Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	master_n	servant_n	wage_n	1,026	5	11.4895	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44117	The learned readings of Sir Robert Holbourne, Knight upon the statute of 25 Edw. 3. cap. 2, being the statute of treasons : to which is added cases of [brace] prerogative, treason, misprision of treason, felony, &c. / written by the Right Honourable Francis Bacon ... ; and now reprinted for publick benefit.	Holborne, Robert, Sir, d. 1647.; Bacon, Francis, 1561-1626. Cases of treason.	1681 (1681)	Wing H2373; ESTC R34943	30,681	150

Statute Another Reason is because the Statute doth not say who shall be Traytors but what shall be Treason and this word Treason shall be taken with all its Concomitants and Accidents as it was at Common Law and then that was a concomitant to Treason that the Succourer should be a Traytor But it is so in 3 H. 7. fol. 10. Object that the Succourer in Treason is no Traytor The Reason of that Case is Answ because the Judgement was that he knowing eam proditionem praedictam perpetrdffe felonice hospitalis fuit and this was not grand because he was in that Case indicted as an Accessary and was not indicted as a Traytor for there can be no Accessaries in Treasons as there is in Felonies See Fitz. Tit. Cor. 55. Fitz. Tit. Coron 55. Bro. Tit. Coron 135. Bro. Tit. Coron 135. and for express Authority it is in 1 H. 6.5 for if this Statute had made Felony Treason and one doth commit that Treason and A. succours him knowing of it it had been absurd for to have said that the Succourer should have been only a Felon but our Case is stronger for this Law doth not make any one a Traytor but only declares what shall be adjudged Treason but if this Statute had exprest that all Abettors should have been Traytors then the Receivers or Succourers should not have been Traytors within this Law for then the intent of the Makers would plainly appear that it was not intended that the Receivers or Succourers after the Fact should have been within this Law but only the Abettors before and at the Fact Lecture III. THis Lecture is of Petty Treason and Petty Treasons doth very little differ from Felonies for by the pardon of all Felonies all Petty Treasons are pardoned Stamf. fol. 2. b. Stam. fol. 2. b. but it hath some correspondency with other Treasons and that is in respect of the Duty and Obedience that is due to each other as it is from the Subjects to the King so from the Servant to the Master All Servants although they receive no Wages but only Meat and Drink are within this Law A Servant that is not compellable to serve by this Statute yet if he doth serve he is within this Law And so is a Bayliff of a Mannor for if he kill the Lord of the Mannor it is Petty Treason within this Law A Steward of a Court Leet or Court Baron is not within this Law A Wife divorc'd for Adultery is within this Law although a Queen divorc'd for Adultery be not within this Law as ye have heard before Ordinaries are of two sorts Ordinarius loci Ordinarius Dioces Ordinarius leci Ordinarius Dioces and the Superior Ordinaries they are all within this Law Ordinarius loci as that of the Dean of Westminster Ordinarius Dioces is the Bishop of the Diocess and the Superior Ordinary is the Archbishop they are all within this Law in respect of Obedience that is due to them A Child killing his Father or his Mother he is within this Law as you heard before although he he be not named in it yet there is a majority of Treason in it more than that of a Servant and therefore is within that intent and reason of the Law And so it is in Dalton If one command another to kill his Master who doth it yet it is not Treason within this Law unless he be there present when the Fact is done 40 Ass 25. 40 Ass 25. If a Wife command a Servant to kill her Husband and he doth it it is Treason in both within this Law and so it appears that Abettors and Partners are within the first Part of this Statute concerning Petty Treasons although they are not named If a Servant goes from his Master and then kills him this is Petty Treason within this Law for it shall be intended that he had such an intention to kill him before he departed out of his Service Bro. Tit. Treas 15. 33 Ass 7. 33 Ass 7. And so is a Quarrel in Westminster-Hall the Courts sitting and then go out of the Hall into the Pallace-yard and then one strikes the other this is punishable with the same punishment as if he had struck him in the Hall for the punishment shall be to the loss of his hand and the forfeiture of his goods and perpetual imprisonment as it is in Darcies Case 1 2 Eliz. Dyer 188. in the 1 2 of Eliz. Dyer 188. But some of these Offences were Treason at the Common Law as the Son killing of the Father 21 E. 3.17 21 E. 3.17 and of a Maid-servant killing her Mistress 21 Ass 30. 21 Ass 30. If a Servant kill his Mistress this is Petty Treason within this Law and yet she is not named but is to be intended upon the same reason with his Master and the Obedience is due to the one as well as the other 19 H. 6.37 19 H. 6.37 Treason ought to be fully proved as it appears by the words of the Statute and that is to be by two Witnesses for the proving of every Treason And the Statute of 1 E. 1 E. 6. 6. is not repealed as to this Point by the Statute of Phil. and Mar. but only the Trials in the Counties and not concerning Witnesses as by that Statute more at large appears And in the 14 of Eliz. in the Lord Lumley's Case 14 Eliz. Lumley's Case it was agreed that the Statute 1 E 6. was not reversed by the old Statute The Tryal of Lords of Parliament ought to be per Pares but in some Cases he shall not have his Tryal per Pares 13 H. 8.11 12. Bro. Tit. Treas 29 33. as in an Appeal but in an Indictment he shall and the Indictment shall be received into Parliament because an Indictment is the Kings Suit and the Statute of Magna Charta is nec fuper eum ibimus nec super eum mittimus and this is to be intended in the Kings suit 10 E. 4. b. 10 E. 4. b. But a Lord may refuse his Tryal per Pares if he will as it was adjudged 1 Phil. Mar. Bro. in the L. Gray's Case 1 Phil. Mar. Bro. Lord Grays Case 13 Jac. but in the Lord of Castlehaven's Case it was held the contrary If a man be kill'd in Rebellion he shall forfeit his Lands and is a Traytor but there ought to be an Inquisition taken of him and that shall be a sufficient Tryal As the Case in 13 Jac. Br. If a man do cast himself into the Water and never is found after yet if it be presented by the Justice of Peace this is sufficient to make him forfeit his Goods As for those Treasons which are not here declared the Judges Authority takes Indictments of them but they ought not to be proceeded against to Judgment for nothing is to be done in point of Judgement in such a Case till it be