cccxcvii the earl OF rutland and spencers case the case be the late queen  Elizabeth grant to the earl of Rutland the office of parkership and constable  of c habendum from the time of his full age for life and also by the same  patent she grant he the stewardship of a manor habend predict offician pro  boundary vitae per deputy suum well deputy swine c eiden duty pertinent in tam  opportunity modus form c willing quod to put under our men to be to give help  may stand erect to he and after that one as steward to that court come and  make proclamation and also do the deputy of the earl of Rutland and thereupon  the earl of Rutland bring a action upon the case against the other in this  case three point be move by Nicholls sergeant if a stewardship grant by the  king may be exercise by a deputy without such authority give he in his patent  and be take a difference between a office of trust and other office as in h of  a carver c and two e the office of the chancellor of the exchequer and such  office can without special authority be assign over ha of the office of  marshal per see well sufficient deputy c nevills case in Leonard the  commentary office of trust which be inheritance may be execute by deputy  Elizabeth die a steward may be retain by word and he say there be a difference  between a deputy and a assignee for a assignee can forfeit but his own estate  but a deputy shall forfeit the estate of his master and therefore if a steward  grant his office for life who have the office in fee the grantee shall forfeit  no more than his estate for life e Br if the under steward make admittances it  be good and yet he be but a deputy but if it be out of court then it ought to  be by a special custom vide Elizabeth dyer the office of chirographer grant  for life and exercisable by a deputy and he say that in these letter patent  the intent shall be take beneficial for the subject and that for the honour of  the king if the king be not deceive in his grant vide e dyer dodderidge to the  contrary and he take a difference between office of trust grant for life and  those which be grant in fee for he who have it but for life can assign they  over for the grantor do not intend that another person shall have the office  unless express mention be make in the grant of assignee but when the office be  grant in fee there be no such confidence put in the person of the grantee for  his heir shall have it who be a person not know to the grantor but in all case  the grantee be elect for his skill I agree e he may make a deputy by special  word but then that deputy by those word can make a deputy that a steward be a  officer of trust be prove for he enter plaint in the court and surrender and  although he have not a judicial place yet he have a ministerial place and the  lord and tenant repose their trust in Leonard er p he and it be also a office  of skill vide e that the office of the keeper of a park steward c can be  assign without special word of assignee and as to the case which be put by  Nicholls Elizabeth that one may make a steward by word and therefore a  assignee for life by word it be a non sequitur and be say that for another  cause in the patent it self no deputy in this case can be make for although  the word be habendum to rejoice c office predict per deputy suum sive deputy  swine the same have be good if there have be no habendum before there be a  habendum before in the patent but here be three several habendums which be as  three several grant and the defect of the one shall not be supply by the other  h assize be maintainable for two office although they be by one and the self  same grant and those word willing c in the patent be nothing to the purpose  for the grant it self be determinable by the body of the grant and the clause  de assistant shall not supply that vide h land give to two heir with warranty  heir nest vide e grant Throgmorton and tracies case blow Leonard Com h Br  Lovels case and so in our case the clause of assistant make nothing to the  matter for reddendo one one it extend to no more than pass and be grant before  in the body of the grant the second point which dodderidge argue be if there  be a sufficient disturbance and he hold that there be not and therefore the  find of the jury not good and the jury have not find the way arms and be say  that when the writ be way arms there ought to be some violence and take of  something and some actual thing be to be do vide f b e r Title office e e e  but in this case there be but a threaten at the most but no force be use and  there the writ be ill and there be no sufficient disturbance to maintain this  action the case be adjourn   trin James in the common plead