Les reportes del cases in Camera Stellata, 1593 to 1609 from the original ms. of John Hawarde edited by William Paley Baildon Published 1894. Pages 12-13. and 146
In Camera Stellata die Martls, Januarij 29, termino Paschae, Elizab. 37, 1594.
Ascoe, plaintiff, and the Earl of Lincoln, defendant. for maintenance, and for buying a statute merchant and prosecuting an extent thereon, for rasinge a certificate Chancery and suborning one to do this, &c.; also when a jury was proceeding on the extent and execution thereof, being present and compelling the jury to appraise them again and below the value, and for waste in scindinge and felling 1500 timber trees at Michaelmas to the destruction of the bark. The Earls counsel moved that the bill was insufficient for these words, contrary to the lawes & statutes in that case provyded within two yeres laste paste did buye, &c., and there are divers statutes against maintenance, and the action is not maintainable unless prosecuted within one year after the offence is committed. The Court ruled that the bill was good, because it is for the Queen, for whom two years is to be allowed. Phillips says that it is not for the Queen, because of this difference, when it is for the Queen, the words are informethe to your majesty but when it is for the party, the words are, complaynethe to your majesty. But the Court was against him.
Another exception to the bill, that if it be in the disjunctive, it is bad, [was taken] by Yelverton, Serjeant, as, you committe perjurye in the 16th Interrogatory, and have prosecuted the extente, and contracted for the statute or caused some other, &c. By the Chief Justices: It is good, and there is sufficient matter in the bill besides to maintain maintenance.
The third exception—the extent was taken with the privity of the Earl—is not a good exception: by the Court. But the time of the subornation must be declared, and also of the procurement of maintenance, and it was so agreed by the Court, and on the sight of the bill it appeared plainly. And thus the Counsel for Ascoe proved their matters against the Earl, and so ended the first day. But the cause was not answered on any other day in Court, but [Page 13] was determined by the Lords in private, for the good credit of the Earl; for if the Earl had suffered the case to proceed, grave charges [grande choses] would have appeared against him. I was not informed what manner of fine was made.
In Camera Stellata, coram Consilio ibidem, Mercurij, 4 Junij, An. Do. 1600, Annoque Elizab. Rne 42.
(p.114) Ascewe and the Earl of Lincolne. Ruled in this case that the Earl is not bound to take notice of the judgment of this Court on the showing of an order of this Court by the party only, but [he is bound] on the showing of this by the Clerk and the Officer of the Court, or on subpoena out of the Court to execute the judgment of the Court, which is the most proper course.
In Camera Stellata, coram Consilio ibidem, Mercurij, 9 Junij, Eiizab. 44, Annoque Do. 1602. Termino Trinitat.
(p.146) The Queen's Attorney moved between the Earl of Lincolne and Ascewe. Now the Earl, after many contempts and disobeyings of orders and decrees of the Court, after conference with the said Attorney, submitted himself to the order of the Court, and craved a reference to two Judges to assess the damages; which was ordered accordingly.
Case Book BL Harley MS 2143 fo. 62v. Maintenance in buying a statute before the day of payment; damages. Ascough, plaintiff; Earl of Lincoln et al, defendants: for maintenance in the Earl in the buying a statute merchant of £600 wherein the plaintiff became bound to one Falsham for payment of £300, and that before the day of payment thereof and for riot in extending the said statute and cutting down the plaintiff’s wood to a great value and carrying the same to his own grounds for which 1000 marks fine but the corporal punishment pardoned yet the court gave the plaintiff damages for his wood and for his losses otherwise sustained by reason of the said extent. Hillary 37 Elizabeth. (kk)
See also STAC Ascough