Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	aforesaid_a	day_n	party_n	6,437	5	9.8613	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A29944	A compendious collection of the laws of England, touching matters criminal faithfully collected and methodically digested, not only for the use of sheriffs, justices of the peace, coroners, clerks of the peace, and others within that verge, but of all the people in general, by J.B. Esq.; Laws, etc.	England and Wales.; Brydall, John, b. 1635?	1676 (1676)	Wing B5257; ESTC R36068	85,587	180

inadvertence there omitted the Printer has thought it not much amiss to put it at the end of this Discourse by way of Appendix And thus the Author treats concerning the Statutes of Hue and Cry BY the Statutes of 13. E. 1. of Winton c. 1. 28. E. 3. c. 11 and 28. 1. c. 17. the Country shall answer if the Robbers be not taken By the Stat●te of 27. Eliz. c. 13. are enacted these particularities § 1. That the Inhabitants of a hundred shall be chargeable with the moyety where a fresh Suit shall cease 2. That the Clerk of the Peace shall prosecute the Suit which Suit commenced shall not cease upon the death or remotion of the said Clerk of the Peace 3. A Remedy for those against whom the Recovery and Execution is had to have Contribution 4. That there shall be no penalty where any of the offenders be apprehended 5. The Suit shall be commenced within one year next after such perpetration or Robbery or else the Person or Persons robbed shall not take any benefit by vertue of any of the said former Laws or Statutes 6. That the Party robbed must give notice and intelligence of the Robbery committed unto some of the Inhabitants of some Town Village or Hamlet near unto the place where any such Robbery shall be committed 7. That the Party robbed shall not have any Action upon any of the Statutes aforesaid except he shall first within twenty days next after such Action to be brought be examined upon his Corporal Oath before some Justice of Peace of the County where the robbery was committed whether he doth know the Parties that committed the Robbery or any of them and then shall become bound to prosecute the offenders Having given a summary of these Statutes upon Hue and Cry I shall present to the Reader several Resolutions given at the Courts of Westminster upon the Statute of Winchester and the Stat. of 27. Eliz. The former you must kow gives penalty and Remedy the latter shews how the Examination shall be and in what time before the Action brought 1. Resolves on the Stat. of Winton A Robbery for which the hundred must answer by force of the Statute of Winton is to be done openly so as the Country may take notice thereof themselves but a robbery done secretly in the House the Country cannot take notice thereof for every one may keep his house as strong as he will at his peril for it was adjudged in Ashpoles Case that the Party robbed needed not to give notice thereof to the Country for it may be the Party robbed was bound or Maimed c. so as he could not make Hue and Cry to give notice A Robbery was done in January presently after the Sun-setting during day light and it was adjudged that the hundred shall answer for the same for it was convenient time for Men to travel or to be about their Business A Robbery was done in the Morning ante lucem the hundred shall not be charged It was held by Anderson and all the Justices that whereas the Stat. of Winchester speakes of Robberies done in the day before night yet if a Robbery be committed in the Morning before day or in the Evening after the day in any time of the night in which Men use commonly to travel that the hundred is answerable for it but if it be at twelve or one of the Clock in the night at which time every one is intended to be in bed the hundred is not answerable for the Robbery The Jury found that the Robbery was done post lucem ejusdem diei ante Solis ortum Anglice After day-break and before Sun-rising and upon this the Court advised and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff and a President shewn Pasch 28. of Eliz. Rot. 130. where the Robbery was done post occasum Solis per diuruum lumen Anglice day light and there adjudged for the Plaintiff If an house be robbed in the day and the Felons escape Hue and Cry being made whether the hundred shall answer for that Robbery by the Stat. of Winton Gawdy and Popham conceived that the hundred shall not be charged For the Stat. of Winton extends only to Robberies done to the Person And was principally made for safeguard of travellors But every one ought to keep his own house at his peril for it is his Castle and no other ought to meddle there therefore it is not reason that any should be charged if he be robbed there Robbery done on a Sunday shall be chargeable to the Country 2. Resolves on the Stat. of 27. Eliz. By the Stat. of 27. Eliz. c. 13. none shall have Action upon the said Statute except the Parties robbed so soon as he may give notice of the same to any of the Inhabitants of any Village Town or Hamlet next to the place where the Robbery was done and if they in pursuit apprehend any of the offenders that will excuse the Town Action upon the Statute of Winton for that one Brook his Servant was robbed and alledges that the Plaintiff himself came before a Justice of Place and was sworn according to the Stat. of 27. Eliz. And after Verdict it was alledged in Arrest of Judgement that the Servant was to be sworn and not the Master and so was the opinion of the Court For the Servant might know the Persons when the Servant was robbed and the Master was not in company and the Intent of the Stat. is that he that had notice shall be sworn and thereupon Judgment was staid Action upon the Stat. of Winton whereas one Palmer the Plaintiffs Servant was robbed within the hundred of 68 pounds by Persons unknown and had made Hue and Cry according to the Stat. and one of the Thieves were taken and the said Palmer had made oath before such a Justice of Peace of the said County next adjoining to the said hundred within 20 daies before this Action brought that he did not know any of the Parties who robbed him that the said hundred had not made him any recompense And upon Not guilty pleaded and tryed at the Bar this Terme and found for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgment that this Action lyes not because the Plaintiff himself was not sworn that he knew not any of the Parties who did the Robbery for it is not sufficient that the Servant who was robbed was sworn for by the Statute of 27. Eliz. the Party who brings the Action ought to make that Oath and it was argued that the Servant who was robbed onght to have brought the Action and then his Oath would have been sufficient But when the Master brings the Action he himself ought to be sworn that he knew not any of the Robbers otherwise he might not bring it and therefore the Action lyes not But it was resolved by the Court that the Action well lyes for the Master and

give back he should be in danger of his life he may in this Case defend himself and if in that Defence he killeth A. it is Se Defedendo because it is not done Felleo animo and consequently Justifiable with our Law dos Concur the Law Imperial Jure hoc evenit ut quod quisque ob tutelam Corporis sui fecerit jure secisse existimetnr Non injuria fecit qui se tueri voluit cum alias non posset 2. If a Thief offer to Rob or Murder B. either abroad or in his House and thereupon on Assault him and B. defend himself without any giving back and in his Defence killeth the Thief this is no Felony for a man shall never give way to a Thief c. neither shall he Forfeit any thing and so it is declared by the statute of 24 H. 8. c. 5. One Cooper being Indicted in the County of Surrey of the murder of one W. L. in Southwark he pleaded Not Guilty and upon his Arraignment it appeared that the said Cooper being a prisoner in the Kings Bench and lying in the House of one Anne Carrick who kept a Tavern within the Rules the said W. L. at one of the clock in the Night assaulted the said House and offered to break the staple thereof and swore he would enter the House and slit the Nose of the said Anne Carrick because she was a Bawd and kept a Bawdy-House and the said Cooper disswading him from these Courses and reprehending him he swore that if he could enter he would cut the said Coopers Throat and he brake a window in the lower Room of the House and thrust his Rapier in at the window against the said Cooper who in defence of the House and himself thrust the said W. L. into the eye of which stroak he dyed The Question was whether this were within the Statute of 24 H. 8. and the opinion of the Court was that if it were true that he brake the House with an intent to commit Burglary or to kill any therein and a party within the House although he be not the Master but a Lodger or Sojourner therein kill him who made the Assault and intended mischief to any in it that it is not Felony but excusable by the Statute of 24 H. 8. which was made in the affirmance of the Common Law wherefore the Jury were appointed to consider of the circumstances of the Fact and they being a substantial Jury of Surrey found the said Cooper not Guilty upon the Indictment whereupon he was discharged 3. If a prisoner assault the Goaler the Goaler is not by Law inforced to give back but if in defence of himself he kill the prisoner this is no Felony 4. If any Officer or Minister of Justice that hath lawful Warrant and the party assault the Officer or Minister of Justice he is not bound by Law to give back but to carry him away and if in execution of his Office he cannot otherwise avoid it but in striving kill him it is no Felony Note if men tilt or turney in the presence of the King or if two Masters of Defence playing their prizes kill one another this is no Felony 11 H. 7. 23. a. Hobarts Reports Weaver v. Ward f. 134. And the reason given is for that in Friendly manner they contend to try their strength and to be able to do the King service in that kind as occasion should be offered Hitherto of Homicides that be voluntary and no Felony whereof some be in respect of giving back inevitably in defence of himself upon an assault of Revenge and some without any giving back c. I now proceed to that Homicide that is not Felony neither fore-thought nor voluntary and this we call Man-slaughter by misadventure or Chance-medley 3. Of Homicide by misadventure Chance medley or per Infortunium is when one is slain casually and by misadventure without the will of him that doth the Act whereupon death ensueth Or Homicide by misadventure is when a man without any evil intent doth a lawful thing or that is not prohibited by Law and another is slain or cometh to his death thereby as if one shoot at Butts or at pricks and kill a man by swarving his hands this is no felony The same Law is of tiling an House and a tile fall and killeth one So if one trained Souldier hurteth another in skirmish of which hurt he dies this being by misadventure is no felony But in any of these Cases before put if a man be hurt or maimed only an Action of Trespass lieth against him that was the cause of the hurt or maime though it be done against the parties mind and will because in Civil Trespasses and injuries that are of an inferior nature the Law doth rather consider the damage of the party wronged then the mind of him that was the wrong doer Vide Hobarts Reports Weaver against Ward f. 134. But to return from whence I have made a digression It is to be considered whether he that commiteth this Homicide by misadventure in doing a lawful Act and likewise without an evil intent for if the Act be unlawful or done with an evil purpose it will prove murther 1. Touching an unlawful Act If a man shoot at a Cock or Hen or any fowl of another man and the arrow by mischance kill a man this is said to be murther for the Act was unlawful So if a man doth beat another and with intent not to kill him yet if the party be killed by this battery it is felony So if two are fighting together and a third cometh to part them and is killed by one of them two without any malice fore-thought yet this is murther in him and not Homicide by Chancemedley or misadventure because that they two that fought together were in doing of an unlawful Act. And if they were met with prepensed malice the one intending to kill the other then it is murther in them both 2. Touching an evil Intent If a man knowing that many people come in the street from a Sermon throw a stone over a wall intending only to fear them or to give them a light hurt and thereupon one is killed this is murther for he had an evil intent though that intent extended not to death and though he knew not the party slain Note though the killing of a man by misadventure or by chance be not felony Quia in maleficiis voluntas spectatur non exitus D. 48. 8. 14. yet the party guilty shall forfeit therefore all his Goods and Chattels to the intent that men should be cautious as they tend not to the effusion of mans blood I shall conclude this learning touching Homicides with somewhat appertaining to Physicians and Chirurgians If one that is of the mystery of a Physician take a man in Cure and giveth him such Physick as within 3 dayes he dies thereof without any felonious intent and

these words I will kill the King innuendo Dominum Carolum Regem Augliae if I may come unto him and that in August 9. Car. Regis he came into England for the same purpose To this he pleaded Not-guilty and was tryed by a Jury of Middlesex and it was directly proved by two Merchants that he spake these words at Lisbone in Spain in great heat of speech with Captain Baske and added these words Because he is an Heretick and for that his traiterous intent and the imagination of his heart is declared by these words it was held High treason by the course of the Common Law and within the express words of the Statute of 25 E. 3. And he coming into England and being arrrested by Warrant for this cause most insolently put his finger into his mouth and scornfully pulling it out said I care not this for your King c. all which speeches and actions though he now denyed the Jury found him guilty whereupon he had Judgment accordingly He confessed that he was a Dominican Fryer and made Priest in Spain And although this and his returning into England to seduce the Liege-People were Treason by the Stat. of 23. Eliz. yet the Kings Atturney said he would not proceed against him for that cause but upon the Stat. of 25. E. 3. of Treason So one Henry Challercomb was indicted of Treason for words and was found guilty and executed So John Williams was also indicted found guilty and executed for writing a Treasonable Book called Balaam● Case These two last Presidents you may see cited in Pyne's Case in Crokes third part of his Reports It is commonly said That bare words may make an Heretick but not a Traitor without an overt Act And therefore to make compassing by bare words or sayings High treason it must be by some particular Statute such were the Statutes of 26. H. 8. c. 13. 1. E. 6. c. 13. 1. 2. Phil. and Mar. c. 9. 1. Eliz. c. 6. 13. Eliz. c. 1. 14. Eliz c. 1. but all these are either repealed or expired yet compassings or imaginations against the King by word without an overt Act is an High misprision Note that there is a Law made for the Preservation of His now Majestie 's Person and Government against Treasonable and seditious practises during his natural life which God long continue proceeding from Printing Writing Preaching or malicious and advised speaking Note further that to calculate or seek to know by setting of a figure or Witchcraft how long the King shall Reign or live is no Treason for it is no compassing or the imagination of the death of the King within the Stat. of 25. E. 3. And this appeareth by the Judgment of the Paliament in 23. Eliz whereby this offence was made felony during the life of Q. Elizabeth which before was punishable by fine and imprisonment But Scipio Gentilis in his first Book De conjuratione sayes De vita Principis inquirere praesertim per Astrologos capitale esse neque hoc solum sed etiam de ea dubitare vel desperare pro crimine Majestatis bahitum esse si ea desperatio indiciis esset aliquibus patefacta Thus much of the King himself If any do compass or imagine the death of the Queen Consort or Prince the Kings Son being Heir apparent to the Crown for the time being and declare it by some overt Act the very intent is Treason as in case of the King himself If a man slay the Chancellor Treasurer or the Kings Justices of the one Bench or the other Justices in Eyre or Justices of Assize and all other Justices assigned to hear and determine being in their places doing their Offices And the reason wherefore it is Treason in these Cases is because sitting judicially in their places that is in the Kings Courts and doing their Office in administration of Justice they represent the Kings Person who by his Oath is bound that the same be done 2. Touching violation or Carnal knowledge To violate or to carnally know the Kings Companion or the Kings eldest Daughter unmarried or the Wife of the Kings eldest Son and Heir apparent is High treason The reason that the eldest Daughter only is mentioned in Stat of 25. E. 3. is for that for defaut of Issue Male she only is inheritable to Crown 3. Touching War To levy War against our Lord the King is High treason This was so by the Common Law for no Subject can levy War within the Realm without Authority from the King for to him it only belongeth F. N. B. 113. Co. lib. 2. Wisemans Case f. 15. b. In the Codes of Justinian in extant the Constitution of Valentinian and Valens Nulli prorsus nobis insciis atque inconsultis quorumlibet Armorum movendorum copia tribuatur Huc pertinet illud Augustius Ordo naturalis mortalium paci accommodatus hoc poscit ut suscipiendi Belli anctoritas atque Consilium peues Principes sit If any levy War to expulse Strangers to deliver men out of Prison to remove Counsellors or against any Statute or to any other end pretending Reformation this is levying of War against the King because they take upon them Royal Authority which is against the King So if any with Strength and Weapons invasive and desensive doth hold and defend a Castle or Fort against the King and his Power this is levying of War against the King within the Statute of 25. E. 3. One Thomas Bensted was indicted and arraigned before special Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer in Southwark wherein all the Justices and Barons were in Commission and present at which time upon Conference with all the Justices it was resolved First that going to Lambeth House in warlike manner to surprize the Arch-Bishop who was a Privy Counsellor it being with Drums and a multitude as the Indictment was to the number of 300. persons was Treason And Secondly It was resolved by ten of the said Justices seriatim that the breaking of a Prison wherein Traitors be in Durance and causing them to escape was Treason although the Party did not know that there was any Traitors three upon the Stat of 1 H. 6. c. 5 And so to break a Prison whereby Felons escape is felony without knowing them to be imprisoned for such offence Note A Compassing or Conspiracy to levy War is no Treason for there must be a levying of War de facto 4. Touching Adhesion to the Kings Enemies If a man be adherent to the Kings Enemies in his Realm giving to them aid and comfort in the Realm or elsewhere it is High treason Having given you the words of the Stat. 25. E. 3. I propose these Queries Whether the delivery of a Castle or Fort to an Enemy be an Adhering to the Kings Enemy To deliver or surrender the Kings Castles or Fort by the Kings Captain thereof to the Kings Enemy within the Realm or

murder by Appeal or otherwise shall be out of the County where it is perpetrated And for this cause it was doubted at the Common Law where a stroak were given in one County and death ensued in another how it should be tryed And to avoid this doubt the Stat. of 2. E. 6. was made But it alwaies was clear that a fact in one County ought not to be tryed in another Note the Stat. of 26. H. 8. c. 6. allows that Indictments may be in County's next adjoyning but there is not any mention of Appeals and for this reason Certioraries have been granted to remove Indictments out of the Grand Sessions in Wales 2. Of wrong to the Husband and is by the Wife only of the death of her Husband to be prosecuted Touching this kind of Appeal I propose these Q●eries with Resolutions on them Qu. 1. Whether a Wife de facto shall have an Appeal Resp Some do hold and so do I that a Wife de facto shall have an Appeal of the death of her Husband but only she that is Wife de ●ure in f●vorem vitae and that there ne unques ●ccouple en loyal Matrimony shall be taken de jure strictly Qu. 2. Whether the Wife can have an Appeal although she cannot have a Writ of Dower Resp The Wife shall have an Appeal where she cannot have a Writ of Dower as if she Elope c. she is barred of her Dower but not of her Appeal and the reason is for that the Stat. barreth her of her Dower but not of her Appeal So if the Husband be attainted of Treason or Petit treason his Wife shall not be endowed and yet if any do kill him the Wife shall have an Appeal for notwithstanding the Attainder he remained her Husband Qu. 3. Whether she ought to be sole and unmarried that brings an Appeal of her Husbands Death Resp It is requisite that she be sole and unmarried that makes this Appeal for if she marry again her Appeal is gone though the new married Husband be dead within the year and day after his death that was slain Qu. 4. Whether the taking of a second Husband after Judgment and before Execution can binder the Execution of the Judgment Resp Not only a Widdow which hath an Appeal hanging abateth her Appeal and loseth it force by new Marriage but also if after Judgment and before Execution she take an Husband she loseth the Execution of the Judgment Qu. 5 What is the true reason why a Woman hath an Appeal de morte Viri Resp The reason wherefore this Action is given to a Widdow is not as Glanvil makes it Quia una cara est vir uxor for then the Baron might have an Appeal de morte uxoris which is never granted but her heir shall have it But the true reason why a Woman hath the Appeal de morte Viri is because by his death she is thought less able to live and maintain her self that therefore when she taketh another Husband cessante causa cessat effectus and her Appeal is gone as la Widdowes Quarentine is determined when she is once remarried 3. Of wrong done to the Appellants themselves as Robbery Rape and Maihem If in an Appeal of Robbery the Plaintiff omit any of the goods stoln they are forfeit to the King for the favour which the Law persumeth the Plaintiff beareth to the Felon and for that he cannot have restitution for more then is in his Appeal If the Jury find in an Appeal of Robbery for goods that the Defendant found them in the High-way in this case the Plaintiff for his false Appeal ●eking the blood of the Innocent shall forfeit his goods to the King If any Virgin Widdow or single Woman be ravished she her self may sue an Appeal of Rape prosecute the Felon to death and the Kings Pardon cannot aid him But if a Feme Covert be ravished she cannot have an Appeal without her Husband as appears 8. H. 4. 21. If a Feme Covert be ravished and consent to the Ravisher the Husband alone may have the Appeal and this by the Stat. of 6. R. 2. c. 6. And the Husband that this Statute speaketh of which may sue the Appeal must be a lawful Husband in Right and possession for ne unques accouple en loyal matrimony is a good Plea against him An Appeal of Maihem was brought by one Milles and the Maihem was assigned in his shoulder and the Defendant demanded the view and it was said that he should not have it because it was done de son tort demesue also it was said that Surgeons may heal and cure him and although he shall be tryed by Inspection of the Court or by Chirurgeons it was held be it one way or other it is peremptory for him c. It was held by all the Justices of the Kings Bench that in an Appeal of Maihem if the Defendant pray that the Maihem may be examined if the Justices or Surveyors which they require be in doubt whether it be a Maihem or not the Judges may refuse the examination and compel the Party to put it upon the Country Thus much of wrong done to the Appellants themselves I shall conclude this Learning touching Appeals with these Queries Qu. 1. Whether all Appeals ought to be sued in proper Person Resp It is answered that all Appeals are to be sued in proper Person and not by Attorney as Appeal of Maihem must be in proper Person A Woman which was Crossement enseint sued this Appeal and the Defendant was attainted the Womans Appearance was recorded for the whole Terme and yet by the better opinion she might not pray Execution by her Councel but ought to come in proper person therefore one of the Judges did ride to Islington to her to see if she were alive and desired Execution which she required and the Defendant had Judgment Qu. 2. Whether an Appeal may be commenced more then one way Resp It is answered that Appeals are commenced two wayes either by Writ or by Bill 1. By Writ when a Writ is purchased out of the Chancery by one Man against another commanding him that he shall appeal a third Man of some felony or other offence by him committed and to find Pledges that he shall do this with effect and this Writ is to be delivered to the Sheriff to be recorded 2. By Bill when a Man of himself giveth his Accusation of another Man in Writing to the Sheriff or Coroner and taketh upon himself the burthen of appealing him that is named in the said Writing And note that there is a diversity worthy of observation betwixt an Appeal by Bill and by Writ for in the Appeal by Original Writ both principals and accessories are generally charged alike without any distinction who be principals and who be accessories but otherwise in the Appeal by Bill Thus much