Part II. (Sect. 13.) has provided, that the Court in Action for which the action is depending, shall, upon apResidence. plication made for that purpose, require the

Non

2 Brownl. 55.

19.

archbishop or bishop of the diocese to certify in writing under his hand to the Court, and also to the party named in the rule, the reputed annual value of the living, which certificate shall, in all subsequent proceedings in the action, be received as evidence of the annual value, for the purposes of the Act, without prejudice, nevertheless, to the admissibility or cffect of any such other evidence as may be offered or given respecting the annual value thereof.

The defendant was formerly permitted to shew ill health, or other sufficient reason to excuse his absence. But these excuses are all now settled by the positive terms of the Act. Vide Sect. He cannot, when not exempted, be permitted to shew any other cause, without the licence of the bishop; and, if he has obtained such licence, which can only be granted upon evidence laid before the bishop, the licence itself will be sufficient evidence for the defendant in the action, and, if pleaded, will, by the 27th Section, entitle him to treble costs, in case a verdict be found for him. In cases where the defendant is exempted without the aid of a licence, he must prove his exemption, by proving his appointment as chaplain, &c. and that he has duly resided according to the several Acts; and, by the last Act, he must also prove the delivery

1.4.

Action for

NonResidence.

of his notification thereof to the bishop, or Ch. XVI. else, as was heretofore seen,' he will not be entitled to avail himself of his exemption. To shew this fact, he must either prove the actual delivery of it to the bishop, or else, having delivered a duplicate to the registrar of the diocese, get a copy certified by such registrar, which, by the 25th Section of the Act, is made sufficient evidence of his having made such notification.

CHAP. XVII.

OF THE EVIDENCE IN COPYHOLD CASES.

T

for

Copyhold.

y. Eves,

Leon. 100.

Doe dem.

O maintain an Ejectment for a Copyhold, Ejectment Tenement, the lessor of the plaintiff must produce the rolls of the manor, which shew a surrender to him, or those under whom he claims; and, in general, his own admittance is necessary to complete his title.' An heir at Rumney law, however, may make a lease, and maintain the action before admittance; and where a tenant for life has been admitted upon the surrender granting that estate, his admittance T. Rep. operates as the admittance of the remainderman, named in the same instrument also, for it is but one estate. In a late case where a mortgagee brought an ejectment and shewed a surrender to him before the day of the demise

Tarrant v.

Hellier, 3

162.

2 Auncelme v.

Aun celme,

Cro. Jac.

"laid 31

Cases.

Part II. laid in the declaration, and proved his admits Copybold tance in consequence, the Court held he was entitled to recover, though, in fact, the admittance was not made till long afterwards; for, when once made, it related back to the time of Holdfast the surrender. In this case the Court said, that Woollam even if there had been no admittance, yet as v. Clapham, T. against the mortgagor the ejectment would be Rep. 600. maintainable; assigning as a reason, that the

dem.

mortgagor, being only a trustee for the mortgagee, should not be permitted to set up his legal interest against the claim of his cestui que Ante, 317. trust; but we have before had occasion to observe, that a different doctrine has since been established from that which then prevailed respecting the action of ejectment.

Read v.

'(k).

But, when the lord himself claims the estate, Allen, per as forfeited by reason of a lease made by the Comyns Oxf. Circ. defendant, he must prove, that the person who 1730. Bul. N.P. 107. is alledged to have committed the forfeiture, was admitted tenant on the rolls of the manor. It will not be sufficient, in this case, to prove that his father was admitted, and that the land descended to him, and that he has paid quit rents; for, though he might enter to make a lease before admittance, nothing vested in him which he could forfeit before admittance and entry.

(k) Mr. J. Baller alio cites 1 Lord Raym. 726, in the margin; but, as this book does not contain any thing as to this point, I presume that it was established in Read and Allen.

Another

and

Copybold

Cases.

Lord Salisbury's. Case, 1 Keb. 287. 1 Lev. 633 Doc dem.

Another case, in which very strict evidence Ch. XVIŁ has been required, is, when the lord seizes the land as forfeited for want of the heir coming in to be admitted. In this case it has been said, that the proclamation should be proved by viva voce evidence, and that the entry thereof on the Court rolls is not sufficient.' It should be observed, however, that this point is not mentioned in another report of the same case; in a late case,' where such a claim was set up, no such evidence appears to have been re- Tarrant v. Hillier, quired. It was determined in that case that 3 T. Rep.. the lord could not seize absolutely pro defectu 162. tenentis without a special custom authorising him so to do; and, therefore, to support a seizure so made, it will be necessary to prove such a custom.

pay

2

To prove the custom of a manor, the first Vide ante, evidence to be referred to will be the Court 87. rolls, and on the antiquity and uniformity of these will, in a great measure, depend the validity of the custom. If a payment be claimed 12 Vin. by the lord, as an ancient and accustomed 105. pl. 5. ment, the books of the steward or bailiff of the manor, whereby he charges himself with monies. received, may also be produced; but, unless it appear that such a sum of money has been from time to time paid by the tenants, the mere entry vide 4 by the stewards is very weak evidence. And, Leon. 242 and Mr. J. indeed, in all cases of custom, as many instances Grose's as possible of its having been acted upon should Observabe produced, though we have before observed,

FF

tions on

that Case,

that

4 T. Rep

Part II. that where a custom is formally found by the Copyhold homage, and entered on the rolls, proof of its having been acted upon, is not absolutely ne

Cases.

Ante, 87. cessary.

Lord Northwick v. Stanway, 6 Fast. 56.

When the lord brings an action for a fine not exceeding two years value of the premises, on the defendant's admission to them, the defendant's admission, the presentment of the homage as to the value, and proof of the sum required by the action having been demanded of the defendant by letter from the steward, is sufficient, without further proof of the fine having been assessed.