to the President and Councel of York between Lock Plaintiff and Bell and others Defendants and that was a Replevyn in English was granted by the said President and Councel which I affirmed was utterly against Law For at the Common Law no Replevyn ought to be made but by Original Writ directed to the Sheriff And the Statute of Marlbridg cap. 21. and West 1. cap. 17. hath authorized the Sheriff upon Plaint made to him to make a Replevyn and all that appeareth by the said Statutes and by the Books of 29 E. 3. 21. 8 Eliz. Dyer 245. And the King neither by his Instructions had made the President and Councel Sheriffs nor could grant to them power to make a Replevyn against the Law nor against the said Acts of Parliament but the same ought to be made by the Sheriff And all that was affirmed by the Lord Chancellor for very good Law And I say that it might well be that we have granted other Prohibitions in other Cases of English Replevyns Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between Sir Bethel Knight now Sheriff of the County of York as Executor to one Stephenson who had made him and another his Executors and preferred an English Bill against Chambers and divers others in the nature of an Action upon the Case upon a Trover and Conversion in the life of the Testator of goods and Chattels to the value of 1000 l. and because the other Executor would not joyn with him although he was named in the Bill he had not any remedy at the Common Law he prayed remedy there in Equity and I say that the President and Councel have not any authority to proceed in that Case for divers causes 1. Because there is an express limitation in their Commission that they shall not hold plea between party and party c. unless both parties or one of them tanta paupertate sunt gravati that they cannot sue at the Common Law and in that case the Plaintiff was a Knight and Sheriff and a man of great ability 2. By that Suit the King was deceived of his Fine for he ought to have had 200 l. Fine because that the damages amounted to 4000 l. and that was one of the causes that the Sheriff began his Suit there and not at the Common Law another cause was that their Decrees which they take upon them are final and uncontroulable either by Error or any other remedy And yet the President is a Noble-man but not learned in the Law and those which are of the Councel there although that they have the countenance of Law yet they are not learned in the Law and nevertheless they take upon them final and uncontroulable Decrees in matters of great importance For if they may deny Relief to any at their pleasure without controulment so they may do it by their final Decrees without Error Appeal or other remedy which is not so in the Kings Courts where there are five Iudges for they can deny Iustice to none who hath Right nor give any Iudgment but the same is controulable by a Writ of Error c. And if we shall not grant Prohibitions in Cases where they hold Plea without authority then the subjects shall be wrongfully oppressed without Law and we denyed to do them Iustice And their ignorance in the Law appeared by their allowance of that Suit scil That the one Executor had no remedy by the Common Law because the other would not joyn in suit with him at the Common Law whereas every one learned in the Law knoweth that summons and severance lieth in any Suit brought as Executors and this also in that particular Case was affirmed by the Lord Chancellor and he much inveighed against Actions brought there upon Trover and Conversion and said that they could not be found in our ancient Books Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between the L. Wharton who by English Bill sued before the Counsel Banks Buttermere and others for fishing in his several Fishings in Darwent in the County of C. in the nature of an Action of Trespass at the Common Law to his damages of 200 l. and for the causes next before recited and because the same was meerly determinable at the Common Law we granted a Prohibition and that also was allowed by the Lord Chancellor And as to the case of Information upon the Riotous Rescous I having forgotten to speak to that the King himself asked what the Case was to whom I answered that the case was That one exhibited a Bill there in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus against Watson who upon his Oath affirmed that he had satisfied the Plaintiff and that he owed him nothing and yet because the Defendant did not deny the Debt the Councel decreed the same against him and upon that Decree the Pursuivant was sent to arrest the said Watson who arrested him upon which the Rescous was made and because that the Suit was in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus at the Common Law and the Defendant at the Common Law might have waged his Law of which the Defendant ought not to be barred by that English Bill quia beneficium juris nemini est auferendum the Prohibition was granted and that was affirmed also by the Lord Chancellor whereupon I concluded that if the principal cause doth not belong unto them all their proceedings was coram non Judice and then no Rescous could be done but the Lord Chancellor said that though the same cannot be a Rescous yet it was a Riot which might be punished there which I denyed unless it were by course of Law by force of a Commission of Oyer and Terminer and not by an English Bill but to give the King full satisfaction in that point the truth is the said Case was debated in Court and the Court inclined to grant a Prohibition in the said case but the same was stayed to be better advised upon so as no Prohibition was ever under Seal in the said Case Also I confess that we have granted divers Prohibitions to stay Suits there by English Bill upon penal Statutes for the manner of prosecution as well for the Action Proces c. as for the count is to be pursued and cannot be altered and therefore without question the Councel in such cases cannot hold Plea which was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor And I said that it was resolved in the Reign of Queen Eliz. in Parots Case and now lately in the Case of the President and Councel of Wales That no Court of Equity can be erected at this day without Act of Parliament for the reasons and causes in the Report of the said Case of Parrot And the King was well satisfied with these reasons and causes of our proceedings who of his Grace gave me his Royall hand and I departed from thence in his favour And the surmise of the Number and that the Prohibition in the said Case
Court. See 21 Eliz. Dyer 362. If Tenant in Socage dyeth seised in possession his Heir within the age of fourteen years he shall not sue Livery but shall have an Ouster le main una cum exitibus but otherwise it is if the Heir be of the age of fourteen years which is his full age for Socage and therewith agreeth 4 Eliz. Dyer 213. And two presidents were shewed which were decreed in the same Court by the advice of the Iustices Assistants to the Court. One in Trinity Term 16 Eliz. Thomas Stavely the Father enfeoffed William Strelley and Thomas Law of the Mannor of Ryndly in the County of Nottingham upon condition that they re-enfeoff the Feoffor and his Wife for their lives the remainder to Thomas Stavely son and heir apparent of tho Feoffor in Fee which Mannor was holden of Queen Elizabeth in Socage in capite and upon consideration of the saving in the Statute of 32 H. 8. next after the clause concerning Tenure in Socage in chief it was resolved That no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in such case and the reason was because that the precedent clause giveth liberty to him who holdeth in Socage in chief to make disposition of it either by act executed or by Will at his free will and pleasure and before the said act no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in such case and the words of the Saving are Saving c. to the King c. all his Right c. of primer seisin and relief c. for Tenure in Socage or of the nature of Tenure in Socage in chief as heretofore hath been used and accustomed But there was no use or custom before the Act that the King should have any primer seisin or relief in such case and the words subsequent in the said Saving depend upon the former words and do not give any primer seisin or relief where none was before Another president was in Pasc 37 Eliz. in the Book of Orders fo 444. where the case was that William Allet was seised of certain Lands in Pitsey called Lundsey holden of the Queen in Socage in chief and by Deed covenanted to stand seised to the use of his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of Richard his younger son in Fee and dyed his Heir of full age and all that was found by Office and it was resolved ut supra That no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in that case but the doubt in the case at Bar was because that Henry the Feoffor had a Reversion in Fee which descended to the said VVilliam his eldest son XXI Trinity Term anno 7 Jacobi Regis The Case of the Admiralty A Bill was preferred in the Star-Chamber against Sir Richard Hawkins Vice Admiral of the County of Devon and was charged that one William Hull and others were notorious Pirats upon the High Seas and shewed in certain what Piracy they had committed the said Sir Richard Hawkins knowing the same did them receive abet and comfort within the body of the County and for bribes and rewards suffered them to be discharged And what offence that was the Court referred to the consideration of the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron who heard Councel of both sides divers days at Serjeants Inn. And first it was by them resolved that by the Common Law the Admirals ought not to meddle with any thing done within the Realm but onely with things done upon the Sea and that appeareth fully by the Statute of 13 R. 2. cap. 5. by which it appeareth that such was the Common Law in the time of King Edw. the third and therewith agreeth the Statute of 2 H. 4. cap. 11. and the Statute of 15 H. 2. cap. 3. That because the Admirals and their Deputies encroach to themselves divers Iurisdictions and Franchises more then they ought to have Be it enacted that all Contracts Pleas and Complaints and all other things arising within the bodies of the Counties as well by Land as by Water as also of Wreck of the Sea the Admiral Court shall not have any conusance power or jurisdiction c. Nevertheless of the death of a man and of Mayheme done in great Ships being in the main stream of great Rivers onely below the Bridges nigh to the Sea and not in other places of the same Rivers and to arrest Ships in the great Flotes for the great Voyage of the King and of his Realm and by the Statute of 2 H. 5. cap. 6. the Admirals of the King of England have done and used reasonably according to the ancient Law and Custom upon the main Sea See the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 5. And all this appeareth to be by the common Law and with that agreeth Stamford fo 51. And if a man be killed or slain within the Arms of the Sea where a man may see from the one part of the Land to the other the Coroner shall enquire of it and not the Admiral because that the Country may well know it and he voucheth 8 E. 2. Coron 399. So saith Stamford the same proves that by the common Law before the Statute of 2 H. 4. cap. 11. the Admiral shall not have Iurisdiction unless upon the High Sea See Pla. Com. 37. 6. If the Marshal holdeth Plea out of the Verge or the Admiral within the body of the County the same is voyd See 2 R. 3. 12. 30 H. 6. 6. by Prisoit 2. It was resolved that the said Statutes are to be intended of a power to hold Plea and not of a power to award execution scil de jurisdictione tenendi placiti non de jurisdictione exequendi For notwithstanding the said Statutes the Iudg of the Admiralty may do execution within the body of the County and therefore in 19 H. 6. 7. the case was W. T. at Southwark affirmed a Plaint of Trespass in the Court of Admiralty before the Steward of the Earl of Huntington against J. B. of a Trespass done upon the High Sea upon which issued a Citation to cite the said J. B. to appear before the Steward aforesaid at the common day then next ensuing directed to P. who served the said Citation at which day the said J. B. made default and the usage of the Court is that if the Defendant maketh default he shall be amerced by the discretion of the Steward to the use of the Plaintiff The which J. B. for his default aforesaid was amerced to twenty marks whereupon command was made to the said P. as Minister of the Court aforesaid to take the goods of the said J. B. to make agreement with the beforesaid W. T. by force of which he for the said twenty marks took five Cows and an hundred sheep in execution for the mony aforesaid in the County of Leicester And there it is holden by Newton and the whole Court that the Statutes restrain the power of the Court of Admiralty to hold Plea of a thing done
shillings eight pence for the Admittance of a Copyholder in Fee-simple upon a Surrender made For this is not like to a voluntary Grant as when the Copyholder hath but an Estate for life and dieth Or if he hath an Estate in Fee-simple and committeth Felony there Arbitrio Dom. res estimari debet but when the Lord is compellable to admit him to whose use the Surrender is And when Cestui que use is admitted he shall be in by him who made the Surrender and the Lord is but an Instrument to present the same And therefore in such Case the value of two years for such an Admittance is unreasonable especially when the value of the Cottage and one acre of Pasture is a Rack at fifty three shillings by the year 5. It was resolved That the Surjoynder is no more then what the Law saith For in this Case in the Iudgment of the Law the Fine is unreasonable and therefore the same is but ex abundanti and now the Court ought to judge upon the whole speciall matter And for the Causes aforesaid Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And Coke chief Iustice said in this Case That where the usage of the Court of Admiralty is to amerce the Defendant for his default by his discretion as it appeareth in 19 H. 6. 7. That if the Amerciament be outrageous and excessive the same shall not bind the party and if it be excessive or not it shall be determined in the Court in which the Action shall be brought for the levying of it And the Writ of Account is against the Bayliff or Guardian Quod reddat ei rationabilem Computum de exitibus Manerii And the Law requireth a thing which is reasonable and no excesse or extremity in any thing II. Mich. 6 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. Porter and Rochesters Case THis Term Lewis and Rochester who dwelt in Essex within the The Statute of 23 H 8. of citing out of Dioces Dioces of London were sued for substraction of Tithes growing in B. within the County of Essex by Porter in the Court of the Arches of the Bishop of Canterbury in London And the Case was That the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Iurisdiction of fourteen Parishes called a Deanry exempted from the Authority of the Bishop of London whereof the Parish of S. Mary de Arcubus is the Chief And the Court is called the Arches because the Court is holden there And a great question was moved If in the said Court of Arches holden in London within his Peculiar he might cite any dwelling in Essex for substraction of Tithes growing in Essex Or if he be prohibited by the Statute of the twenty third year of King Henry the eighth cap. 9. And after that the matter was well debated as well by Councell at the Bar as by Dr. Ferrard Dr. James and others in open Court and lastly by all the Iustices of the Common Pleas A Prohibition was granted to the Court of Arches And in this Case divers Points were resolved by the Court. 1. That all Acts of Parliament made by the King Lords and Commons of Parliament are parcell of the Laws of England and therefore shall be expounded by the Iudges of the Laws of England and not by the Civilians and Commonists although the Acts concern Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall Iurisdiction And therefore the Act of 2 H. 4. cap. 15. by which in effect it is enacted Quod nullus teneat doceat informet c. clam vel publice aliquam nefandam opinionem contrariam sidei Catholicae seu determinationi Ecclesiae sacro-sanctae nec de hujusmodi secta nephandis Doctrinis Conventiculas faciat And that in such Cases the Diocessan might arrest and imprison such Offender c. And in 10 H. 7. the Bishop of London commanded one to be imprisoned because that the Plaintiff said that he ought not to pay his Tithes to his Curat and the party so imprisoned brought an Action of False Imprisonment against those who arrested him by the commandment of the Bishop and there the matter is well argued What words are within the said Statute and what without the Statute So upon the same Statute it was resolved in 5 E. 4. in Keysars case in the Kings Bench which you may see in my Book of Presidents And so the Statutes of Articuli Cleri de Prohibitione regia De Circumspecte agatis of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. and all other Acts of Parliament concerning Spirituall Causes have alwaies been expounded by the Iudges of the Common Law as it was adjudged in Woods Case Pasch 29 Eliz. in my Notes fol. 22. So the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. hath been expounded by the Iudges of the Realm concerning Pluralities and the having of two Benefices Common Laws and Dispensations see 7 Eliz. Dyer 233. The Kings Courts shall adjudge of Dispensations and Commendams See also 17 Eliz. Dyer 251. 14 Eliz. Dyer 312. 15 Eliz. Dyer 327 18 Eliz. Dyer 352. and 347. 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. Construction of the Statute cap. 12. Smiths Case concerning Subscription which is a meer Spirituall thing Also it appeareth by 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. That for want of subscription the Church was alwaies void by the said Act of 23 Eliz. and yet the Civilians say that there ought to be a Sentence Declaratorie although that the Act maketh it void 2. It was resolved by Coke chief Iustice Warberton Daniel and Foster Iustices That the Archbishop of Canterbury is restrained by the Act of 23 H. 8. cap. 9. to cite any one out of his own Diocesse or his Peculiar Iurisdiction although that he holdeth his Court of Arches within London And first it was objected That the Title of the Act is An Act that no person shall be cited out of the Diocess where he or she dwelleth except in certain Cases And here the Archbishop doth not cite the said Party dwelling in Essex out of the Diocesse of London for he holdeth his Court of Arches within London 2. The Preamble of the Act is Where a great number of the Kings Subjects dwelling in divers Diocesses c. And here he doth not dwell in divers Diocesses 3. Far out of the Diocesse where such men c. dwell and here he doth not dwell far out c. 4. The body of the Act is No manner of person shall be cited before any Ordinance c. out of the Diocesse or peculiar Iurisdiction where the person shall be inhabiting c. And here he was not cited out of the Dioces of London To which it was answered and resolved That the same was prohibited by the said Act for divers Causes 1. As to all the said Objections One answer makes an end of them all For Diocesis dicitur distinctio vel divisio sive gubernatio quae divisa diversa est ab Ecclesia alterius Episcopatus Commissa Gubernatio in unius and is derived a Diâ— quod est duo electio id est
the plea for the same is no part of the suggestion which onely is the substance of the plea and therefore the Modus Decimandi is proved by two Witnesses according to the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. and not the refusal which proveth that the Modus Decimandi is onely the matter of the suggestion and not the refusal 5. All the said five matters of Discharge of Tythes mentioned in the said Branch of the Act of 2 E. 6. being contained within a suggestion ought to be proved by two Witnesses and so have been always from the time of the making of the said Act and therefore the Statute of 2 E. 6. clearly intended that Prohibitions should be granted in such causes 6. Although that they would allow bona fide de Modo Decimandi without refusal yet if the Parson sueth there for Tythes in kinde when the Modus is proved the same being expresly prohibited by the Act of 2 E. 6. a Prohibition lieth although the Modus be spiritual as appeareth by the said Book of 4 E. 4. 37. and other the Cases aforesaid And afterwards in the third day of debate of this case before his gracious Majesty Dr. Bennet and Dr. Martin had reserved divers consultations granted in Causa Modi Decimandi thinking that those would make a great impression in the Opinion of the King and thereupon they said That Consultations were the Iudgments of Courts had upon deliberation whereas Prohibitions were onely granted upon surmises And they shewed four Presidents One where three joyntly sued a Prohibition in the case of Modo Decimandi and the Consultation saith Pro eo quod suggestio materiaque in eodem contenta minus sufficiens in Lege existit c. 2. Another in Causa Modo Decimandi to be payd to the Parson or Vicar 3. Where the Parson sued for Tythes in kinde and the Defendant alledged Modus Decimandi to be payd to the Vicar The fourth where the Parson libelled for Tythe Wool and the Defendant alledged a custom to reap corn and to make it into sheaves and to set forth the tenth sheaf at his charges and likewise of Hay to sever it from the nine cocks at his charge in full satisfaction of the Tythes of the Corn Hay and Wool To which I answered and humbly desired the Kings Majesty to observe that these have been reserved for the last and center point of their proof And by them your Majesty shall observe these things 1. That the Kings Courts do them Iustice when with their consciences and oaths they can 2. That all the said Cases are clear in the Iudgment of those who are learned in the Laws that Consultation ought by the Law to be granted For as unto the first president the case upon their own shewing appeareth to be Three persons joyned in one Prohibition for three several parcels of Land each of which had a several manner of Tything and for that cause they could not joyn when their interests were several and therefore a Consultation was granted As to the second president The manner of Tything was alledged to be payd to the Parson or Vicar which was altogether uncertain As to the third president The Modus never came in debate but whether the Tythes did belong to the Parson or Vicar which being betwixt two spiritual persons the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Iurisdiction and therewith agreeth 38 E. 3. 6. cited before by Bacon and also there the Prior was of the Order of the Cistertians for if the Tythes originally belonged to the Parson any recompence for them shall not bar the Parson As unto the last president the same was upon the matter of a Custom of a Modus Decimandi for Wool for to pay the Tythe of Corn or Hay in kinde in satisfaction of Corn Hay and Wool cannot be a satisfaction for the Wool for the other two were due of common right And all this appeareth in the Consultations themselves which they shew but understand not To which the Bishop of London said that the words of the Consultation were Quod suggestio praedicta materiaque in eadem contenta minus sufficiens in Lege existet c. so as materia cannot be referred to form and therefore it ought to extend to the Modus Decimandi To which I answered That when the matter is insufficiently or uncertainly alledged the matter it self faileth for matter ought to be alledged in a good sentence and although the matter be in truth sufficient yet if it were insufficiently alledged the plea wanteth matter And the Lord Treasurer said openly to them that he admired that they would alledg such things which made more against them then any thing which had been said And when the King relied upon the said Prohibition in the Register when Land is given in discharge of Tythes the Lord Chancellor said that that was not like to this case for there by the gift of the Land in discharge of Tythes the Tythes were actually discharged but in the case De Modo Decimandi an annual sum is payd for the Tythes and the Land remains charged with the Tythes but ought to be discharged by plea de Modo Decimandi All which was utterly denyed by me for the Land was as absolutely discharged of the Tythes in casu de Modo Decimandi when an annual sum ought to be payd as where Land is given For all the Records and presidents of Prohibition in such cases are That such a sum had been always c. payd in plenam contentationem satisfactionem exonerationem omnium singularium Decimarum c. And although that the sum be not payd yet the Parson cannot sue for Tythes in kind but for the mony for as it hath been said before the Custom and the said Acts of Parliament where there is a lawful manner of Tything hath discharged the Lands from Tythes in kinde and prohibited that no suit shall be for them And although that now as it hath been said the Parsons c. may sue in the Spiritual Court pro Modo Decimandi yet without question at the first the annual payment of mony was as Temporal as annual profits of Lands were All which the King heard with much patience And the Lord Chancellor answered not to that which I had answered him in c. And after that his most excellent Majesty with all his Councel had for three days together heard the allegations on both sides He said That he would maintain the Law of England and that his Iudges should have as great respect from all his Subjects as their predecessors had had And for the matter he said That for any thing that had been said on the part of the Clergy that he was not satisfied and advised us his Iudges to confer amongst our selves and that nothing be encroached upon the Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and that they keep themselves within their lawful Iurisdiction without unjust vexation and molestation done to his Subjects and without delay or hindering
within the body of the County but they do not restrain the execution of the same Court to be served upon the Land for it may be that the party hath not any thing upon the Sea and then it is reason to have it upon the Land and if such a Defendant have nothing wherewithall to make agreement they of the Court have power to take the body of such a Defendant upon the Land in execution In which case these points were observed 1. Although that the Court of Admiralty is not a Court of Record because they proceed there according to the Civil Law see Brook Error 77. acc yet by custom of the Court they may amerce the Defendant for his default by their discretion 2. That they may make execution for the same of the goods of the Defendant in corpore Comitatus and if he hath not goods then they may arrest the body of the Defendant within the body of the County But the great Question between them was If a man committeth See this point resolved 8 Eli. Dyer per curiam which is omitted out of the printed Book Piracy upon the Sea and one knowing thereof receiveth and comforteth the Defendant within the body of the County if the Admiral and other the Commissioners by force of the Act of 28 H. 8. cap. 16. may proceed by Indictment and conviction against the Receiver and Abettor in as much as the offence of the Accessary hath his begining within the body of the County And it was resolved by them that such a Receiver and Abettor by the common Law could not be indicted or convicted because that the common Law cannot take conusance of the original Offence because that is done out of the Iurisdiction of the common Law and by consequence where the common Law cannot punish the principal the same shall not punish any one as accessary to such a principal And therefore Coke chief Iustice reported to them a Case which was in Suffolk in anno 28 Eliz. where Butler and others upon the Sea next to the Town of Laystaft in Suffolk robbed divers of the Queens subjects and spoyled them of their goods which goods they brought into Norfolk and there they were apprehended and there brought before me then a Iustice of the Peace within the same County whom I examined and in the end they confessed a cruel and barbarous Piracy and that those goods which then they had with them were part of the goods which they had robbed from the Queens subjects upon the High Sea and I was of opinion that in that case it could not be Felony punishable by the common Law because that the original act scil the taking of them was not any offence whereof the common Law taketh knowledg and by consequence the bringing of them into a County could not make the same Felony punishable by our Law and it is not like where one stealeth goods in one County and brings them into another there he may be indicted of Felony in any of the Counties because that the original act was Felony whereof the common Law taketh knowledg and yet notwithstanding I committed them to the Gaol until the coming of the Iustices of Assises And at the next Assises the Opinion of Wray chief Iustice and Periam Iustices of Assise was That for as much as the common Law doth not take notice of the original Offence the bringing of the goods stoln upon the Sea into a County did not make the same punishable at the common Law and thereupon they were committed to Sir Robert Southwell then Vice-Admiral of the said Counties and this in effect agrees with Lacies case which see in my Reports cited in Binghams case in the 2 Reports 93. and in Constables case C. 5. Reports 107. See the Piracy was Felony the Book of 40 Assis 25. by Schard where a Master or Captain of a Ship together with some Englishmen robbed the Kings sujects upon the High Seas where he saith that it was Felony in the Norman Captain and Treason in the Englishmen his companions and the reason of the said case was because the Normans were not then under the Obedience and Allegiance of the King of England for King John lost Normandy and for that cause Piracy was but Felony in the Norman but in the English who were under the Obedience and Allegiance of the King of England the same was adjudged Treason which is to be understood of Pettit Treason which was High Treason before and therefore in that case the Pirates being apprehended the Norman Captain was hanged and the English men were hanged and drawn as appeareth by the same Book see Stamford 10. And some objected and were of opinion That Treasons done out of the Realm might have bin determined by the common Law but truly the same could not be punishable but onely by the Civil Law before the Admiral or by Act of Parliament as all Foreign Treasons and Felonies were by the common Law and therefore where it is declared by the Statute of 25 E. 3. That adherence to the Enemies of the King within England or elsewhere is Treason the same shall be tryed by the common Law but where it is done out of the Realm the Offendor shall not be attainted but by Parliament until the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 2. although that there are Opinions in some Books to the contrary see 5 R. 2. Quare impedit c. XXII Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Pettus and Godsalves Case IN a Fine levyed Trinity Term anno quinto of this King between John Pettus Esq Plaintiff and Roger Godsalve and others Deforceants of the Mannor of Castre with the appurtenances c. in the County of Norfolk where in the third proclamation upon the Foot of the same Fine the said proclamation is said to have been made in the sixth year of the King that now is which ought to have been anno quinto of the King and whereas upon the Foot of the same Fine the fourth proclamation is altogether left out because upon the view of the proclamations upon Dorsis upon Record not finis ejusdem Termini per Justiciarias remaining with the Chyrographer and the Book of the said Chyrography in which the said proclamations were first entered it appeareth that the said proclamations were rightly and duly made therefore it was adjudged that the Errors or defects aforesaid should be amended and made to agree as well with the proclamation upon Record of the said Fine and Entry of the said Book as with the other proclamations in Dorsis super pedes aliorum finium of the same Term and this was done upon the motion of Haughton Serjeant at Law XXIII Mich. 7 Jacobi In the Court of Wards Sammes Case JOhn Sammes being seised of Grany Mead by Copy of Court Roll of the Mannor of Tollesham the great of which Sir Thomas Beckingham c. and held the same of the King by Knights service in capite Sir Thomas by