Selected quad for the lemma: master_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
master_n	say_a	time_n	warden_n	5,154	5	13.4278	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64753	The reports and arguments of that learned judge Sir John Vaughan Kt. late chief justice of His Majesties court of Common Pleas being all of them special cases and many wherein he pronounced the resolution of the whole court of common pleas ; at the time he was chief justice there / published by his son Edward Vaughan, Esq.	England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.; Vaughan, John, Sir, 1603-1674.; Vaughan, Edward, d. 1688.	1677 (1677)	Wing V130; ESTC R716	370,241	492

retail or in gross to their best advantage in their houses or elsewhere Non obstante the Statute of 7 E. 6. They find the Act of 12 Car. 2. c. 25. and the confirmation of it concerning the giving Licences to retail Wine and the Proviso therein prout Provided also That this Act or any thing therein contained shall not extend or be prejudicial to the Master Wardens Freemen and Commonalty of the Mystery of Vintners of the City of London or to any other City or Town Corporate but that they may use and enjoy such Liberties and Priviledges as heretofore they have lawfully used and enjoyed They find That the Master Wardens Freemen and Commonalty of the Mystery of Vintners in the City of London was an ancient Corporation of the said City of London at the time of the Act of 12 Car. 2. and incorporated by the Name of Master Wardens Freemen and Commonalty of the Mystery of Vintners of the City of London They find That the Defendant three years before and during all the time in the Information used the Trade of retailing of Wine and kept a Tavern in the Parish of Stepney in the County of Middlesex was an Inhabitant there and that the Defendants house in which the said Wine was sold is within two miles of the City of London They find That the Defendant within the time in the Information mentioned did sell Ten pints of Sack as in the Information mentioned to be drunk and spent in his said dwelling house being a Tavern in the said Parish of Stepney They find That at the time of the sale of the said Wine and three years before the Defendant was a natural born Subject of the King and a Freeman of the City of London of the said Company of Vintners Si pro quer quoad 50 l. pro quer Si pro Def. pro Def. 1 s. Vpon this Special Verdict three Questions have been raised 1. Whether the Patent of 9 Jac. was not void in its Creation 2. Admitting it was not void in its Creation Whether it became void by the death of King James 3. If it were a good Patent in the Creation nor was void by the death of King James Whether the Proviso in the Act of 12 Car. 2. Saving all the Right of the Master Wardens Freemen and Commonalty of Vintners in the City of London hath preserved all that Right which they had by the Patent of 9 Jac. against the Act of 12 Car. 2 1. I conceive That if the Patent 9 Jac. were not void in the Creation it remained good after the death of King James 2. If it were not void in the Creation nor by the death of King James all Right that the Master Wardens Freemen and Commonalty of Vintners had by it is still preserved by the Proviso in the Act of 12 Car. 2. but if the Patent of 9 Jac. was void in its Creation or by the death of King James then the Proviso in the Act of 12 Car. 2. aids them not at all So as now it is only insisted on That the Patent of 9 Jac. was void in its Creation for two Reasons 1. For that the Law of 7 E. 6. was such a Law pro bono publico as the King could not dispence against it more than with some other penal Laws pro bono publico 2. If he could to particular persons he could not to the Corporation of Vintners and their Successors whose number or persons the King could never know and that it stood not with the trust reposed in him by the Law to dispense so generally without any prospect of number or persons The Books have been plentifully urg'd at the Barr and by my Brothers who argued before me therefore I shall not Actum agere to repeat them But I observed not that any steddy Rule hath been drawn from the Cases cited to guid a mans Judgment where the King may or may not dispence in penal Laws excepting that old Rule taken from the Case of 11 H. 7. 11 H. 7. f. 11 12. That with Malum prohibitum by Stat. the King may dispence but not with Malum per se But I think that Rule hath more confounded mens Iudgments on that subject than rectified them Yet I conceive that Case and the Instances given in it rightly understood to be the best key afforded by our Books to open this dark Learning as it seems to me of Dispensations to which therefore I shall only or principally apply my self Before I enter upon it I must previously assent That every act a man is naturally enabled to do is in it self equally good as any other act he is so enabled to do And so all the Schoolmen agree That Actus qua actus non est malus Rom. 4.15 And that mens acts are good or bad only as they are precepted or prohibited by a Law according to that Truth Where there is no law there is no transgression Whence it follows That every Malum is in truth a Malum prohibitum by some Law In the next place I mean by the word Dispensation when I use it another thing than some of my Brothers defined it to be namely That it was Liberatio à poena or as others That it is provida relaxatio Juris which is defining an ignotum per ignotius but liberare à poena is the proper effect of a pardon not of a dispensation For a dispensation obtained doth jus dare and makes the thing prohibited lawful to be done by him who hath it upon which depends the true reason of many Cases which admit not of dispensation but a pardon frees from the punishment due for a thing unlawfully done Yet freedom from punishment is a consequent of a dispensation though not its effect But so it is also a consequent of repealing the Law and a consequent of an exception at the making of the Law of some particular person or persons from being bound by the Law I come now to the Case it self of 11 H. 7. wherein I agree That with Malum prohibitum by Stat. indefinitely understood the King may dispense But I deny that the King can dispense with every Malum prohibitum by Statute though prohibited by Statute only 1. The King may pardon Nusances that are transient and not continuing as a Nusance in the High-way which still continues and is not ended until removed cannot be pardon'd So of a Water-course diverted or a Bridge broken down Cok. Pla. Coron f. 237. they cannot be pardon'd so as to acquit the Nusance-maker for committing them but the fine or punishment impos'd for the doing may be pardon'd But breaking the Assise of Bread and Ale forestalling the Markets ingrossing regrating or the like which continue not but which are over assoon as done until done de novo again may be pardon'd like other offences So as the Offender shall not be impleaded for them otherwise than by persons who have receiv'd particular damage which the King cannot remit

under such unlawful marriage should be illegitimate And if any such marriages were in any the Kings Dominions without Separation that there should be a separation from the Bonds of such unlawful marriage Now we must observe the Act of 1 2 Phil. Mar. c. 8. doth not repeal this Act entirely of 28 H. 8. c. 7. but repeals only one Clause of it the words of which Clause of Repeal are before cited and manifest this second Clause of the Act of 28 H. 8. and not the first to be the Clause intended to be repeal'd For there was no reason to repeal the Clause declaratory of marriages prohibited by Gods Law which the Church of Rome always acknowledged nor do the words of Repeal import any thing concerning marriages within degrees prohibited by Gods Law But as the time then was there was reason to repeal a Clause enacting all Separations of such marriages with which the Pope had dispenc'd should remain good against his Authority and that such marriages with which he had dispenc'd not yet separated should be separate And the words of the Clause of Repeal manifest the second Clause to be intended viz. All that part of the Act made in the said Eight and twentieth year of King Henry the Eighth which concerneth a prohibition to marry within the degrees expressed in the said Act shall be repeal'd c. As it is true That if a marriage be declared by Act of Parliament to be against Gods Law we must admit it to be so for by a Law that is by an Act of Parliament it is so declared By the same reason if by a lawful Canon a marriage be declared to be against Gods Law we must admit it to be so for a lawful Canon is the Law of the Kingdom as well as an Act of Parliament And whatever is the Law of the Kingdom is as much the Law as any thing else that is so for what is Law doth not suscipere magis aut minus But by a lawful Canon of this Kingdom which is enough and not only so but by a Canon warranted by Act of Parliament the marriage in question is declared to be prohibited by Gods Law therefore we must admit it to be so In a Synod or Convocation holden at London in the year 1603. for the Province of Canterbury by the Kings Writ and with the Kings Licence under the Great Seal of England to treat consult and agree of such Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastick as should be there thought fit Several Canons were concluded and agreed To which King James gave his Royal Assent and Approbation and by his Letters Patents ratified and confirmed them according to the form of the Statute made in 25 H. 8. c. 19. and commanded the due observance of them Among which the Ninety ninth Canon is No person shall marry within the degrees prohibited by Gods Law and expressed in a Table set forth by Authority in the year of our Lord 1563. and all marriages so made and contracted shall be adjudged incestuous and unlawful and the aforesaid Table shall be in every Church publickly set up and fixed at the charge of the Parish Which is the same as No person shall marry within the degrees prohibited by Gods Law and which degrees are expressed in the Table c. For to the Question What is expressed in the Table there can be no Answer but the degrees prohibited by Gods Law But by this Table this marriage in question is expressed to be in a degree prohibited by Gods Law therefore it must be admitted to be so Another consequent is this That by this Canon and consequently by the Law of this Kingdom All marriages prohibited by that Table are declared to be within the degrees prohibited by Gods Law Note That any marriage unlawful by holy Scripture is declared here to be against Gods Law Judicially no otherwise than because by the Law of the Land the Scripture it self is declared and approved to be the Law of God for the Scripture cannot judge it self to be Scripture without some Judicature Therefore by the sixth Canon tempore Ed. 6. at a Convocation in London Anno 1552. the Authority of the Old Testament was declared Can. 1552. At a Convocation of both Provinces in London Anno 1562. the Canonical and Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament were particularly enumerated Can. 1563. and the Books of the New declared Canonical as Receiv'd By the seventh Canon the Authority of the Old Testament Declared By the Act it is said That the Clergy of this Kingdom nor any of them shall henceforth enact promulgate or execute any Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by whatsoever name or names they may be called in their Convocations in time coming which shall always be assembled by Authority of the Kings Writ unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal Assent and Licence to make promulge and execute such Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial c. The Chief Justice delivered the Resolution of the Court And accordingly a Consultation was granted In Camera Scaccarii Edward Thomas Plaintiff Thomas Sorrell Defendant THE Plaintiff by Information in the Kings Bench tam pro Domino Rege quam pro seipso demands of the Defendant Four hundred and fifty pounds for selling Wine in the Parish of Stepney in the County of Middlesex by Retail Ninety several times between the Tenth day of June the Seventeenth of the King and the Two and twentieth day of May the Eighteenth of the King to several persons without licence contrary to the Statute of 12 Car. 2. whereby he forfeited Five pounds for every several offence which amounts to Four hundred and fifty pounds The Defendant pleads Nil debet and therefore puts himself upon the Country The Iury find That as to all the Debt except Fifty pounds the Defendant owes nothing And as to the Fifty pounds they find the Statute of 7 E. 6. c. 5. concerning retailing of Wines prout in the Statute They find Letters Patents under the Great Seal dated 2 Febr. 9 Jac. _____ prout in the Letters Patents whereby King James incorporated the Company of Vintners in the City of London by the Name of Master Warden Freemen and Commonalty of the Mystery of Vintners in the said City and thereby among other things granted for him his Heirs and Successors to the said Master Warden and Freemen of the said Company and their Successors that they might always after within the said City and Suburbs of the same and within three Miles from the Walls or Gates thereof and in all and every other City and Sea-ports called Port-towns within the Kingdom of England and in all other Cities and Towns known by the name of Thorough-fare-towns where Posts were set and laid between Dover and London and between London and Barwick where any of the Freemen of the said Mystery did or should happen to dwell and keep a Wine Tavern and by themselves or servants sell Wine by

But if he after the structure acquire or purchase a Water-course to it and grant it with the Appurtenances the Water-course passes because the Mill cannot be used without it So it is for the Mill-damm or Bank or the like So if he acquire an inlargement or bettering of his Water-course that additional water shall pass as pertaining how lately soever acquired So if a man grants his Saddle with all things thereto belonging Stirrops Girths and the like pass So if a man will grant his Viol the Strings and Bow will pass And the Pool was belonging and appertaining to the Water-work in this last sense as pertaining to the nature of the thing granted without which it could not be us'd for the Iury find Quod Stagnum praedictum fuit necessarium pro structura Anglicè Water-work praedict quodque eadem structura sine eodem Stagno operare non potuit And where a thing is so pertaining to the nature of the thing granted it is belonging and pertaining immediately as soon as the thing is erected and it is annexed to it And note the Iury do not find that aqua Stagni praedict but the Stagnum it self was necessary for the Water-work Nor do they find that the Water-work could not operare sine aqua Stagni but sine Stagno praedict And thereby they find that the Water and Soyl which Stagnum signifies was necessary for the work and it could not work without it Pasch 19 Car. II. Henry Stiles Plaintiff Richard Coxe Baronet Richard Coxe Esquire John Cromwell Thomas Merrett and Charles Davies Defendants In an Action of Trespass of Assault Battery and False Imprisonment 1. THE Plaintiff declares That the Defendants the last day of December in the Seventeenth year of the King in the Parish of St. Mary Bow in the Ward of Cheap in London assaulted wounded and kept him in Prison by the space of two days next following to his Damage of One hundred pounds 2. The Defendants plead They are not Culpable of the Trespass Assault Battery c. aforesaid 3. The Iury find Richard Coxe Esquire and Charles Davies not Culpable accordingly 4. And as to the rest of the Defendants they find specially That before the suppos'd Trespass that is the Eight and twentieth day of September in the Seventeenth year of the King one Richard Baughes Esquire one of the Iustices of the Peace of the County of Gloucester issued his Warrant under his Hand and Seal to the Constable and Tithingmen of Dumbleton in the said County to apprehend and bring before him the Plaintiff Henry Stiles and others to answer to such matters of Misdemeanour as on his Majesties behalf should be objected against them by Sir Richard Coxe Baronet then high Sheriff of the said County They find the Warrant in haec verba 5. That the said Warrant was afterwards and before the Trespass delivered to one Samuel Williams Constable of Dumbleton to be executed and that upon the said last day of December mentioned in the Declaration being Sunday immediately before Divine Service the Plaintiff sitting in a Seat of the said Church of Dumbleton by order of Richard Dasney Esquire his Master who claimed right to the said Seat the said Plaintiff being no Parishioner there nor dwelling in the said Parish the said Samuel being then Constable arrested the said Plaintiff 6. That the said Plaintiff at first resisted and refused to obey the said Warrant and after obey'd it That the said Samuel the Constable required the said Defendant Thomas Merret to assist him to convey him before a Iustice of the Peace But the said Samuel Thomas Merret and John Cromwell convey'd him to the House of the said Samuel in Dumbleton 7. Et tunc the aforesaid Richard Coxe Miles sent for the said Samuel at the House of the said Samuel in Dumbleton aforesaid Et praecepit eidem Samueli to lay the Plaintiff in the Stocks and thereupon the said Samuel John and Thomas convey'd the Plaintiff fromwards the way to the said Richard Baughes Iustice of the Peace and about Eleven of the Clock of the same day in the morning put the Plaintiff in the Stocks 8. They find the Act of 21 Jac. particularly cap. 12. And the Recital therein of the Act of 7 Jac. cap. 5. being an Act intitled An Act for easie pleading against troublesome and contentious Suits against Justices of the Peace Mayors Constables c. 9. And find particularly That it was Enacted by the said Parliament Quod si aliqua Actio Billa c. 10. But whether upon the whole matter by them found the said Sir Richard Coxe Baronet John and Thomas are Culpable they know not Et petunt advisamentum Curiae in Praemissis 11. And if upon the whole matter so found the Court shall think quod actio praedicta possit commensari in London Then they find the said Richard Coxe Baronet John and Thomas Culpable of the Trespass and assess damages to One hundred Marks and Costs to Three and fifty shillings and four pence 12. But if the said Court be of Opinion That the aforesaid Action could only be laid in the County of Gloucester then they find the said Richard Coxe Baronet John and Thomas not Culpable The words of the Act of 21 Jac. cap. 12. and which are particularly found by the Iury are 1. That if any Action Bill Plaint or Suit upon the Case Trespass Beating or False Imprisonment shall be brought against any Justice of the Peace Mayor or Bayliff of City or Town Corporate Headborough Portreeve Constable Tithingman c. or any of them or any other which in their Aid or Assistance or by their Commandment shall do any thing touching or concerning his or their Office or Offices for or concerning any matter cause or thing by them or any of them done by virtue or reason of their or any of their Office or Offices That the said Action Bill Plaint or Suit shall be laid within the County where the Trespass or Fact shall be done and committed and not elsewhere 2. And that it shall be lawful to every person and persons aforesaid to plead the general Issue and to give the special matter in evidence As by the Act of 7 Jac. cap. 5. 3. That if upon the Tryal of any such Action Bill Plaint or Suit the Plaintiff therein shall not prove to the Jury Trespass Beating Imprisonment or other Fact or cause of Action Bill Plaint c. was or were had made or committed within the County wherein such Action Bill Plaint or Suit shall be laid That then the Jury shall find the Defendant or Defendants in every such Action Bill Plaint or Suit Not guilty without having any regard or respect to any Evidence given by the Plaintiff touching the Trespass or other cause of the Action Bill Plaint or Suit c. 4. If Verdict shall pass with the Defendant or Defendants or if the Plaintiff therein become Non-suit or suffer any discontinuance thereof the Defendant or Defendants shall have such