196 ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTES OF LABOURERS 



his first master/ or to fail to keep his agreement to enter the 

 service of the first master ; " or if a second master, without 

 any overt act inducing a servant to leave the service in 

 v^hich he is bound, has merely taken into his service a ser- 

 vant who has previously of his own accord broken contract 

 with his first master/ — in all these cases, the first master has 

 rights and remedies under the new law. In the first place, 

 if he chance to come across his fugitive servant anywhere, 

 he can carry him off bodily,* but it is assumed though no- 

 where explicitly stated, that to accomplish this end he can- 

 not employ violence against the second master. ''"' In the 

 second place, the first master in the three cases enumerated 

 above, can serve notice on the second master, demanding 

 back his servant, and if the second master fail to comply 

 with this request, the first master then has an action on the 

 ordinance against him.® 



^ Cf. supra, p. 195, note 4. Fitzherbert, op. cit., 392: " If the Servant 

 be drawn away, the Master may re-apprehend him, and keep him in 

 Spight of him." Also 388: " If a Man do retain my Servant being in 

 my Service, for which the Servant departeth from me, etc., and goeth 

 to serve the other, I shall have an Action against him who retained 

 him, and against the Servant, upon the Statute of 23 Edw. III." 



-This follows from cases 28 and 36, app., F, 5. 



^The wording of the ordinance implies this; also the form of the writ 

 for retention; cf. also the argument in case 6, app., F, 4, Fitzherbert, 

 note 6, infra, and note 3 on p. 185. 



' C/. note I, supra; also case 17, app., F, 5, where the record 

 includes the phrase: " inuenit et reduxit." In case 10, app., F, 5, the 

 master re-captured and imprisoned the servant; in case 9, app., F, 6, it 

 is asserted that a master could have taken his servant who had departed 

 even if he had been free; in De Banco, 40, Fasch., 175, Suffolk, an action 

 of trespass vi et arniis, the defendant pleads previous contract with the 

 servant which gave him a right to take her. 



^ Cf. case 17, app., F, 5, in which vi et armis are denied. 



®The form of the writ includes a phrase as to notice; app., 411; Fitzher- 

 bert, op. cit., 300: "And if a Man be retained in Service, and go wan- 



