9 Rep. 135. in Afcough's cafe.-- -If one has a rent service and he purchases the reverfion or remainder in fee, all the whole feigniory is extinct; but a rent-charge is not extinct by fuch purchase, for it is chargeable upon the poffeffion, and he shall avow as in land chargeable to his diftrefs. Per Gawdy J. Cro. E. 226. Pafch. 33 Eliz. B. R. in case of Garnon v. Weston. Jbid. fays that with this accords 6. As to intire fervices when the lord comes to any parcel by a mere act in law, and partly by the act of the party, and namely, when the 40 E. 3. and original act is the act of the party, as where parcel of the tenancy F.N.B.209. is recovered in a ceffavit, all the intire fervices which are for the benefit of the lord are extinct and gone. 6 Rep. 2. b. Hill. 36 Eliz. in the Court of Wards. Bruerton's cafe. (A.) Ow. 21. E. 469. Mo. 413. Wright v. the Mayor of Wickham, S. C. Mo. 413. S. C. Roll. Ow. 21. 7. There is a difference between a right of action and a right to the land; for in the firft cafe if there be a fufpenfion or extinguishment in part, it is extinguished for the whole; but where there is right to the land it may be releafed or fufpended in part, and remain good for the refidue. Mo. 413. pl. 569. Trin. 37 Eliz. Wright v. the Mayor of Wickham. 8. If he that has cause to bring a writ of error or attaint takes a leafe of part, he fufpends his action; and if he takes a feoffment of it, it is quite gone. Arg. Ow. 21. 37 Eliz. B. R. in Wright's cafe. 9. If one has title to a writ of error to reverse a fine makes a feoffment of part of the land, the feoffment only destroys the title of error for that part. Cro. E. 469. (bis) pl. 27. Pasch. 38 Eliz. B. R. Wright v. Wickham. Lev. 72. Winn v. Floyd. 10. There is a difference between a condition compulfatory and a power of revocation that is voluntary. In the last case a man may by his own act extinguifh his power in part, as by levying a [468] fine of part, and yet the power remain for the refidue, because it is in nature of a limitation and not of a condition. Co. Litt. 215. a. cites it as refolved, Mich. 40 & 41 Eliz. in the Earl of Shrewfbury's cafe. II. Condition or limitation annexed to the eftate of the land ought to defroy all the eftate to which it is annexed, and not part of it. 1 Rep. 86. b. Pafch. 42 Eliz. C. B. in Corbet'. cafe. 12. A licence difpenfing with part fhall be for the whole; per Coke Ch. J. 2 Bulit. 291. cites 4 Rep. 120. [a. Hill. 45 Eliz. B. R.] Dumport's cafe, and the cafe there cited of Leeds v. Crompton. 13. A releafe of common in one acre is an extinguishment of the whole common; per Curiam. Show. 350. Pafch. 4 W. & M. in cafe of Miles v. Etteridge. For more of Extinguishment, fee Common (E. a), Condition (I. d) K. d), Copyhold (F. d), Feoftment (A. 2), Fines (A. 2), Franchiles (C), Hecist (H), Manor (O) (R. 2), Merger. Releale. Revive. Tenure (B. a), and other proper titles. Extortion. (A) What is Extortion. And who may be guilty of it. 1. TRESPASS of grafs cut, the defendant faid that after the Br. Court Baron, pl. 18. cites S. C.. S. P. Br. Trefpafs, pl.100.cites 12 H. 4. 8. - -Ibid. pl. 195. cites 39 E. 3. 20. 2. Extortio eft crimen quando quis colore officii extorquet quod non eft debitum, vel quod eft fupra debitum, vel ante tempus quod eft debitum, and this is called crimen expilationis & crimen concuffionis. 10 Rep. 102. 2. Mich. 10 Jac. in Beawfage's cafe. Co. Litt. v. Bathurst, S. P. & S. C. cited. 3. If an officer or judge takes more than the ufual fees he is pu- [ 469 1 nishable at common law. Per Chamberlain J. 2 Roll. Rep. 263. Mich. 20 Jac. B, R. Smith v. Mall. 4. Bond to pay fees before they are due is extortion. in cafe of Norfolk v. Aylmer, cites 2 Inft. 210. Raym. 62. Hut. 52. So of a promise by a stranger. Cro. J. 103. Bridge v. Cage. 5. In every oppreffion there ought to be a threatening of the party; for the voluntary payment of a greater sum where a lefs is due cannot be faid extortion. Godb. 438. pl. 583. Mich. 4 Car. in the Star-Chamber. Floyd v. Sir Thomas Cannon. King v. 6. Church-wardens of St. Martyn's were indicted for extortiously Sid. 307. taking of one Reynel a filver cup for making him gallery-keeper in pl. 17. The the church; Keeling faid this was no offence, nor fuch an office Eyres. S.C. whereupon extortion can be grounded, but a bare employment. accordingly. But the Court would not quafh it without trial; for then it will appear Show. 390. 3 Salk. 198. appear whether the cup were great or little, exacted or freely 7. Bailiffs taking exceffive bail, as 401. where the plaint was 8. Every feveral taking is a several extortion, and it is not good pl. 1. S. C. held accordingly; for every taking was a feparate offence. 4 Mod. 100. 103. S. C. 1 Salk. 131. the 9. Under-fheriff refusing to execute procefs till he has his fees; if party pays him the fees fo before-hand, he may after indict him of extortion. 1 Salk. 330. pl. 3. Mich. 6 W. & M. in Anon. S.P. B. R. Hefcot's cafe. held accord ingly. 10. An indictment for extortion against an officer for taking money for not carrying his prifoner to a fpunging-house; the Court looked upon it to be fo ill a practice, that they would not hear a motion to quafh it. 12 Mod. 255. Mich. 10 W. 3. The King v. Beechcroft. 11. A juftice of peace's clerk may commit an extortion; per Holt Ch. J. 12 Mod. 512. Pafch. 13 W. 3. Anon. 12. An indictment was against several for intending to defraud A. of his money, and that they threatened to fend him to Newgate by colour of a warrant, and to indict him of perjury, unless he would give them money and a note, which he did by reafon of their threats; and judgment for the queen. 11 Mod. 137. Mich. 6 Ann. B. R. The Queen v. Woodward. J I. (B) Punishable. How. THE HE ftatute of Weftm. 1. cap. 26. adds a greater penalty than the common law did give; for by this act the plaintiff fhall recover his double damages, and besides, they fhall be punished at the will of the king, viz. by the king's justices before whom the caufe depended. 2 Inft. 210. 2. This term, Nelme a bailiff in Whitechapel being indicted and convicted of extortion was fined 131. 6s. 8d. to be imprisoned one week without bail, and then till he found fureties for his good behaviour, and difabled for ever hereafter to execute the office of bailiff or under-bailiff. MS. Rep. (faid to be a copy of Ld. Ch. J. Keyling's) Mich. 15 Car. 2. B. R. Nelm's cafe. Keb. 623. pl. 98. S.C. the defendant was con convicted of extortion, but does not fay what his punishment was. 2 Lev. 71. The King v. the Lady 3. The governor of the Gatehoufe prifon in Weftminster was found guilty of extortion and hard ufage of the prifoners in a most barbarous manner, and was fined 100 marks and removed Broughton, from her office. Raym. 216. Mich. 24 Car. 2. B. R. The Lady S. C. reports Broughton's cafe. that the was fined 500 l. and put out of her office. 4. An action lies against a ferryman for extorting money for paffage of one that is toll-free by cuftom contrary to the custom, because there is no other remedy. Carth. 194. Trin. 3 W. & M. in B. R. in case of Pain v. Patrick. 5. It is against the course of the Court to quash an indictment for oppreffion or extortion; per Cur. we cannot do it. Demur to it. 5 Mod. 13. Mich. 6 W. & M. The King v. Wadfworth. 6. Upon affidavit of extortion, though the course is to take a recognizance to answer interrogatories, yet in cafe of great oppreffion the Court may commit the party, and he must answer in vinculis; per Holt Ch. J. Cumb. 448. Trin. 9 W. 3. B. R. 7. Indictment was against A. and others, for that being receivers of the queen's tax, they colore officii extorted money from feveral perfons. On motion in arreft of judgment, it was held that two men may be indicled jointly for a battery or extortion, because it is a crime at common law, of which they may be jointly or feverally guilty. Salk. 382. pl. 32. Pafch. 5 Ann. B. R. The Queen v. Atkinson. THE (C) Pleadings. HE place where the extortion was committed fhould be fet Morgan. 2. The fum certain extorted muft be particularly fet forth, and he cannot fay that the defendant did extort divers fums from divers men generally; and fo it was adjudged in REIGNOLD'S CASE in [471] this Court; per Richardfon Ch. J. Godb. 438. pl. 583. Mich. 4 Car. in the Star-chamber; Floyd v. Cannon. Keb. 257. pl. 47. the King v. Gover. 3. If the charge is for oppressing A., B., and C. particularly, and 100 men generally, the proof must be first as to A., B., and C. before any be given as to the others. Godb. 438. pl. 583. Mich. 4 Car. in the Star-chamber. Floyd v. Cannon. 4. Indictment of extortion against a bailiff of a hundred did not exprefs the caufe, but faid only that colore officii he took fo much and held good; but the book fays, that perhaps if it had been upon demurrer it might be otherwife. Sid. 91. pl. 13. Mich, the plaintiff, 14 Car. B. R. The King v. Cover. S. C. adjudged for it being after a verdict he needed not fhew particular caufe. Extortion is a fpecific offence, and is necef fary to be fet forth 5. It was moved to quafh an indictment against a miller for 6. A complaint and charge of extortion ought to be particular, as felonice in an indictment; per Holt Ch. J. 11 Mod. 82. Pafch. 5 Ann. B. R. The Queen v. the Clerk of the Peace of Cumberland. S. C. See tit. Fees (A), and other proper titles. |