Front Page Titles (by Subject) MacKalley's Case. (In the killing of the Sergeant of London.) - Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, vol. I
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
MacKalley’s Case. (In the killing of the Sergeant of London.) - Sir Edward Coke, Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, vol. I 
The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke, ed. Steve Sheppard (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2003). Vol. 1.
About Liberty Fund:
The copyright to this edition, in both print and electronic forms, is held by Liberty Fund, Inc.
Fair use statement:
MacKalley’s Case. (In the killing of the Sergeant of London.)
(1611) Easter Term, 9 James I
Before all the Judges of England.
First Published in the Reports, volume 9, page 65b.
Ed.: A jury found the following: Richard Fells, a sergeant of the sheriff of London, had been ordered to arrest John Murray for a £500 debt. After arresting Murray one night, Fells was set upon by John Mackalley, John Engles, and Archibald Miller, who tried to rescue Murray. In the fight, Murray called to his friends, “Draw, draw, rogues.” MacKalley drew a rapier and ran Fells through, killing him. The jury, however, was unsure that this amounted to murder. The justices in the trial were unsure whether the facts amounted to murder or manslaughter. All of the judges of England considered the case and found that the killing of an officer of the law executing process is murder. Mackalley was convicted of murder and hanged. This is an important depiction in its consideration of the requirements of indictments, of arrest, and of the role of the jury as the finder of facts, even allowing them to leave to the judges the inferences to be derived from findings of fact. See also Semayne’s Case, p. 135.
By command from the King all the Judges of England were command to meet together to Resolve what the Law was upon a Record (of a special verdict found at the Sessions of Gaol delivery holden at Newgate the fifth day of December, Anno 8 Jacobi) and accordingly all the Judges of England, and Barons of the Exchequer, in the beginning of Hilary Term last past met together, and heard Counsel learned upon the same special verdict, as well of the prisoners, of the King; that is to say, Sergeant Harris the younger;Anthonie Dyet, and Randall Crewe of Counsel with the Prisoners; and Yelverton, Walters, and Coventrie for the King. And the matter was very well argued by Councel on both sides at two several days in the same term; and divers Exceptions were taken to the Indictment, and to the verdict also.
First, against the Indictment five exceptions were taken. 1. Because it appeareth, That the arrest was tortious, and by consequence the killing of the Sergeant could not be murder, but Manslaughter: And they argued that the arrest alledged in the Indictment was tortious, because it was in the night, that is to say, 18 diem Nov. inter horas quintam et sextam post meridiem,1 which appeareth to the Court to be in the Night, and the Night is a time of rest and repose, and not to arrest any one by his body, for thereof would ensue (as in hoc causa accidit)2 bloodshed; for the Officer and Minister of Justice cannot have such assistance, nor the peace cannot be so well kept in the Night, that is to say, in tenebris,3 as in the Day, in aperta luce:4 And the Prisoner cannot know the Officer or Minister of Justice in the Night; nor the Prisoner cannot so soon find sureties for his appearance |[66 a] in the Night, and thereby avoid his imprisonment, as he may in the day time. And they cited 11 H. 7. 5. That the Lord shall not distrain for his Rent or Services in the Night. But it was answered by the Councel with the King, and in the end Resolved by all the Judges and Barons of the Exchequer, That the arrest in the Night is lawful, as well at the subjects sute as at the Kings sute; for the Officer or Minister of Justice ought for to arrest him when he can find him; for otherwise perhaps he shall never arrest him, quia qui male agit, odit lucem;5 and if the Officer do not arrest him when he findeth him, and may arrest him, thePlaintif shall have an action upon his Case, and recover all his loss and damages; And it is like to the Case of distress for damage feasant, for which one may distrain in the Night; for otherwise perhaps he shall never distrain the cattel, for they may be taken or escape away and then he cannot distrain them: But in the Case of Rent service it is otherwise; for the Law doth intend that the Tenant will all the day attend upon the Land to pay his Rent, but he is not compellable to attend in the Night, Vid. 11 H. 7 5a. 10 E. 3 21 12 E. 3. Distresse 17. and no inconvenience will follow upon it; For although he cannot see the Officer, yet when he heareth him say, I arrest you in the Kings name &c. he ought for to obey him; and if the Officer hath not a lawful warrant, he shall have his action of false imprisonment. And as to the finding of sureties the Law is, That he ought to remain in prison till he finds sureties, be it in the Day time, or in the Night. But great inconvenience will follow on the other side, if those who are indebted to others shall in the Night go at their pleasure without danger of arrest, for then they would become Nightwalkers, and turn the Day into Night in despight of their Creditors. And as the Officer or Minister of Justice may by force of a Warrant directed to him, arrest anyone at the Kings sute either for felony or other crime in the Night, so may he do at a subjects suit; for the King hath no more prerogative as to the time to make an arrest, than a subject: for the arrest is to no other but to the intent to bring the party to Justice. And it appears by the opinion of the Court in the Kings Bench in Semaigns Case, in the Fifth Part of my Reports, That the Sherifs may arrest in the Night, as well at the sute of the Subject, as at the Kings sute. And in Heydons Case in the Fourth Part of my Reports it is Resolved, That if one killeth a Watchman in doing his Office, it is Murder, and yet it is done in the Night; and if an affray be made in the Night, and the Constable, or any other, who commeth to aid him to keep the peace be killed, the same is Murder; for when the Constable doth command them in the Kings name to keep |[66 b] the Peace, although he cannot discern or know him to be the Constable, yet at their perils they ought to obey him.
It was also Resolved, that although in truth between five and six of the clock in the ninth of November be part of the Night, yet the Court is not bound ex Officio,6 to take knowledge ofit, nomore than in the Case of Burglary, without these words, in nocte ejusdem diei,7 or Noctanter.8
2. It was objected, that Sunday is not dies juridicus,9 and therefore no arrest can be made thereon, but the same is the Sabbath, and therefore therein every one ought to abstain from secular affairs for the better worship and service of God in Spirit and Truth. As to that it was Answered and Resolved, that no judicial act ought to be done on that day, but ministerial acts may be lawfully executed on the Sunday; for otherwise peradventure they shall never be executed; and God permitteth things of necessity to be done that day; and Christ saith in the Gospel, Bonum est benefacere in Sabbatho.10
3. Another Exception was taken, because it is said in the beginning of the Indictment, in Curia dicti Dom. Reg in computatorio suo, scituat. in parochia Sanctae Michaelis11 in Woodstreet, London, and doth not shew in what Ward the said Parish was, et non allocatur;12 For it is holden in 7 H. 6 36b. Every Ward in London is an Hundred in a County, and every Parish in London is as a Town in an Hundred, and it is not necessary to set forth in what Hundred a Town no more in what Ward a Parish is; but the same is commonly averred, because that there are divers Parishes in London of one name, and the Ward is added to make distinction of one Parish from another; for which cause it was Resolved, That in the Case at Bar the Indictment was sufficient, notwithstanding the leaving out of the Ward, for it doth not appear to us that there is any other Parish of that name, and this Parish is particularly described, viz. in Parochia Sancti Michael’ in Wood-street, London. And therewith agreeth the Rule of the Book in 7 H. 6 36b. for a Bill was ruled good in Parochia Sancti Laurentii in Judaismo,13 omitting the Ward.
The fourth Exception was, because it doth not appear in what Parish the Sherif did commanded Fells the Sergeant to arrest the Defendants; and the same was disallowed by all the Justices; for the words of the Indictment are, taliter in eadem Curia process. fuit, &c.14 and eadem Curia fully shewed that the Warrant was made at the same Court mentioned before; and the same was expressly alledged to be holden in Parochia Sancti Michaelis, &c.
|[67 a] 5. It was excepted against the Indictment, viz. That the precept was to arrest the Defendant, si inventus foret infra libertates Civitatis praed’15 and the Indictment is quod in parochia S. Martini Bowyer Rowe in warda de Farringdon infra Londinum praed’16 the Sergeant arrested him, so that he hath not pursued the precept, for the precept is infra libertates17 London, and notwithstanding that, the indictment was resolved to be good, for the said Parish and Ward in London shall be intended to be within the liberties of London, for these words liberties of London are more spacious than London, and include in them the City of London itself.
And 9 Exceptions were taken to the verdict. 1. That there is materialvariance betwixt the Indictment and the Verdict, for the Indictment doth suppose that Piot Sherif of London upon a Plaint entred, made a precept to Fells, Serjeant at Mace to arrest the said MacKalley, the Def.; & by the verdict it appeareth that there was not any such precept made, but that by the custom of London, after the plaint entered, any Sergeant ex officio at the request of the Plaintiff may arrest the Defendant absque aliquo praecepto ore tenus, vel aliter,18 so that the Indictment being special, to make this offence Murder, by Construction of Law upon the special matter, without any forethought malice ought to be followed, and proved in Evidence, which is not done in this case. And because the Jurors have not found the said special matter contained in the Indictment, but other matter, Judgement cannot be given against the Prisoners upon this Indictment. To which it was answered, and in the end Resolved, That there was sufficient matter in the verdict pursuant to the matter contained in the Indictment, upon which the Court ought to give judgement of death against the said Prisoners, notwithstanding the said variance, and that for two causes.
1. Because that the Warrant which the Sergeant had to arrest the Defendant was but circumstance, and is not necessary to be precisely pursued in Evidence to be found by the Jury; but it sufficeth if the substance of the matter be found without any such precise regard to circumstance: and therefore, if a man be indicted, that he with a dagger gave another a mortal wound, upon which he died, and in evidence it is proved that he gave the wound with a Sword, Rapier, Baston, or Bill, in that case the Defendant ought to be found guilty, for the substance of the matter is, That the party indicted hath given him a mortal wound, whereof he died, and |[67 b] the circumstance of the manner of the weapon is not material in case of Indictment; and yet such circumstance ought not to be omitted, but some weapon ought to be mentioned in the Indictment. So if A. B. and C. are indicted for killing J. S. and that A. strook him, and that the others were present, procuring, abetting, &c. And upon the Evidence it appeareth, that B. strook him, and that A. and C. were present, &c. in this case the Indictment is not pursued in the circumstance; and yet it is sufficient to maintain the Indictment, for the Evidence doth agree with the effect of the Indictment, and so the variance from the circumstance of the Indictment is not material; for it shall be adjudged in Law the stroke of every of them, and is as strongly the act of the others, as if they all three had holden the weapon, &c. and had altogether strock the dead; and therewith agrees Plow. Com. 98 a.
So if one be indicted of the murder of another upon forethought malice, and he is found guilty of Manslaughter, he shall have judgment upon this verdict, for the killing is the substance, and the pretenced malice the manner of it; and when the matter is found, Judgement shall be given thereupon, although the manner be not precisely pursued; and therewith agreeth Plow. Com. 101. where it is said, when the substance of the act and the manner of the act, are put in issue together, the Jury find the substance and not the manner, Judgement shall be given for the substance. And I moved all the Judges and Barons, if in this case of killing of a Minister of Justice in the execution of his office, the Indictment might have been general, sc. that the prisoners felonice, voluntarie, et ex malitia, sua proecogitata &c. percusser’, &c.19 without alleging any special matter; and I conceived that it might well be, for the Evidence would well maintain the Indictment, for as much as in this case the Law doth imply forethought malice. As if a Theef, who offereth to rob a true man, kill him in resisting the thief, the same is murder of forethought malice; Or if one kill another without provocation, and without any forethought malice, which can be proved, the Law will adjudge the same murder, and implieth malice; for by the Law of God every one ought to be in love and charity with all men, and therefore when he killeth another without provocation, the Law implieth malice: and in both these cases they may be indicted generally that they killed of forethought malice, for malice implied by Law, given in Evidence, is sufficient to maintain the general Indictment. So in the case at barr; And in this case of a Sergeant, the Indictment might have been generall, That he feloniously and of his forethought malice killed the said Fells, and the special matter might well have been given in Evidence; |[68 a] quod fuit concessum20 by all the Judges, and Barons of the Exchequer. The second reason was, because it is expressly alleged in the Indictment, That the said John Mackalley, &c. eundem Richardum Fells, &c. felonice, voluntarie, et ex malitia sua praecogita, &c. percussit et inforavit, &c.21 so that above the special matter which implieth malice, it is expressly contained in the Indictment, that he feloniously and ex malitia proecogitata killed the said Fells, and then although the special matter given in Evidence had varied in substance from the special matter contained in the Indictment, yet for as much as it was resolved that the Indictment in this case might be general, for this cause the Evidence, although it doth not agree with the special matter, yet it proveth, that the prisoners killed the said Fells of their forethought malice; and so well maintaineth the Indictment. And that in the end was the opinion of all the Judges and Barons of the Exchequer.
2. Exception was taken to the verdict, That the Custom found by the Jury, that after the plaint entred, the Defendant might be arrested by his body, was against Law, because the Defendant ought to be first summoned before that the warrant in nature of a Capias22 can issue forth, for his body shall not be arrested if he hath sufficient, et non allocatur;23 for it appeareth by the book in 21 E. 4 66b. That by common experience daily used, that after a plaint entred, by the custom of London, (which is established and confirmed by Parliament) the Defendant may be arrested. And in this case three points were Resolved by all the Judges and Barons of the Exchequer. 1. that although the process be apparently erronious, that yet if the Minister of Justice in the execution thereof be killed, the same is murder. For the Minister is not bound to dispute the authority of the Court, which awardeth the process, but his office is to execute the process: and therefore, if a Capias in an action of Debt be awarded against a Baron, or other Peer of the Realm, which is erronious (because their bodie by the Law is privileged in such cases) yet if the Officer be killed in execution thereof, it is murder. So if a Capias be awarded where a Distress ought to issue, and in execution thereof the Officer is killed, it is Murder, for as the Sheriff, &c. when he is charged with an Escape shall not take advantage of any Error in the proceeding so the Defendant when he killeth the Sheriff, &c. shall not take advantage of Error in the proceeding. 2. It was Resolved, That if any Magistrate or Minister of Justice, in execution of their office, or in keeping of the peace according to the duty of his office be killed, it is murder, for their contempt and disobedience to the King, and to the Law, for it is contra potestatem Regis et legis:24 and therefore, if a Sheriff, Justice of Peace, Chief Constable, Petit |[68 b] Constable, Watchman, or any of the Kings, Ministers, or any who comes in their aid be killed in doing of their office, it is murder for the cause aforesaid: for when the Officer or Kings Minister by process of Law (be it erroneous or not) arresteth one in the Kings name, or requireth the breakers of the peace to keep the peace in the Kings name, and they notwithstanding disobey the arrest or Commandement in the Kings name, and kill the officer, or the Kings Minister, reason requireth that this killing and slaying shall be an offence in a higher nature than any offence of this nature; and that the same is voluntary, felonious, and murder of forethought malice. And a Watchman by the Law may arrest a Night-walker 4 Hen. 7 2. and if a Watchman arresteth such a one, and he killeth him, the same is murder. Vide Heydons case in the Fourth Part of my Reports. And it is true, That the life of a man is much favoured in Law, but the life of the Law it self (which protecteth all in peace and safety) ought to be morefavoured, and the execution of the process of Law and of the offices of Conservators of the peace, is the Soul and life of the Law, and the means by which Justice is administered, and the peace of the Realm kept. Vide 2 R. 3 21. If the Principal be erroneously attainted, the Accessory shall be put to answer, and shall not take benefit for the saving of his life of the erroneous proceeding against the Principal. 3. It was Resolved, That the Officer or Minister of the Law in the Execution of his office, if he be resisted or assaulted, is not bound to flye to the wall &c. (as other Subjects are) for Legis minister non tenetur in executione Officii fugere, seu retrocedere.25
3. It was Objected, That the Defendant ought not have been arrested before that the plaint was entered of Record in the Court before the Sheriff, for this same is in truth the Court of Record where the Declaration and pleading shall be. To that it was answered and Resolved by all, That after the plaint entered in the Porters book, and before the entry thereof in the Court before the Sheriff, the Defendant may be arrested by the Custom of London; and therewith agreeth the book in 21 E. 4 66. in the point. Vide 9 E. 4 48b.
4. It was Objected, That the said Arrest found by the verdict was not lawful for the Sergeant in this case ought to have when he arrested him, shewed at whose sute, out of which Court, and for what cause he made the arrest, and in what Court the same is returnable, to the intent, that if it be for any execution, he might pay the money, and free his body, and if it be upon mean process either to agree with the party to put in bayl according to the Law, and to know when he shall appear, as it is Resolved in the Countess of Rutland’s |[69 a] Case, in the sixth part of my Reports. But in the Case at barr the Sergeant said nothing but I arrest you in the Kings name, at the sute of Mr. Radford, and so the arrest not lawfull, and by consequence the offence is not murder. To that it was Answered and Resolved, That it is true that it is holden in the Countess of Rutland’s case, That the Sheriff, or Serjeant ought upon the arrest shew at whose sute, &c. But the same is to be intended when the party arrested submitteth himself to the arrest, and not when the party (as in this case Murray did) maketh resistance and interrupteth him, and before he could speak all his words, he was by them mortally wounded and murdred, in which case, the prisoners shall not take advantage of their own wrong. It was also Resolved, That if one knoweth that the Sheriff; &c. hath process to arrest him, and the Sheriff coming to arrest him, the Defendant to prevent the Sheriff to arrest him, kill him with a gun, or any other engine, or weapon, before any arrest made, the same is murder: a fortiori,26 in the case at bar when he knew by the said words, that the Sergeant came to arrest him.
5. Exception was taken, because it was not found by the Verdict, That the said Mackalley felonice percussit, &c. but percussit only, et quod iidem Johann’ Murray, et Johannes English fuerunt praesentes, auxiliantes, &c.27 and doth not say, felonice; et non allocatur,28 for the office of the Jury is to shew the truth of the fact, and to leave the judgement of the Law to the Court; but they have well concluded, And if super tota materia’ praed. videbitur Justic. et Cur. hic, quod praed interfectio dic. Rich. Felles sit murdrum, tunc Jurat. praed. dic. super Sacramentum suum quod praed. Johannes Murray, Johannes Mackalley; et Johannes English sunt culpabiles, et quilibet eorum est culpabilis de murdro praed. Rich. Felles modo et forma prout. per Indictamentum praed. supponitur, &c.29 And because the Judges and the Court hath resolved upon the special matter, that it is murder, the Jury have found him guilty of murder contained in the Indictment.
6. It was Objected, That the Sergeant at the time, nor before he arrested shewed the prisoner his Mace; for thereby he is known to be the Minister of the Law, and from thence he hath his name, scil. serviens ad clavam; Et non allocatur for two causes. 1. because the Jury have found, That he was serviens ad clavam dicti Vicecomitis, et juratus, et cognitus, et minister Cur.30 And a Bayliff sworn and known needeth not (although the party demand it) shew |[69 b] his warrant, nor any other special Bailif is not bound to shew his warrant without demanding of it, 8 E. 4 14. 14 H. 7 9b. 21 H. 7 23. and where the books speak of a known Baylif, it is not requisite that he be known to the party who is to be arrested, but if he be commonly known it is sufficeth. 2. If notice were requisite, he gave sufficient notice when he said, I arrest you in the Kings name &c. and the party at his peril ought to obey him; and if he hath no lawfull warrant, he may have his action of false imprisonment. So that in this case without Question the Sergeant needeth not to shew his Mace; and if they shall be driven to shew their Mace, it should be a warning for the party arrested to flye.
7. Another Exception was taken to the Verdict, because the Custom which gave to the Sergeant warrant to arrest, was not pursued; for the custom is, Quod aliqua persona existens Serviens ad clavam ad requisitionem partis hujusmodi querelam sic levantis, &c. usa fuit arrestare,31 which ought to be taken that the pleint ought to be entered before the request; but afterwards it is found that the request was before the pleint, and so the Custom not pursued; et non allocatur. For by the Custom it is not proved, but that the request may be as well before as after the pleint entered; and so is the Common usage and experience.
8. It was Objected, That the verdict was repugnant in itself, for first they found, that the pleint was entered de Recordo in Rot. Cur. Computator, in his verbis, Die Sabbathi 17 die Novemb.32 and afterwards they found, quod intratio praed. in Rot. Cur. praed. facta fuit die Lunae 19 die November &c.33 And the jury cannot find any thing against the Record itself. Vide 11 H. 6 42. 9 H. 6 37. 28 Ass. 34. 47 E. 3 19. 11 H. 4 26. 9 H. 7 3 13 H. 7 14. 33 E. 3. Judgment 255. Dyer 32 Eliz. 147, &c. And all that was affirmed for good Law. But that maketh the Case stronger against the Prisoners, for now the Judges ought to judge upon a pleint entered of Record in Cur’ Computator.34 the Saturday the seventeenth of Novemb. which was before the arrest.
9. Exception was taken to the Verdict, that the entry of the pleint was without form, and so short and obscure, quod opus est interprete; et non allocatur.35 For it was found that it was according to the Custom of London; which is but a Remembrance to draw the Declaration at length in the Court of Pleas, which notwithstanding is by Custom sufficient to have the Defendant arrested. And afterwards at the Sessions [of Newgate held] the fifth day of May after this Term, the two Chief Justices openly declared the Resolution of all |[70 a] the Judges and Barons of the Exchequer, to the great satisfaction and contentment of all there present. And accordingly judgment of deathwasgiven against the three Prisoners by the Recorder of London, in the presence of the said two Chief Justices. And the said Mackalley was executed with other Prisoners at Tyborn.
Part Ten of the Reports
The Tenth Part of Coke’s Reports was published in 1614. It was originally entitled La dixme part des Reports de Sr. Edw. Coke chivalier, chiefe Justice Dengleteere des plees deste tenus devant le roy mesme assignee, & del Counseil prive d’Estat: des divers resolutions & Jugements donez sur solennes arguments & avec grand deliberation & conference des tresreverend Juges & sages de la ley, de cases en ley queux ne fueront unques resolvs ou adjuges par devant: et les raisons & causes des dits resolutions & Jugements. Publie en la unziesme an de treshaut et tresillustre Jaqves roy Dengleterre, France, & Ireland, & de escosse le 47., le fountain de tout Pietie & Justice, & la vie de la ley. In English, The Tenth Part of the Reports of Sir Edward Coke, Knight, Lord Chief Justice of England, of the Pleas assigned to be held before the king Himself, and of the Privy Council of State, of divers Resolutions and Judgments given upon solemn Arguments, and with great deliberation and Conference of the reverend Judges and Sages of the Law, of Cases in law which were never Resolved or Adjudged Before: and the Reasons and Causes thereof. Published in the Eleventh year of the most high and Most Illustrious James, King of England, France, and Ireland, and of Scotland the 47., the Fountain of all Justice, and the life of the Law. This part covers a wide range of issues, with a number of cases dealing with acorporation’spowers and liabilities; the power of particular courts; as well as more issues dealing with estates, leases, and inheritance.
Epigrams from the Title Page:
Justitia non novit Patrem, Matrem, neque Fratrem; personam non accepit, sed Deum imitatur.3
Westm. 2. cap. 39.
Ad Officium Justiciariorum spectat, unicuique coram eis placitanti Jusititiam exhibere.4
[1. ][Ed.: on the eighteenth day of November between the hours of five and six after mid-day,]
[2. ][Ed.: happened in this case.]
[3. ][Ed.: in the darkness,]
[4. ][Ed.: in the open light,]
[5. ][Ed.: he (who) does evil hates the light.]
[6. ][Ed.: by reason of office,]
[7. ][Ed.: in the night of the same day,]
[8. ][Ed.: at night.]
[9. ][Ed.: a Law Day, (a day on which judgment may be given).]
[10. ][Ed.: It is good to act well on the Sabbath.]
[11. ][Ed.: in the court of the said lord king in his Compter situated in the parish of St Michael.]
[12. ][Ed.: not allowed.]
[13. ][Ed.: in the parish of St Leonard in the Jewry,]
[14. ][Ed.: the process in the same court was such, etc.]
[15. ][Ed.: if (the defendant) should be found within the liberties of the aforesaid city.]
[16. ][Ed.: that in the parish of St. Martin Bowyer Row in the ward of Farringdon within London aforesaid.]
[17. ][Ed.: within the liberties.]
[18. ][Ed.: without any precept, whether by word of mouth or otherwise,]
[19. ][Ed.: feloniously, wilfully, and of their malice aforethought, etc., struck, etc.]
[20. ][Ed.: which was granted.]
[21. ][Ed.: feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, etc. struck and stabbed, etc., the same Richard Fells, etc.]
[22. ][Ed.: Writ of arrest.]
[23. ][Ed.: and not allowed;]
[24. ][Ed.: against the power of the king and the law:]
[25. ][Ed.: A minister of the law, in the execution of his office, is not expected to run away or draw back.]
[26. ][Ed.: so much the more so (or, it follows that).]
[27. ][Ed.: feloniously struck (but) struck (only) and that the same John Murray and John English were present, aiding, etc.]
[28. ][Ed.: feloniously and (the objection is) not allowed.]
[29. ][Ed.: if upon the whole matter aforesaid it shall appear to the justices and the court here that the killing of the said Richard Fells is murder, then the aforesaid jurors say upon their oath that the aforesaid John Murray, John Mackalley and John English are guilty, and each of them is guilty, of the murder of the aforesaid Richard Fells in manner and form as is supposed by the aforesaid indictment, etc.]
[30. ][Ed.: the said sheriff’s sergeant-at-mace sworn and known, and a minister of the court.]
[31. ][Ed.: that any person being a sergeant-at-mace, thus raising a plaint at the request of such party, has been accustomed to arrest,]
[32. ][Ed.: of record in the court-rolls of the Compter in these words, on Saturday the seventeenth day of November.]
[33. ][Ed.: that the aforesaid entry in the aforesaid court-rolls was made on Monday the nineteenth day of November, etc.]
[34. ][Ed.: in the court of the Compter.]
[35. ][Ed.: it is a labour to interpret it; and (this point was) not allowed.]
[1. ][Ed.: God, the leader, Eureka.]
[2. ][Ed.: The law repays you what is just, by the mouth of the judge.]
[3. ][Ed.: St. Jerome: Justice did not know a father, mother, or brother, and did not take on a personality; but it imitates God.]
[4. ][Ed.: It belongs to the office of the justices to do justice to everyone pleading before them.]