Selected quad for the lemma: master_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
master_n	henry_n	john_n	king_n	2,844	4	3.5814	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33627	Certain select cases in law reported by Sir Edward Coke, Knight, late Lord Chief Justice of England ... ; translated out of a manuscript written with his own hand, never before published ; with two exact tables, the one of the cases, and the other of the principal matters therein contained.; Reports. Part 13. English	Coke, Edward, Sir, 1552-1634.	1659 (1659)	Wing C4909; ESTC R1290	92,700	80

were meer Spirituall such a Defamation is not examinable before the high Commissioners As to the last Article It appeareth now by the Iudgment of this Court that he might well justifie the said words Also the high Commissioners shall not have Conusance of any Scandall to themselves for Judex non potest injuriam sibi datam punire Vi. the Stat. of 23 H. 8. c. 9. that they are parties and such Scandall is punishable by the Common Law as it was resolved in Hales Case which see in the Book of the Lord Dyers Reports and see in my Book of Presidents the Copy of the Indictment of Hales for scandaling of the Ecclesiasticall Commissioners Note the Bishop of Winchester being Visiter of the School of Winchester of the Foundation of Wickam Bishop of Winchester and the Bishop and Cant. and other his Colleagues An. 5 Car. cited the Vsher of the said School by force of the said Commission to appear before them and proceed there against him for which they incurred the danger of a Premunire And so did the Bishop of Canterbury and his Colleagues by force of a high Commission to them directed cite one Humphrey Frank Master of Arts and Schoolmaster of the School of Sevenock of the Foundation of Sir William Sevenock in the time of King Henry the sixth to appear before the high Commissioners at Lambeth the sixth day of December last past which citation was subscribed by Sir John Bennet Doctor of Law Doctor James and Doctor Hickman three of the high Commissioners and Sir Christopher Perkins procured the said Citation to be made and when the said Frank appeared the Archbishop being associated with Sir Christopher Perkins and Doctor Abbot Dean of Winchester made an Order concerning the said School scil That the said Frank shall continue in the said School untill the Annunciation and that he should have twenty pounds paid to him by Sir Ralph Bosoile Knight IV. Mich. 6 Jacobi Regis Taylor and Shoiles Case TAylor informed upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 4. Tam pro Domino Reg. quam pro seipso in the Exchequer That the Defendant had exercised the Art and Mystery of a Brewer c. and averre● that Shoile the Defendant did not use or exercise the Art or Mystery of a Brewer at the time of the making of the Act nor had been Apprentice by seven years at least according to the said Act c. The Defendant did demur in Law upon the Information and Iudgment was given against him by the Barons of the Exchequer And now in this Terme upon a Writ of Error the matter was argued at Serjeants-Inne before the two chief Iustices and two matters were moved The One That a Brewer is not within the said Branch of the said Act For the words are That it shall not be lawfull to any person or persons other then such as now lawfully use or exercise any Art Mystery or manuall Occupation to set up use or exercise any Art Mystery or manuall Occupation except he shall have been brought up therein seven years at the least as an Apprentice And it was said That the Trade of a Brewer is not any Art Mystery or manuall Occupation within the said Branch because the same is easily and presently learned and he needs not to have seven years Apprentiship to be instructed in the same for every Huswife in the Country can do the same and the Act of Henry the eighth is That a Brewer is not a Handycraft Artificer 2. It was moved That the said Averment was not sufficient for the Averment ought to be as generall as the exception in the Statute is scil That the Defendant did not use any Art Mystery or Occucupation at the time of the making of the same Act for by this pretence if any Art c. then as a Taylor Carpenter c. he may now exercise any other Art whatsoever As unto the first It was resolved That the Trade of a Brewer scil to hold a common Brewhouse to sell Beer or Ale to another is an Art and Mystery within the said Act for in the beginning of the Act It is enacted That no person shall be retained for lesse time then a whole year in any of the Services Crafts Mysteries or Arts of Cloathing c. Bakers Brewers c. Cooks c. So as by the judgment of the same Parliament The Trade of a Brewer is an Art and Mystery which words are in the said Branch upon which the said Information is grounded Also because that every Huswife brews for her private use so also she bakes and dresseth Meat And yet none can hold a common Bakehouse or a Cooks Shop to sell to others unlesse that he hath been an Apprentice c. for they are expresly named also in the Act as Arts and Mysteries And the Act of 22 H. 8. cap. 13. is explained That a Brewer Baker Surgeon and Scrivener Alien are not handycrafts mentioned within certain penall Lawes But the same doth not prove but that they are Arts or Mysterys for Art or Mystery is more generall then Handycrafts for the same is restrained to Manufactures As to the second Point It was resolved That the intention of the Act was That none should take upon him any Art but he who hath skill or knowledge in the same And therefore the Statute intendeth That he who useth any Art or Mystery at the time of the Act might use the same Art or Mystery for Quod quisque norit in hoc se exerceat And the words of the Act are As now do lawfully use c. And it was said That it was very necessary that Brewers should have knowledge and skill in brewing good and wholsome Beer and Ale for that the same doth greatly conduce to mens healths And so the first Iudgment was affirmed V. Mich. 6 Jacobi In the Common Pleas. The Case of Modus Decimandi SHerley Serjeant moved to have a Prohibition because that a person Tithes sued to have Tithes of Silva Cedua under twenty years growth in the Weild of Kent where by the Custome of it which is a great part of the County Tithes of any Wood was never paid And if such a Custome in non Decimando for all Lay people within the said Weild were lawfull or not was the question And to have a Prohibition it was said That although one particular man shall not prescribe in non decimando yet such a generall Custome within a great Country might well be as in 43 E. 3. 32. and 45 E. 3. Custome 15. It was presented in the Kings Bench That an Abbot had purchased Tenements after the Statute c. And the Abbot came and said That he was Lord of the Town c. And the custome of the Town was That when the Tenant cesseth for two years that the Lord might enter untill agreement be made for the Arrerages And that he who held these Tenements was his Tenant and cessed for two years and he entred and

within the body of the County but they do not restrain the execution of the same Court to be served upon the Land for it may be that the party hath not any thing upon the Sea and then it is reason to have it upon the Land and if such a Defendant have nothing wherewithall to make agreement they of the Court have power to take the body of such a Defendant upon the Land in execution In which case these points were observed 1. Although that the Court of Admiralty is not a Court of Record because they proceed there according to the Civil Law see Brook Error 77. acc yet by custom of the Court they may amerce the Defendant for his default by their discretion 2. That they may make execution for the same of the goods of the Defendant in corpore Comitatus and if he hath not goods then they may arrest the body of the Defendant within the body of the County But the great Question between them was If a man committeth See this point resolved 8 Eli. Dyer per curiam which is omitted out of the printed Book Piracy upon the Sea and one knowing thereof receiveth and comforteth the Defendant within the body of the County if the Admiral and other the Commissioners by force of the Act of 28 H. 8. cap. 16. may proceed by Indictment and conviction against the Receiver and Abettor in as much as the offence of the Accessary hath his begining within the body of the County And it was resolved by them that such a Receiver and Abettor by the common Law could not be indicted or convicted because that the common Law cannot take conusance of the original Offence because that is done out of the Iurisdiction of the common Law and by consequence where the common Law cannot punish the principal the same shall not punish any one as accessary to such a principal And therefore Coke chief Iustice reported to them a Case which was in Suffolk in anno 28 Eliz. where Butler and others upon the Sea next to the Town of Laystaft in Suffolk robbed divers of the Queens subjects and spoyled them of their goods which goods they brought into Norfolk and there they were apprehended and there brought before me then a Iustice of the Peace within the same County whom I examined and in the end they confessed a cruel and barbarous Piracy and that those goods which then they had with them were part of the goods which they had robbed from the Queens subjects upon the High Sea and I was of opinion that in that case it could not be Felony punishable by the common Law because that the original act scil the taking of them was not any offence whereof the common Law taketh knowledg and by consequence the bringing of them into a County could not make the same Felony punishable by our Law and it is not like where one stealeth goods in one County and brings them into another there he may be indicted of Felony in any of the Counties because that the original act was Felony whereof the common Law taketh knowledg and yet notwithstanding I committed them to the Gaol until the coming of the Iustices of Assises And at the next Assises the Opinion of Wray chief Iustice and Periam Iustices of Assise was That for as much as the common Law doth not take notice of the original Offence the bringing of the goods stoln upon the Sea into a County did not make the same punishable at the common Law and thereupon they were committed to Sir Robert Southwell then Vice-Admiral of the said Counties and this in effect agrees with Lacies case which see in my Reports cited in Binghams case in the 2 Reports 93. and in Constables case C. 5. Reports 107. See the Piracy was Felony the Book of 40 Assis 25. by Schard where a Master or Captain of a Ship together with some Englishmen robbed the Kings sujects upon the High Seas where he saith that it was Felony in the Norman Captain and Treason in the Englishmen his companions and the reason of the said case was because the Normans were not then under the Obedience and Allegiance of the King of England for King John lost Normandy and for that cause Piracy was but Felony in the Norman but in the English who were under the Obedience and Allegiance of the King of England the same was adjudged Treason which is to be understood of Pettit Treason which was High Treason before and therefore in that case the Pirates being apprehended the Norman Captain was hanged and the English men were hanged and drawn as appeareth by the same Book see Stamford 10. And some objected and were of opinion That Treasons done out of the Realm might have bin determined by the common Law but truly the same could not be punishable but onely by the Civil Law before the Admiral or by Act of Parliament as all Foreign Treasons and Felonies were by the common Law and therefore where it is declared by the Statute of 25 E. 3. That adherence to the Enemies of the King within England or elsewhere is Treason the same shall be tryed by the common Law but where it is done out of the Realm the Offendor shall not be attainted but by Parliament until the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 2. although that there are Opinions in some Books to the contrary see 5 R. 2. Quare impedit c. XXII Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Pettus and Godsalves Case IN a Fine levyed Trinity Term anno quinto of this King between John Pettus Esq Plaintiff and Roger Godsalve and others Deforceants of the Mannor of Castre with the appurtenances c. in the County of Norfolk where in the third proclamation upon the Foot of the same Fine the said proclamation is said to have been made in the sixth year of the King that now is which ought to have been anno quinto of the King and whereas upon the Foot of the same Fine the fourth proclamation is altogether left out because upon the view of the proclamations upon Dorsis upon Record not finis ejusdem Termini per Justiciarias remaining with the Chyrographer and the Book of the said Chyrography in which the said proclamations were first entered it appeareth that the said proclamations were rightly and duly made therefore it was adjudged that the Errors or defects aforesaid should be amended and made to agree as well with the proclamation upon Record of the said Fine and Entry of the said Book as with the other proclamations in Dorsis super pedes aliorum finium of the same Term and this was done upon the motion of Haughton Serjeant at Law XXIII Mich. 7 Jacobi In the Court of Wards Sammes Case JOhn Sammes being seised of Grany Mead by Copy of Court Roll of the Mannor of Tollesham the great of which Sir Thomas Beckingham c. and held the same of the King by Knights service in capite Sir Thomas by