Offenders shall pay the charge of their own conveyance to gaol or the sum shall be levied by sale of their goods so that the King's subjects will no longer be burdened thereby.
Plaintiffs' costs shall be paid by the defendants only where there is a judgment against the defendant in all actions in which the plaintiff is entitled to costs on judgment for him, to discourage frivolous and unjust suits.
Defendants may not petition to remove a case to the Westminster courts after a jury is selected because such has resulted in unnecessary expense to plaintiffs and delay for defendants in which they suborn perjury by obtaining witnesses to perjure themselves.
In 1619, by the writ of quo warranto, a government office or official could be made to explain by what right he performed certain acts.
The Court of High Commission heard mostly matrimonial cases, but also moral offenses both of clergy and laity, and simony [buying or selling ecclesiastical preferment, ecclesiastical pardons, or other things regarded as sacred or spirtual], plurality, drunkenness, and other clerical irregularities.
By 1616, Chancery could order injunctions to stop activities.
In Slade's case of 1602, the Court of the Queen's Bench held that assumpsit may be brought in place of the action of debt. So assumpsit supplants debt for recovering liquidated sums and is then called "indebitatus assumpsit".
The trial of Sir Walter Ralegh in 1603 began a call by people for a right to confront and question one's accusers. Before trial, privy counselors who in theory sat as impartial justices, cross-examined Ralegh in prison. With a carefully selected jury present, the trial began with reading of the indictment, which Ralegh had not yet seen. He was charged with treason in plotting with Catholic Spain to put Arabella Stuart on the throne. Arabella was to write to Spain promising peace, toleration of Catholics in England, and direction by Spain in her marriage choice. He pled not guilty and took no exception to any jurors, stating that he knew them all to be honest men. Next, Attorney General Edward Coke, his enemy and rival, and he engaged in a debate about who was right, with Coke outright bullying him. Coke then produced a signed confession by Lord Cobham that implicated him in the alleged conspiracy and accepting 10,000 crowns for his part. Ralegh was given permission to speak. He said that Cobham had retracted his confession. He ridiculed the idea that he would betray England to Spain for gold after fighting against Spain, including risking his life three times, and spending 4,000 pounds for the defeat of Spain. He pointed to a treatise he had written to the king on the present state of Spain and reasons against peace. Then there was a discussion on the validity of Cobham's confession. Cecil gave an oration of Ralegh. Coke gave a speech. Ralegh asked to have his accuser brought before him face to face. He cited law that two witnesses were necessary for a conviction for treason. Chief Justice Popham replied that only one witness was necessary under common law, which applied to his case, and that the trial was properly conducted by examination of the defendant. Coke added that it would be improper to call Cobham because he was a party. Then Coke surprised Ralegh with a letter from Cobham stating that Ralegh had asked Cobham to procure him an annual pension of 1500 pounds from Spain for disclosing intelligence. Ralegh acknowledged that a pension was offered, but denied that he had ever intended to accept it. He admitted that it was a fault not to inform authorities of this offer. The jury deliberated for fifteen minutes and returned with a verdict of guilty. The Chief Justice delivered the sentence for treason: drawing, hanging, disemboweling, beheading, and quartering. The whole trial was not so much to access guilt, but to show the general public that the person was guilty.
Church courts were revived after a period of disuse. They could annul an unconsummated or legally invalid marriage (e.g. consanguinity, impotence, a witnessed precontract to marry) and order judicial separations in case of adultery, cruelty, or apostasy. Annuled marriages made a person's children illegitimate. An action at common law for "criminal conversation" [adultery] with the plaintiff's spouse or for assault and battery could result in an order for separation. But only a private statute of Parliament could grant a divorce, which allowed remarriage. It was granted in only a few cases and only to the very wealthy. Church officials spied upon people's conduct to draw them into their courts and gain more money from the profits of justice.
In 1610, Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, decided that the statute giving the Royal College of Physicians power to imprison and fine those practicing without a license was invalid and unenforceable because it gave the college half of each fine awarded, which was a conflict of interest with its role as an adjudicator. Coke said that a maxim of the common law was that no man ought to be judge in his own cause. By this decision, he asserted a court supremacy over Parliament with respect to the validity of statutes. He opined that the courts should not only be independent of the Crown, but should act as arbiter of the Constitution to decide all disputed questions. In his words, "When an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, the common law will control it and adjudge such Act to be void."