had officers, and those things, which are for the execution of justice, as constables, ale-tasters, &c. and pillory

and stocks, and cucking ftool, &c. 4th, If he punished bakers more than three times, and did not fet them in the pillory. All these were caufes of feifure, till he paid a fine for the abuse, and replevied his franchise. Mr. Totterfall himself, being called and afked concerning his court leet, confeffed that he had not used it a great while; nor were there proper officers or other things for the execution of juftice: but he said, it appeared by ancient rolls, that there had been a leet there. And, being asked to what leet his tenants went, he said they went to the Sheriff's torne, and paid head-filver there. Upon which Mr. Attorney faid, that Mr. Totterfall could have no leet: for all leets were drawn out of the Sheriff's torne, which is the leet in the king's hands; and head-filver is certum late, and no man fhall be fubject to two leets; and, therefore, there could be no allowance of the leet, unless the king should be put out of that, which (for aught he knew) he had ever had. So judgment was given against him for the leet.

Darell v. Bridge, 1 Black. R.

§ 83. Upon a motion for an information in the nature of a quo warranto, against one Bridge for holding a court leet; it appeared that in 14 Jac. 1. 46. the crown granted to R. Meller and his heirs and affigns, the privilege of holding courts leet. No mefne conveyance appeared till 1702, when, and in 1708, 1719, and 1721, there were conveyances of the manor, with all courts thereunto belonging, to those under whom the defendant claimed. In the deed of

conveyance

Bro. Ab. Tit.
Franchife,
pl. 14.

Idem. pl. 22.

conveyance to him in 1739, courts leet were ex-
prefsly conveyed. In 1740 the defendant held a
court leet, the first within the memory of any one
living, though courts baron had been frequently held.
It was argued that the defendant could not deduce
any
title under the original grant, or if he could, yet
that non-ufer was a disclaimer, and a forfeiture of fuch
a franchise. On the other fide it was contended that
the poffeffion of the grant together with the land, was
an evidence of right, and that it would be of very
pernicious confequence to grant thefe informations,
whenever a lord could not deduce a title by mesne
conveyances. The court faid that as there appeared
no exercise of the grant till 1740, there was ftrong
fufpicion of fome defect in the title; and therefore it
muft go to be tried by a jury. And the rule for an
information was made abfolute.

S 84. Where a perfon has a franchise to hold a market every week, on the Friday, and he holds the Friday and the Monday, in this cafe nothing fhall be forfeited, but that which he hath purprised. But he, who has a fair to hold two days, and holds it three days, forfeits the whole. So, where a man has a market, to hold the Saturday, and he holds it another day, the market fhall be forfeited; and he fhall be fined for the mifufing.

§ 85. If the king grants to a perfon a fair for one day in the year, and the grantee holds a fair two days, and claims this upon procefs in the exchequer, he fhall forfeit his franchise. But, if he claims one day

by the patent, and another by prescription, which ig found falfe in the prescription, yet he shall not forfeit his patent.

§ 86. If a man has feveral franchises, and the one Bro. Ab. Tit. Franch.pl.14. does not depend upon the other; there, if he misuses any, he shall not forfeit all, but only those which are mifufed. But, if one depends upon the other, there, Finch, 38. if he misuses the one, all fhall be feifed and forfeited

to the king.

VOL. III.

H

TITLE

Origin of
Rents,
Tit.8.c.1.1.2.

Section 1.

Τ IT has been stated, that where the great lords enfranchifed their villains, they ftill employed them in the cultivation of their eftates, which they granted to them either from year to year, or for a certain number

of

of years, referving to themfelves an annual return from the tenant, of corn or other provifions. And hence the lands, thus granted, were called farms, from the Saxon word feorm, which fignifies provisions.

§ 2. This compenfation or return for the ufe of land thus let, acquired the name of redditus, rent;

which is defined by Lord Chief Baron Gilbert to be an Gilb. Rents, annual return, made by the tenant either in labour, 9. money, or provifions, in retribution for the land that paffes.

$ 3. It follows, that, although rent must be a pro

fit, yet there is no occafion that it fhould confist of

money for capons, fpurs, horfes, and other things 1 Inft. 112 a.

of that nature, may be reserved by way of rent: and

it

may also consist of services, or manual labour, as to

plough a certain number of acres of land, &c.

§ 4. The profit, referved as rent, must be certain, Idem. or that which may be reduced to a certainty by either party; for, it is a maxim in law, that id certum est, quod certum reddi poteft. It must be payable yearly; though it need not be reserved in every fucceffive year, but will be good, if reserved in every fecond or third year.

§ 5. A rent must issue out of the thing granted, and Idem. not be a part of the thing itself: for Lord Coke fays, a man cannot referve a part of the annual profits themfelves, as to reserve the vesture or herbage of the land.