, ch. 17, s. 3, from a Manuscript Commentary by Mr. Justice Treby upon lord Hale's Summary, of which an account is given by Mr. East immediately after the preface to his Treatise.

His Majesty's Commissioners being then and there met, the Commission was read, and

proclamation made for attendance: After which, the gentlemen of the grand jury were called and sworn, and received their charge from sir Charles Hedges, kt. Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, who set forth unto them the nature of the Commission, the extent of the jurisdiction of the court, and the subject matter of their enquiries.

Then the witnesses for the king being sworn, the grand jury withdrew, and after a little time returned, finding Billa vera against Henry Every, not yet taken, Joseph Dawson, Edward James Lewis, and John Sparkes, prisoners, Forseith, William May, William Bishop, for feloniously and piratically taking and carrying away, from persons unknown, a certain ship called the Gunsway, with her tackle, apparel, and furniture, to the value of 1,000l. and goods to the value of 110l. together with 100,000 pieces of eight, and 100,000 chequins, St. Johns, near Surat in the East Indies. Then upon the high seas, ten leagues from the cape Dawson, Forseith, May, Bishop, Lewis, and Sparkes, were brought to the bar, and their

Indictment was read.

Joseph Dawson confessed that he was Guilty; but the rest pleaded Not Guilty, and put themselves upon their trials; and thereupon the petty jury was called, and the persons whose names follow were sworn: William

Walker, John Child, Edward Leeds, Thomas
Clarke, Nathan Green, Henry Sherbrooke,
Benjamin Dry, John Sherbrooke, Samuel
Jackson, Thomas Emms, Henry Hunter,
John Hall.

Then the King's Learned Counsel opened the Indictment, &c. and

Dr. Newton made a Speech, which is as follows:

My Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury; The prisoners are indicted for piracy, in robbing and plundering the ship Gunsway, belong ing to the Great Mogul and his subjects, in the Indian seas, to a very great value.

And the end was suitable to their begin- Cl. of Ar. Cryer, make proclamation. ning; they first practised these crimes upon Cryer. O yes, O yes, O yes. All manner of their own countrymen, the English, and then persons that have any thing more to do at this continued them on to strangers and foreigners; sessions, draw near and give your attendance: For the ship in which this piracy was com- and you sheriffs of the city of London, return mitted, was an English vessel, called the the several precepts directed to you, and Charles the Second, belonging to several mer-returnable here this day, upon pain and peril chants of this city, designed for other ends, and that shall follow thereon. a far different voyage, which by these crimiuals, with the assistance of one Every, their captain in all those villainies, was seized near the Groyne in Spain, in May 1694, from which place, having first, by force, set captain Gibson the commander on shore, they carried off the ship, and with it committed many and great piracies for several years (as will appear in the course of the evidence) in most of the parts of the known world, without distinction, upon all nations, and persons of all religions.

Their last piracy was this in the Indies, the greatest in itself, and like to be the most pernicious in its consequences, especially as to trade, considering the power of the Great Mogul, and the natural inclination of the Indians to revenge: But they are now brought hither ou their trial, and, if the matters they are charged with shall be proved, to receive that judgment from you their crime deserves; and that is piracy, which by so much exceeds theft or robbery at land, as the interest and concerns of kingdoms and nations are above those of private families, or particular persons: For suffer pirates, and the commerce of the world must cease, which this nation has deservedly so great a share in, and reaps such mighty advantage by: And if they shall go away unpunished, when it is known whose subjects they are, the consequence may be, to involve the nations concerned in war and blood, to the destruction of the innocent English in those countries, the total loss of the Indian trade, and thereby the impoverishment of this kingdom.

The Witnesses for the king, viz. John Dan and Philip Middleton, were then called and sworn, and in the opinion of the court gave a full evidence against the prisoners, which was very clearly summed up by the lord chief justice Holt; the tenour whereof is particularly set forth in the following Trials; but the jury, contrary to the expectation of the court, brought in all the prisoners Not Guilty; whereupon the sessions was adjourned to Saturday the 31st of October following, and the prisoners were com. mitted upon a new warrant for several other piracies.

Then the grand Jury were called over, and the appearances marked.

Cl. of Ar. Make proclamation. Cryer. O Yes, &c. The lords the king's jus tices charge and command all persons to keep silence while the charge is giving.

Sir Charles Hedges, the Judge of the Admiralty, said to the Grand Jury upon this

occasion:

Gentlemen of the Grand Jury;

good intentions, abilities, and integrity of the The opinion which this court had of the last Grand Jury was so fully answered at our late meeting in this place, that I am confident their proceedings, will concur in giving them all good Englishmen, who were witnesses of public thanks for the good services which they then performed: I wish that all others, who were concerned in the dispatch of that day's business, had the like pretence to have the same; the public justice of the nation would not then have lain under any manner of ther trouble. But seeing that it hath so hap reproach, neither would you have had this farpened, it is become absolutely necessary that a farther and a strict enquiry should be made after those crimes which threaten, and tend to the destruction of our navigation and trade; and therefore I am assured of your patience, whilst I shew you briefly:

1. What the crimes are, which you are to enquire after.

2. How far the jurisdiction and your power in making these enquiries doth extend. 3. What is the duty incumbent on you in this behalf.

1. As to the crimes, I shall not repeat what was mentioned touching all the particulars thereof, at the opening of this sessions; but contine my discourse to those, which I find by the calendar will, at this time, necessarily fall under your examination; and those are piracies.

Now piracy is only a sea-term for robbery, piracy being a robbery committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. If any man be assaulted within that jurisdiction, and his ship or goods violently taken away without legal authority, this is robbery and piracy. If the mariners of any ship shall violently dispossess the master, and afterwards carry away the ship itself, or any of the goods, or tackle, apparel or furniture, with a felonious intention, in any place where the lord Admiral hath, or pretends to have jurisdiction, this is also robbery and piracy. The intention will, in these cases, appear by considering the end for which the