Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	heathen_a	let_v	publican_n	2,742	5	10.9981	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34029	Modern reports, or, Select cases adjudged in the Courts of Kings Bench, Chancery, Common-pleas, and Exchequer since the restauration of His Majesty King Charles II collected by a careful hand.	Colquitt, Anthony.; England and Wales. Court of Chancery.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.; England and Wales. Court of Exchequer.	1682 (1682)	Wing C5414; ESTC R11074	235,409	350

she ought not to starve If a woman be of so haughty a stomack that she will chuse to starve rather then submit and be reconciled to her husband let her take her own choise The Law is in no default which doth not provide for such a wife If a man be taken in execution and lye in Prison for Debt neither the Plaintiff at whose suit he is arrested nor the Sheriff who took him is bound to find him Meat Drink or Cloathes but he must live on his own or on the Charity of others and if no man will relieve him let him dye in the name of God says the Law Plow 68. Dive Manningham so say I if a woman who can have no Goods of her own to live on will depart from her husband against his will and will not submit her self unto him let her live on Charity or starve in the name of God for in such case the Law says her evil demeanour brought it upon her and her death ought to be imputed to her own wilfulness As to my Brother Tyrrells Objection it were strange if our Law which gives relief in all cases should send a woman unto another Law or Court to seek remedy to have maintenance I answer It s not sending the wife to another Law but leaving the case to its proper Iurisdiction the case being of Ecclesiastical Conusance Is it any strangeness or disparagement to the Common-Pleas to send a Cut-purse or other Felon taken in the Court to the Kings-Bench to be Indicted or to the Kings-Bench to send a woman to the Common-Pleas to recover her Dower Why is it more strange for the Common Law to send a Woman to the Ordinary to determine differences betwixt her and her husband touching matters of Matrimony then for our Courts at Common Law to write unto the Ordinary to certifie Loyalty of Marriage Bastardy or the like where Issue is joined on these points in the Kings Courts for although the proceeding and process in the Ecclesiastical Courts be in the names of the Bishops yet these Courts are the Kings Courts and the Law by which they proceed is the Kings Law 5 Rep. 39. Caudries case but the reason in both cases is quia hujusmodi causae cognitio ad forum spectat Ecclesiasticum 30 H. 6. b. Old book of Entries 288. according to that of Bracton lib. 3. fo 107. Stamf. 57. Sunt casus spirituales in quibus Judex secularis non habet cognitionem neque Executionem quia non habet coercionem In his enim casibus spectat cognitio ad Judices Ecclesiasticos qui regunt defendunt sacerdotium Hereunto agrees Cawdries case 5 Rep. 9. As in temporal causes the King by the mouth of his Iudges in his Courts of Iustice determines them by the temporal Law so in causes Ecclesiastical and Spiritual the Conusance whereof belongs not to the Common Law they are decided and determined by the Ecclesiastical Iudges according to the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws And that causes of Matrimony and the differences between husband and wife touching Alimony or maintenance for the wife which are dependant upon or incident unto Matrimony are all of Ecclesiastical and not of secular Conuzance is evident by the Books and Authorities of our Laws de causa Testamentari sicut nec de causa Matrimoniali Curia Regia se non intromittat sed in foro Ecclesiastico debet placitum terminari Bracton lib. 2. cap. 20. fo 7. All causes Testamentary and causes of Matrimony by the Laws and Customs of the Realm do belong to the spiritual Iurisdiction 24 H. 8. cap. 2. The words of the Writ of Prohibition granted in such cases are placita de Catallis debitis quae sunt de Testamento vel Matrimonio spectant ad forum Ecclesiasticum In a suit commenced by a woman against he husband before the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical causes for Alimony a Prohibition was prayed and granted because it is a suit properly to be brought and prosecuted before the Ordinary In which if the party find himself grieved he may have relief by Appeal unto the superiour Court and that he cannot have upon a sentence given in the high Commission Court 1 Cro. 220. Drakes case But 't is objected by my Brother Tyrrell and Twisden that the remedy in the Ecclesiastical Court is not sufficient for if the husband will not obey the Sentence of the Ordinary it is but Excommunication for his Contumacy and will neither feed nor cloath the wife Are the Censures of the holy Mother the Church grown of so little Accompt with us or the separation a communione fidelium become so contemptible as to be slighted with but Excommunication hath our Law provided any remedy so penal or can it give any Iudgment so fearful as this With us the rule is committitur Marescal ' or Prison ' de Fleet. There the Sentence is traditur Satanae which Iudgment is more penal Take him Gaoler till he pay the Debt or take him Devil till he obey the Church And yet their Iudgment is warranted by the rule of St. Paul whom I have delivered unto Satan 1 Cor. 5. 5. whereupon the Coment says Anathema ab ipso Christi corpore quod est Ecclesia recidit Causa 3 quest 4 Cam ' Egell trudam and also Nullus cum Excommunicatis in oratione aut cibo aut potis autesculo communicet nec ave eis dicat Causa 2 quest 3 Can. Excommunicat ' Bracton lib. 5. cap. 23. fo 42. As much is said by our Law and it is to the same effect Excommunicat ' interdicitur omnis actus legitimus Ita quod agere non potest nec aliquem convenire cum ipso nec orare nec loqui nec palam nec abscondite vesci licet The second ground of the Law of Excommunication is the Law of England and it is a ground in the Law of England That he which is accursed shall not maintain any Action Doctor Stu. 11. Where a man is excommunicated by the Law of the Church if he sue any Action real or personal the Tenant or Defendant may plead that he is Excommunicated and demand Iudgment if he shall be answered Lit. 201. the Sentence is set forth at large in the old Statute Book of Magna Charta and is intituled Sententia lata super chartas namely Authoritate Dei patris omnipotentis filii spiritus Sancti Excom̄unicamus Anathematizam a liminibus Sanctae matris Ecclesiae sequestram ' omnes illos c. 12 H. 3. fo 146. He which by the Renunciation is rightfully cut off from the Vnity of the Church and Excommunicate ought to be taken by the whole multitude as a Heathen and a Publican until he be openly reconciled by Penance Act 33. confirm ' per 13 Eliz. cap. and this is grounded on the rule of our blessed Saviour dic ' Ecclesiae And if he neglect to hear the Church let him be as an Heathen and Publican Matt. 18. 17. Shall a

man be accursed barred of the Company or Society of Christians cut off from the body of Christ accounted as a Heathen and Publican for not allowing maintenance to his wife when the Church enjoyns him so to do and shall not this be accounted a sufficient remedy for the wife I fear it is the want of Religion and due credence to the Censures of the Church which occasions this Objection rather then real want of sufficient remedy in Law for her relief The last matter to be answered is rather the Opinion of my Brother Twisden and Tyrrell in their arguments then an Objection in this case namely if an Action upon the case doth not lye against the husband upon the Contract of the wife for necessary Apparel yet an Action of Trover and Conversion doth lye against him for the Stuff and so one way or other the husband must pay the reckoning If the Law should be so it were a Conversion with a witness for then the husband should seem to be sub potestate foeminae he might glory in the words of St. Paul I would have you know that the head of the woman is the man But if the wife shall set his cap or lay his headship in the Gaol it shall not be in the power of the husband to prevent or avoid it one kind of Divorce between husband and wife is when Action of Trespass is brought against them and the husband only appears and Process issue out against the wife until she be waived and outlawed she can never purchase her pardon or reverse the outlawry unless the husband will appear so that if the husband please he is divorced 14 H. 6. 14. a. If the wife be outlawed by erronious Process and the husband will not bring a Writ of Error he may by this way be rid of a Shrew and that doth countervail a Divorce 18 E. 4. 4. a. By these books it appears that the Law puts a power in the husband to be rid of his wife and provides a remedy to tame a Shrew but I never heard before that the Law hath left it in the power of the wife to do so by her husband and I do not remember that my Brothers did vouch any Authority or give any reason for maintenance of their Opinions and therefore I may with freedom deny the Law to be as they have said besides the nature of an Action of Trover proves that it lies not in this case The count is that the Plaintiff was possessed of such Goods and names them as of his own proper Goods and casually left them that the Goods came to the Defendants hands by finding yet he knowing them to belong to the Plaintiff refuseth to deliver them to him but hath converted them to his own use so that an Action is grounded upon a wrong supposed to be done by the Defendant in converting the Goods of the Plaintiff knowingly to his own use against the will of the Plaintiff and that is the reason why the Plaintiff in that Action must prove a demand of the Goods and an actual Conversion by the Defendant or else he fails in the Action In an Action of the Case for that the Defendant did find the Goods of the Plaintiff and delivered them to persons unknown Non deliberavit modo forma is no Plea without saying Not-guilty where the thing rests in Feasance and if the Action be that the Plaintiff was possessed Ut de bonis propriis and the Defendant did find and convert them to his own use It is no plea that the Plaintiff was not possessed Ut de bonis propriis but he must plead Not-guilty to the misdemeanour and give the other matter in Evidence 33 H. 8. Mar. Bro. Action sur le case In Trover the Plaintiff declares that he was possessed of such Goods and casually left them and the Defendant found them and converted them to his own use the Defendant did plead that the Plaintiff did gage the Goods unto him for 10 l. and that he detained the Goods for 10 l. this is no Plea but he ought to plead Not-guilty and give this matter in Evidence for the Action doth suppose a wrong which the Defendant ought to answer 4 E. 6. Action sur le case 113. What wrong is done to the Plaintiff in our case when he himself sells and delivers the Goods It is not like the case where two men by mutual consent Wrastle or play at Football together will an Action of Assault and Battery lye for the one against the other when the act is done by their mutual agreement before hand Put the case of Sale made to a man upon credit and the Vendee promiseth to pay for the Goods at Michaelmas but fails to pay the money accordingly shall the Salesman have Trover against the Vendee because he pays not the money at the day and will the Sale to this Feme Covert alter the case or the Law as to the Action its true that for a Conversion by the woman before Coverture or by the wife during the Coverture an Action of Trover lies against the husband and wife but that is for a Conversion by wrong when she takes the Goods and converts them against the will of the owner 1 Cro. 10. 254. Remis Humfrey's case as in case where a man comes to buy Goods and offers 10 l. for them and the owner agreés to accept the money whereupon the buyer takes the Goods away without payment or delivery by the owner there an Action of Trespass or Trover lies notwithstanding the bargain 21 H. 7. 6. otherwise it is if they agree upon a price and the Vendor takes the Vendee's word for payment and delivers the Goods unto him there the Vendor is put to his Action for the money upon the Contract and shall not bring Trover for the Goods 14 H. 8. 22. If an Infant give or sells Goods and delivers them with his own hand he shall have no Action of Trespass against the Donee or Vendee by reason of the delivery 21 H. 7. 39. 26 H. 8. 2. but if an Infant give or sell Goods and the Vendee or Donee takes them by force of the gift or sale the Infant may have an Action of Trespass against him So in our case If a Feme Covert takes Wares of a Shop-keeper against his will upon pretence of buying them an Action lies against the husband but if the owner sell the Goods to the wife upon trust and delivers the Goods unto her he shall not have an Action of Trespass against the husband by reason of this delivery If a man take my wife and cloath her this amounts unto a gift of the Apparel unto her 11 H. 4. 83. and I may take my wife with the Apparel and no Action lies against me by the same reason when a man delivers Stuff or other Wares to my wife knowing her to be a Femé Covert to make Apparel without my privity or allowance this shall be