Common-Law none can be burnt for Heresy but by Conviction at a Convocation Note The High Commission may punish Heresies and upon their Conviction a Writ de Haeretico cumburendo See 6 R. 2. by which the Commons disavowed their assent to the Act of the 5 R. 2. which was contrived by the Prelates in the Name of the Commons whereas they never assented Mich. 6 Jac. Regis Langdale's Case In Langdales Case this Term in a Prohibition to the High Commissioners two Points were moved 1. If a Feme Covert may sue for Alimony before the High-Commissioners 2. If the Court of Common Pleas may grant a Prohibition when there is no Plea pendant there This concerning the Jurisdiction of the Court was first debated and divers Objections were made against it 1. That this Court hath not Jurisdiction to hold Plea without an Original unless by Priviledge of an Attorney Officer or Clerk of the Court and unless it be in a special Case viz. when there is an Action there depending for the same Cause then it was agreed that a Prohibition ought to recite Quod cum tale Placitum pendet c. And it was said That F. N. B. 43. g. agrees with this But a man ought to have his Prohibition out of Chancery or the Kings Bench upon surmise that he is sued in Court Christian for a Temporal Cause and the 2 Ed. 4. 11. 6. was cited To this it was answered and Resolved by Coke chief Justice Warberton Daniell and Foster Justices That the Common Pleas may award a Prohibition though no Suit be there pendent for it is the principal Court of Common Law for Common Pleas Quia Communia Placita non sequantur Curiam nostram as it is Enacted by Magna Charta thirty times confirmed by Parliamâ—â—â— then if the Ecclesiastical Judges incroach upon the Jurisdiction of the Common Pleas there the Court shall Grant a Prohibition and that without Original Writ for divers Causes 1. Because no Original Writ issuing out of Chancery is retornable into the King Bench or Common Pleas but is directed to a Judge or Party or both and is not retornable And upon contempt of the Prohibition the Chancellor may award an Attachment retornable either in the Kings Bench or Common Pleas which in such case is but a Judicial Writ And if such Attachment be retornable in the Common Pleas c. the Plaintiff in the Declaration shall make mention of an Original in Chancery and of the contempt c. as appears in a notable President 2. There was great reason that no Original Writ of Prohibition shall be retornable for the Common-Law was a Prohibition in it self and incroachment upon it incurred a contempt and with this agrees our Books 9 H. 6. 56. And there 't is held That the Statute of the 45 Ed. 3. and the Common Law also was a Prohibition in it self and thus the Rule of the Book 19 H. 6. 54. so is it held in 8 R. 2. Title Attachment Sur Prohibition 15. Note By Clopton a Sergeant at the Common Pleas That if a Plea be held in Court-Christian which belongs to the Court of the King without a Prohibition in facto the Plaintiff shall have an Attachment upon a Prohibition Quod fuit concessum c. Register 77. Estrepement Praecipimus quod inhibeas c. F. N. B. 259. Register 112. A Consultation is as much an Original as a Prohibition And the Court hath granted a Consultation ergo Prohibitions Qui habet jurisdictionem absolvendi habet juris dictionem Ligandi There are several sorts of Prohibitions one sort with this word Probibemus vobis and Letters in nature thereof as Supersedeas And Injunction is a Prohibition and Prohibition of Wast out of Chancery c. Express Prohibition are in two manners the one founded upon a Suggestion the other upon Record Upon Suggestion where Plea is pendent and yet the Suggestion is the Foundation but it is founded upon Record where no Plea is pendent for Prohibitions founded upon Record Ne admittas ought to recite the Plea pendent So a Writ to the Bishop to admit a Clerk is a Judicial Latitat as Dyer defends it As to the pendency of a Plea or not pendency it is not material for divers causes 1. The pendency of the Plea may give a priviledge to the party but no Jurisdiction to the Court in a Collateral Suit between which there is great diversity 2. The Prohibition where Plea is pendent is no process Judicial upon Record for it is a Collateral Suit 3. If the Common-Pleas cannot grant a Prohibition without a Plea pendent then the Kings which onely holds Plea of Common-Pleas by second means cannot But inasmuch as the Common-Law is instead of an Original as hath been said both Courts may grant it 4. Infinite Presidents may be shewn of Prohibition out of the Common Pleas without recital of any Plea pendent And true it is That it ought to be if the Court hath not Jurisdiction to grant any without Plea-pendant every petty-Clerk of the Common-Pleas shall have by his Priviledge a Prohibition without Plea-pendent A fortiori the Common Law it self may prohibite any one 4 Ed. 4. 37. 37 H. 8. 4. 5. A President is in the 22 Ed. 4. where a Prohibition was granted for that the Plaintiff might have a Writ of false Judgment at the Common Law The Record and Report agree the words of the Record are 6. That Officers and Clerks as well in the Common-Pleas as in the Exchequer c. may have by Privileng of Court a Prohibition without Original a fortiori the Law it self shall have greater Priviledge than an Officer or Clerk and to enforce the party to bring an Action will be a means to multiply Suits to no end 4 Ed. 4. fol. 37. every Prohibition is as well at the Kings Suit as at the Parties 28 Ed. 3. 97. false Latin shall not abate nor excommunication in the Plaint is no Plea 15 Ed. 3. Title Corrody 4. Note Though the Original cause was in the Kings Bench for Corrody Excommunication is no Plea in disability of the Plaintiff Vide 21 H. 7. 71 Kelway 6. quare non admissit 4 Ed. 4. 37. for not delivery of a Libel in the Common Pleas he shall have a Prohibition by all the Justices So upon 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. See 38 H. 6. 14. 22. Ed. 6. 20. 13 Ed. 3. Title Prohibition 11. 32 H. 6. 34. An Attorney in the Palace assaulted and menaced the Court shall take a Bill and inquire of it 4 Ed. 4. 36 37. Statham Prohibition 3. Prohibition super articulos title Prohibition pl. 5. gives a Prohibition before Scil. coram Justiciaâ—iis nostris apud Westm Vide F. N. P. fol. 69. b. in a Writ of Pone Register indic coram Justicia iis nost is apud Westm is the Common Pleas F. N. B. 64. d. 38 Ed. 3. 14. Statute 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. Hales Case in my Reports Many Prohibitions were granted in the
in the Star-Chamber upon the Proclamation against Building and that I had given Sentence against the said Proclamation To which I answered That Presidents were to be seen and Considerations to be had upon Conference with my Brethren for Melius est recurrere quam male currere and Indictments conclude contra leges statuta never contra regiam Proclamationem At last my motion was allowed and the Lords appointed the two Chief Justices Chief Baron and Baron Altham to consider of it Note the King by his Proclamation or otherwise cannot change any part of the Common-Law Statute-Law or Customs of the Realm 11 H. 4. 37. Fortescue in laudibus legum Ang. cap. 9. 18 Ed. 4. 35 36 c. 31 H. 8. cap. 8. ubi non est lex ubi non est transgressio ergo That which cannot be punished without Proclamation cannot be punished with it Vide le Stat. 31 H. 8. cap. 8. But if a man be indicted upon a Contempt against a Proclamation he shall be Fined anâ— imprisoned Vide Fortescue cap. 9. 18 34 36 37 c. In all Cases the King out of his Providence and to prevent dangers may prohibite them before which will aggravate the Offence if it be afterwards committed And as it is a Grand Prerogative of the King to make Proclamations 22 H. 8. Procl B. yet we find Presidents of Proclamations utterly against Law and Reason and therefore void For Quae contra rationem Juris introducta sunt non debent trahi in sequentiam An Act made to License Forreiners to Merchandize in London H. 4. by Proclamation prohibited the Execution of it usque ad prox Parliament which was against Law Vide doâ—s claus 8 H. 4. Proc. in London but 9 H. 4. An Act was made That all Irish should depart the Realm before the Feast of the Nativity this only was in terrorem being utterly against Law Hollingshead 772. Anno Dom. 1546. 37 H. 8. The Whorâ—-houses vulgo Stews were suppressed by Proclamation and found of Trumpet In the same Term Râ—solved by the two Chief Justices Chief Baron and Baron Altham upon Conference between the Lords of the Privy-Council and them That the King by his Proclamation cannot create any Offence which was not an Offence before for then he may alter the Law And the Law of England is divided into three parts 1. Common-Law 2. Statute-Law 3. Custom But the Kings Proclamation is none of them Resolved also That he hath no Prerogative but what the Law of the Land allows him but he mry by Proclamation admonish his Subjects that they keep the Laws upon pain to be inflicted by Law c. Lastly If the Offence be not punishable in the Star-Chamber Prohibition by Proclamation cannot make it punishable there And after this Resolution no Proclamation imposing Fine and Imprisonment was made c. Mich. 8 Jac. Regis Prohibitions It was Resolved in this Term That if a man be excommunicated by the Ordinary where he ought not as after a general Pardon c. and the Defendant being Negligent doth not sue a Prohibition but remains excommunicate by 40 dayes and upon Certificate in Canc is taken by the Kings Writ de excommunicato capiendo no Prohibition lies in this Case because he is taken by the Kings Writ Then it was moved what remedy the Party hath who is wrongfully excommunicate to which it was answered he hath three Remedies 1. He may have a Writ out of Chancery to absolve him 14 H. 4. fol. 14. and with this agrees 7 Ed. 4. 14. 2. When he is excommunicate against the Law of this Realm so that he cannot have a Writ de Cauâ—fone admittenda then he ought Parere mandatis Ecclesiae in sorma Juris i. e. Ecclesiastici where in truth it 's Excommunicatio contra jus forman Juris i. e. Communis Juris But if he shew his Cause to the Bishop and Request him to assoyl him either because he was excommunicate after the Offence pardoned or that the Cause did not appear in Ecclesiastical Cognizance and he refuse he may have an Action Sur le Case against the Ordinary and with this agrees Dr. St. lib. 2. cap. 32. fol. 119. 3. If the Party be excommunicate for nonâ—e of the Causes mentioned in the Act 5 Eliz. cap. 23. then he may plead this in the Kings Bench and so avoid the Penalties in the Act. Note It was Resolved by the Court c. That where one is cited before the Dean of the Articles in cause of defamation for calling the Plaintiff Where out of the Diocess of London against the Statute of 23 H. 8. And the Plaintiff hath Sentence and the Defendant is excommunicated and so continues 80 dayes And upon Certificate into the Chancery a Writ of Excommunicato capiendo is granted and the Defendant taken and imprisoned thereby that he shall not have a Prohibition upon the Statute 23 H. 8. for no Writ in the Register extends to it but there is a Writ there called de cautione admittenda when the Defendant is taken by the Kings Writ de excommunicato capiendo de parendo mandatis Ecclesiae and to assoyl and deliver the Defendant But in the Case at Bar it does not appear to us judicially without Information that the Citation is against the forme of the Statute And the Information comes too late in this Case after the Defendant hath persisted so long in his Contumacy and is taken by the Kings Writ and imprisoned Admiralty It was Resolved per totam Curiam That if One be sued in the Admiralty-Court for a thing alledged to be done upon the High-Sea within the Admirals Jurisdiction and the Defendant plead and confess the thing done and after Sentence the Court will be advised to Grant a Prohibition upon surmise That it was done infra corpus comitatus against their own confession unless it can be made appear to the Court by matter in Writing or other good matter that this was done upon the Land for otherwise every one will stay till after Sentence and then for vexation only sue out a Prohibition And admonition was given to them that sue out Prohibitions That they should not keep them long in their Hands or untill they perceive they cannot prevail in the Ecclesiastical Court then to cast in their Prohibition for if they abuse that liberty to the vexation of the Party we will take such order as in case of a Writ of Priviledge if the Defendant keep it till the Jurors are ready c. it shall not be allowed Hill 8 Jacob. Regis In this Term in Doctor Trevor's Case who was Chancellor of a Bishop in Wales It was Resolved That the Office of a Chancellor and Register c. in Ecclesiastical Courts are within the Statute 5 Ed. 6. cap. 16. which Act being made for avoiding corruption of Officers c. and advancement of worthy Persons shall be expounded most beneficially to suppress Corruption And because the Law allows Ecclesiastical Courts to
you the said Thomas Edwards are no Graduate 4. That you knowing the Premisses notwithstanding you the said Edwards c. of purpose to disgrace the said Dr. Walton c. did against the Rules of Charity write and send to the said Dr. Walton a leud and uncharitable Letter taxing him therein of want of Skill and Judgment in his Profession c. And so far you exceeded in your said uncivil Letter that you told him therein in plain terms He may be crowned for an Ass c. 5. And further to disgrace the said Mr. Dr. Walton in the said University did publish a Copy of the said Letter to Sir William Courtney and others and in your Letter was contained Sipsâ—lam lichenen mentegram Take that for your Inheritance and thank God you have a good Father And did you not covertly imply thereby that the said Dr. Waltons Father late Bishop of Exeter was subject to the French Pox and Leprosie c. 6. That in another Letter you sent to Dr. Maders Dr. in Physick also you named Dr. Walton and made a Hoâ—n in your Letter Whether you meant not thereby that they were both Cuckolds or what other meaning you had 7. You knowing Dr. Walton to be one of the High-Commission in the Diocess of Exeter and having obtained a Sentence against him in the Star-Chamber for contriving and publishing a Libel did triumphingly say You had gotten on the Hip a Commissioner for Causes Ecclesiastical c. which you did to disgrace him and in him the whole Commission in those Parts 8. That after the Letter Missive sent to you you said arrogantly That you cared not for any thing this Court can do for that you can remove this Matter at your pleasure And this Term it was moved to have a Prohibition in this Case and the matter was well argued And at last it was Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Warberton Daniel and Foster Justices That the first six Articles were meerly Temporal and in truth is in the nature of an Action upon the Case for Scandal of Dr. Walton in his Profession of Physick and therefore for them a Prohibition doth lye for divers Causes 1. Because the Persons and Matters are Temporal 2. Because it is for Defamation which if any such shall be for the same it ought to begin before the Ordinary because it is not such an enormous Offence which is to be determined by the High-Commissioners nor doth Suit lye before them for calling the Doctor Cuckold as in the seventh Article And 't was said the Commissioners ought to incur the danger of Praemunire 2. It was Resolved That the Ecclesiastical Judge cannot examine any man upon his Oath upon the Intention and Thought of his Heart for cogitationis poenam nemo â—moret for the Proverb saith Thought is free And therefore for the 6th and 7th were Resolved as well for the Matter as for the Form to be such to which the Defendant was not compelled to answer And that to the 7th he might justifie the same because it appears upon his own shewing that the Doctor was sentenced in the Star Chamber Also the Libel is meer Temporal and if it were Spiritual such a Defamation is not examinable before the High-Commissioners As to the last Article it appeareth now by the Judgment of this Court that he might well justifie the said Words Also the Commissioners shall not have any Conuzance of Scandal to themselves they being Parties and such Scandal punishable by the Common-Law as was resolved in Hales Case in Dyer and in my Book of Presidents Hales Indictment c. The Bishop of Winchester being Visitor of Winchester-School and other his Collegues Anno 5 Car. cited the Usher of the said School by force of the said Commission to appear before them c. for which they incurred the danger of Praemunire So did the Bishop of Canterbury and his Collegues for citing one Humphry Frank Master of Arts and School-Master of Sevennock School c. and proceeding c. Mich. 6 Jac. Regis Taylor and Shoyl's Case Taylor informed upon the Statute 5 Eliz. cap. 4. Tam pro Dom. Râ—ge quaâ— prose in the Exchequer That the Defendant had used the Art and Mystery of a Brewer c. and averred That Shoyl the Defendant did not exercise the Art or Mystery of a Brewer at the time of making the Act nor had been Apprentice 7 years c. The Defendant demurred in Law upon the Informaâ—â—on and Judgment was given against him by the Barons And now in this Term upon a Writ of Errour the Matter was argued at Sergeants Inne before the two Chief Justices And two matters were moved 1. One That a Brewer is not within the said Branch of the said Act for the words are That it shall not be lawful to any Persons other than such as now use lawfully any Art Mystery or Manual Occupation to set up or use any Art Mistery or Manual Occupation except he shall have been brought up therein 7 years at least as an Apprentice And 't was said That the Trade of a Brewer is not any Air Mistery or Manual Occupation within the said Branch because it is easily and presently learned and needs not 7 years Apprenticeship to learn the samâ— it being every Country Housewifes Work And the Act of H. 8. is That a Brewer is not a Handicraft Artificer 2. It was moved That the said Averment was not sufficient for it ought to be as general as the Exception in the Statute is 1. To the first it was Resolved That the Trade of a Brewer viz. To hold a Common Brewhouse to sell Beer or Ale to another is an Art and Mystery within the said Act for in the beginning of it it is Enacted That no Person shall be retained for less time than a whole year in any the Services Grafts Mysteries or Arts of Cloathing c. Bakers Brewers c. Cooks c. Upon which words in the said Branch the Information is grounded Also because every Housewife brews for her private use so also she bakes and dresseth meat yet none can hold a Common Bakehouse or Cooks Shop to sell to others unless he hath been an Apprentice c. And the Act 22 H. 8. c. 13. is explained That a Brewer Baker Surgeon and Scrivener are not Handicrafts mentioned in certain penal Laws but the same doth not prove but they are Arts or Mysteries 2. As to the second it was Resolved That the Intention of the Act was that none should take upon him any Art but he who hath Skill or knowledg in the same for Quod quisque norit in hoc se exerceat And so the first Judgment was affirmed Mich. 6 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas The Case of Modus Decimandi Sherly Sergeant moved to have a Prohibition because a Parson sued to have Tythes of Sylva Coedua under 20 years growth in the Weild of Kent where by the Custom no Tythes were ever paid of any Wood And if
Ecclesiastical Judge that were in danger of Premunire before 1 Eliz. are now in case of Premunire after the said Act the said Acts of Premunire not being repealed by 1 Eliz. 1. 2. And as to first and second Objections it was answered That true it is The Crown of England hath as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal Jurisdiction annex'd to it as appears by the Resolution in Cawdryes Case from Age to Age. And though this was de jure yet where the Pope became so Potent he usurped upon the Kings Ecclesiastical Power in this Realm but this was meer Usurpation And therefore all the Kings of this Realm Totis viribus proinde for establishing of their Temporal Law by which they inherit their Crown and by which c. were alwayes jealous in any part or point it should be incroached upon And if the Ecclesiastical Law did usurp upon the Temporal it was severely punished and the Offender judged an Enemy to the King by the ancient Statutes and every one might have killed him before the Statute of 5 Eliz. And this is the Reason the Crown it self is directed descendable by the Common Law and Treason against the Crown is punished by this Law And therefore usurpation by an Ecclesiasticall Judge upon it is said to be contra Coronam et dignitatem Regis And all Prohibitions since 1 Eliz. do conclude contra Coronam et dignitatem Regiam for as 't was resolved by all the Justices Pasch 4 Jac. Regis est contra Coronam c. when any Ecclesiastical Judge doth usurpe upon the Temporal Law for the cause of the Subject is drawn ad aliud examen when his Cause is not ended by the Common Law whereto by Birth-right he is inheritable 3. As to the Third though the Court by force of High-Commission is the Court of the King yet their proceedings are Ecclesiastical And therefore if they usurpe upon the Temporal Law this is the same offence which was before the Act 10 Eliz. 4. As to the Fourth though it be a new Court yet the antient Statutes extend to it in this word Alibi and in H. 8. times several new Bishopricks were erected yet never any question but the old Acts of Premuri did extend to them But to answer all Objections at once whereas the Act 1 Eliz. repealed the Statute 1 2 P. M. cap. 8. yet there is an express Proviso in the said Act 1 Eliz. That it shall not extend to Repeal any Clause or Matter contained in the 1 et 2 P. M. which in any sort concerneth any matter or cause of Premunire but that all of that stand in force See the said two Acts and also 16 R. 2. Also the Act of 1 Eliz. revives the Act 25 H. 8. cap. 10. which makes a Premunire in a Dean and Chapter c. for not electing certifying or admitting a Bishop elected by all which it appears the said Act of 1 Eliz. never intended to take away the offence of Premunire But note in what Cases a Premunire lyes and in what not 1. In all Causes when the Cause originally belongs to the Cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Court and Suit is prosecuted there as belonging to their Cognizance though in truth if rightly examined it ought to be determined â—t Common Law yet no Premunire lyes there but a Prohibition As if Tythes are severed from the nine parts and are carried away if the Parson sue for the Substraction of these Tythes in the Spiritual Court this is not in the case of Premunire Vide 10 H. 4. 2. agreeing with this Opinion So if a Parson sue for Tythes of surmising that they were Sylvae Caduae under the age of 20 years where in truth they were above yet a Prohibition lyeth and no Premunire 2. But though the Cause originally may appertain to the Cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Judge yet if he sue for it in the nature of a Suit which doth not belong to the Ecclesiastical Court but to the Common Law there a Premunire lyeth As in the former Case If the Parson after severing of Tythes will in any Ecclesiastical Court sue for carrying away his Tythes from the 9 parts which Action pertains to the Common Law In such case both the Actor and Judge incurr the danger of Premunire And so it was adjudged 17 H. 8. as Spillmâ—n Reports it One Turbâ—rvile sued a Premunire against a Parson that convened him into the Ecclesiastical Court and there libell'd against him for taking of Ty hes which were sever from the nine parts and the Parson was condemned to be out of the protection of the King to forfeit all his Lands Goods and Chattels and his Body to perpetual Imprisonment and damages to the Party So of a Mortuary delivered and re-taken if the Parson sue for this as for a Mortuary to him delivered he is in case of Premunire 10 H. 4. 2. So in the case put for tythe of Wood if it appear by the Libell that the Cognizance of the Case doth not belong to Court Christian the Premunire lyes as you may see in the Book of Entries tit Dismes fol. 221. But the tit Prohibition fol. 449. Divisione Dismes Ps 2 3 4 5 6. If the suit be pro Sylva caedua c. and the Suit be framed so as the Cognizance belongs to Court Christian though the truth be otherwise no Premunire but a Prohibition lyes 3. When the cause originally belongs to the Cognizance of the Common Law and not to the Ecclesiastical Court there though they Libel for it according to the course of the Ecclesiastical Law yet the Premunire lyeth because that this draws the cause which is determinable at Common Law ad aliud examen viz. to be decided by the Civil Law and so deprives the Subject of the Common Law his Birth-right and wiâ—h this agrees the Book of Entries tit Premunire fol. 229. b. 430. a. So that if the Original cause be Temporal though that they proceed by Citation Libel c. in Ecclesiastical manner yet this is in danger of Premunire And the reason of this is because he endeavours to draw Cognitionem quae ad Curiam domini Regis pertinet ad aliud examen that is that the Debt the Cognizance whereof belongs to the Court of the King he intends by the Original Suit to draw it to be determined by the Ecclesiastical Court And note In the Indictment of Premunire against Cardinal Woolsâ—y Mich. 21 H. 8. 14. it is said Quod Praedictus Cardinalis intend finaliter antiquissimas leges Angliae penitus subvertere et enervare univer sumque hoc Regnum Angliae et ejusdem Angliae populum legibus imperialibus vuilgo dict legibus Civilibus et â—orum legum Canonibus isperpetuum subjurare c. And this included within these words Ad aliud examen trahere viz. to decide that by the Civil Law which is determinable by the Common Law And upon this was a notable Case in Hill an 25 H. 8. of
Sentence given by Commissioners of the Queen in a Cause Ecclesiasticall under the Great Seal That the said Sentence was unjust and wicked and that he thought the Delegates had done against their Conscience and what offence this was was referred to divers Judges to consider by whom it was Resolved That this Offence was a contempâ— as well against the Queen as to the Judges and punishable by the Common-Law by Fine and Imprisonment 5. Resolved When any Libell in Ecclesiastical Court contains many Articles if any of them do not belong to Court-Christian a Prohibition may be generally granted and upon motion Consultation may be made as to things which belong to Spiritual Jurisdiction And for these Reasons it was Resolved by all That the Prohibition in the case at Bar was well granted which in truth was granted by Fenner and Crooke Justices in the Vacation Note these general Rules concerning Prohibitions Quaesparsim inveniantur in libris nostris Non debet dici tendere in praejudicinm Ecclesiasticae libertatis quod rege et repub necessarium videtur Artic. Cleri c. 8. 2. Non est juri consonum quod quis super iis quorum cognitio ad nos pertinet in Curia Christianitatis trahetur in placitum Entries 444. 447. 3. Episcopus teneat placitum in Curia Christianitatis de iis quae mere sunt Spiritualia Circumspâ—cte agatis c. 4. Prohibeatur de caetero Hospitalariis et Templariis ne de caetero trahunt aliquem in placâ—tum coram conservatoribus privilegiorum de aliquare cujus cognitio ad Forum spectat Regium West 2. cap. 43. 5. Non concedantur citationes priusquam exprimatur super quare fieri debet citatio Ibidem 6. Resolved That this special Consultation being only of Heresy Schisme and erroneous Opinions c. that if they convict Fuller and if he recant the same c. that he shall never be punished by Ecclesiastical Law After the Consultation granted the Commissioners proceeded and convicted Fuller of Schisme and erroneous Opinions and imprisoned and fined him 200 l. And after in the same Term Fuller moved the Court of Kings Bench to have a Habeas Corpus et ei conceditur upon which Writ the Goaler did return the cause of his detention Mich. 5 Jac. Regis The Case of First-Fruits and Tenths Note Annates Primitiae and First-Fruits are all one It was the value of every Spiritual Livâ—ng by the year which the Pope claiming the disposition of all Ecclesiastical Livings reserved And those and Impropriations began about the time that Polidore Virgil lib. 8. cap 2. saith Vide Concilium Viennense quod Clemens quintus indixit pro annatibus These First-Fruits were given to the Crown 26 H. 8. cap. 3. Note Hill 34 Ed. 1. An. 1307. At a Parliament held at Carlisle great Complaint was made of Oppressions of Churches c. by William Testa called Mala Testa and Legate of the Pope in which Parliament the King with his Barons assent denied payment of First-Fruits And to this effect he writ to the Pope whereupon the Pope relinquished his Demand and the First-Fruits for Two years were by that Parliament given to the King Decimae id est Tenths of Spiritualties were perpetual and paid to the Pope till Pope Urban gave them to R. 2. to aid him against Charles King of France and others who supported Clement the 7th against him 5 H. 3. By the Popes Bulls all Tenths were paid to H. 3. for years These were given to the King 26 H. 8. cap. 6. Vide Dambert de prist Anglor c. fol. 128. cap. 10. et ibidem inter leges Juae fol. 78. cap. 4. Sir Anthony Roper's Case In the Case of Sir Anthony Roper drawn before the High Commissioners at the Suit of one Bullbrook Vicar of Bently for a Pension out of a Rectory Impropriate whereof Sir Anthony was seized in Fee And the High-Commissioners sentenced the said Sir Anthony to pay it which he refused whereupon they committed him to Prison who appeared in Court this Term by Habeas Corpus upon the return of which Writ the matter did appear And it was well debated by the Justices and Resolved 1. That the said Commissioners had not Authority in the said Case for when the Acts of the 27 H. 8. and 31 H. 8. of Monasteries had made Parsonages Impropriate c. although that Pensions were saved yet by the Preamble of the Act 34 H. 8. cap. 16. those to whom the Pensions appertain had not remedy for the said Pensions c. And if the King covenanted to discharge the Patentee c. of Pensions the Suit shall be made for the same in the Court of Augmentations and not else-where And if High-Commissioners will determine of Pensions they must do it by that Act 34 H. 8. which expresly gives it to Ordinaries and their Officials the High-Commissioners Power being granted long after by the Act 1 Eliz. But it was Objectâ—d That that Act of 1 Eliz. gave the Queen and her Successors Power to assign Commissioners c. And it was said That such Spiritual Jurisdiction which the Bishop should have is transferred to the High Commissioners But it was unanimously resolved by Coke Walmesly Warberton Daniel and Foster Justices That the Act 1 Eliz. extends not to this Case for divers Causes 1. Because the Act of the 1 Eliz. doth not take away nor alter any Act of Parliament but those onely which are expresly named therein And it was Râ—solved That the High-Commissioners cannot hold Plea for the double value of Tythes carried away before severance 2. Because the words in the 1 Eliz. are which by any manner of Spiritual Jurisdiction can or lawfully may be reformed And it appears That these words extend to Crime only and not to Cases of Interest betwixt Party and Party 3. Because this Jurisdiction was given to the Bishops by Act of Parliament viz. 34 H. 8. which is more Temporal than Spiritual as all of Parliament are 4. It was not the intent of the Act 1 Eliz. which revived the Statute 23 H. 8. cap. 9. That the High-Commissioners for private Causes shall send for Subjects out of any part of the Realm and so in effect confound the jurisdiction of the Ordinary an Officer so necessary that the Kings Courts cannot be without him in divers Cases 5. If that Act 1 Eliz. had extended to give High-Commissioners power to determine meum et tuum as Pensions Tythes c. the Party thereby also should have benefit to appeal otherwise this should be dissolve the Court of the Ordinary which is so antient and necessary in many Cases that without it Justice cannot be administred 6. The High-Commissioners cannot extend themselves but only to Crime Mich. 5 Jac. Regis Rot. 2254. Praecept fuit Guardiano prison Domini Regis de Flecte quod haberet qpud â—estm immediate c. Coâ—pus Anthonii Roper Mil. inprison praed sub custodia sua detent quocunque nominâ— cens reretur una cum
all his Right Estate c. The Plaintiff surjoyneth and saith that the said sum of 5 l. 6 s. 8 d. c. was not rationabilis finis as the said Thomas Bradley above hath alleadged c. Upon which the Defendant doth demur in Law c. And in this Case these Points were Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Walmesly Warberton Daniel and Foster Justices 1. If the Fine had been reasonable yet the Lords ought to have set a certain time and place when the same should be paid because it stands â—â—on the point of Forfeiture As if a man assures Lands to one and his Heirs upon condition to pay to the Bargainee and his Heirs 10 l. at such a place or that he and his heirs shall re-enter there because no time is limited the Bargainor ought to give notice to the Bargainee c. when he will tender the money and he cannot tender it when he pleaseth and with this agrees 19 Eliz. Dyer 244. So in the Case at the Bar the Copyholder is not bound to carry his Fine alwayes with him c. And though that the Rejoynder is that the Plaintift refused to pay the Fine so he might well do when the Request is not lawful or reasonable And he that is to pay a great Fine as 100 l. or more it is not reasonable that he carry it always with him And the Copyholder was not bound to do it because the Fine was incertain and arbitrable as was Resolved in Hulbarts Case in the 4th Part of my Reports among the Copy-hold Cases 2. It was Resolved That though the Fine be uncertain and arbitrable yet it ought to be secundum arbitrium boni viri and it ought to be reasonable because Excessus in re qualibet jure reprobatur communi for the Common-Law forbids any excessive Distress as appears 41 Ed. 3. 26. And this doth appear to be the Common-Law for the Statute of Articuli super Chartas extends onely for a grievous Distress taken for the Kings Debt See F. N. B. 147. a. and 27 Ass 51. 28 Ass 50. 11 H. 4. 2. and 8 H. 4. 16. c. And so if an excessive Amerciament be imposed in any Couâ—t-Baron or other Court not of Record the Party shall have Moderata mis ericordia And Magna Charta is but an Affirmance of the Common-Law in this Point See F. N. B. 75. And the Common-Law gives an Assize of Sovient Distress and multiplication of Distress found which is Excess And with this agrees 27 Ass 50 51. F. N. B. 178 b. And if Tenant in Dower hath Tenants at Will that are rich and makes them poor by excessive Tallages and Fines this is wast F. N. B. 61. b. 16 H. 3. Wast 135. and 16 H. 7. Vide also the Register Judicial fol. 25. B. Waste lyeth in Exulando Henricum Hermanum c. Villeynes Quorum quilibet tenet unum messuagium unam Virgat terrae in Villenagio in Villa praed c. By all which it appears the Common-Law forbids excessive oppressing of Villains c. So in the Case at Bar though the Fine is uncertain yet it ought to be reasonable and so it appears by the Custome alleadged by the Defendant See Hubbard's Case before in the 4th Part of my Reports And when reasonableness concerning a Fine is in question the same shall be determined by the Court in which the Action depend 21 H. 6. 30. 22 Ed. 4 27. and 50 29 H. 8. 32. c. 3. It was Resolved That the Fine in the Case at the Bar was unreasonable being for the admittance of a Copy-holder in Fee-simple upon a Surrender made for this is not like a voluntary Grant c. for there Arbitrio Domini res estimari debet But when the Lord is compellable to admit him to whose use the Surrender is And when Câ—stuy 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 4. It was Resolved That the Surjoinder is no more than what the Law saith And for the Causes aforesaid Judgment was given for the Plaintiff And Coke Chief Justice said in this Case That if the Court of Admiralty amerce the Defendant excessively at discretion as seems by 19 H. 6. 7. the same shall not bind the Party and be it excessive or not it shall be determined in the Court where the Action shall be brought And a Writ of Account against a Bayliff or Guardian Quod reddat â—i rationabilem compâ—tum c. for the Law requires Reason and no excuse or extremity in any thing Mich. 6 Jac. Regis in the Common-Pleas Porter and Rochester's Case This Term Lewis and Rochester who dwelt in Essex in the Diocess of London were sued for subtraction of Tythes growing in B. in the said County of Essex by Porter in the Court of the Arches of the B. of Canterbury in London And the Case was The Archbishop of Canterbury â—ath a peculiar Jurisdiction of 14 Parishes called a Deanry exempt from the Authority of the Bishop of London whereof the Parish of St. Mary de Arcubus is the chief And the Court is called the Arches because it is holden there And a great Question was moved If in the said Court of Arches holden in London he might cite any dwelling in Essex for substraction of Tythes growing in Essex or if he be prohibited by the Statute 23 H. 8. cap. 9. which after Debate at Bar by Councel and also by Dr. Ferrard Dr. James and others in open Court and lastly by all the Justices 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 â—â—l Acts of Parliament made by the King Lords and Commons in Parliament are parcel of the Laws of England and therefore shall be expounded by the Judges of the Laws of England and not by the Civillians Cannonist although the Acts concern Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And in 10 H. 7. the Bishop of London caused onâ— to be imprisoned because the Plaintiff said he ought not to pay his Tythes to his Curate And the imprisoned Party brought his Action of false Imprisonment against those that arrested him by the Bishops Command and there the Matter is well argued what words are within the Statute and what words are not So upon the same Statute was Resolved in 5 Ed. 4. in Keysar's Case in the Kings Bench which see in my Book of Presidents And so the Statutes of Articuli Cleri de Prohibitione regiâ De Circuâ— spâ—cte agitis of 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. c. have alwayes been expounded by the Judges of the Common-Law as was adjudged in Wood's Case Pasch 29 Eliz. So 21 H. 8. cap. 13. See 7 Eliz. Dyâ—r 233. 15 Eliz. Dyer 251. 14 Eliz. Dyer 312. 15 Eliz. Dyâ—r 327. 18 Eliz. Dyer 352 347. 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. 2. Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Warbâ—â—ton Daniel and
Ayd Hill 6 Jacob. Regis Prohibitions Upon Ashwednesday in Feb. 1606. A great Complaint was made by the President of York to the King That the Judges of the Common-Law had in Contempt of the Kings Command last Term granted 50 or 60 Prohibitions out of the Common-Plâ—as to the President and Councel of York after the 6th of February and named 3 in particular 1. Between Bell and Thawptes 2. Another between Snell and Huâ—t 3. And another in an Information of a Riotous Rescue by English Bill by the Attorney-General against Christopher Dickenson one of the Sheriffs of York and others in rescuing one William Watson out of the Custody of the Deputy of one of the Purseyvants of the said Councel who had Arrested the said Watson by force of a Commission of Rebellion by the said President and Councel awarded Which Prohibition upon the Information was as was said denyed upon a Motion in the Kings-Bench the last Term but granted by Us. And the King sent for me to answer the Complaint and I onely all the rest of the Justices being absent waited upon the King who in the presence of Egerton Lord Chancellor and others of the Privy-Councel rehearsed to me the Complaint aforesaid And I perceived well that the King had thereupon conceived great displeasure against the Judges of the Common-Pleas but chiefly against Me To which I having the Copy of the Complaint sent me by the Lord Treasurer answered in this manner That I had made search in the Office of Prothonotaries of the Common-Pleas and as to the Cases between Bell and Thawpts and Snell and Huet no such could be found but I would not take advantage of a Misprisal And the truth was the 6th of February the Court of Common-Pleas had granted a Prohibition to the President and Councel of York between Lock Plaintiff and Bell and others Defendants and that was a Replevin in English was granted by the said President and Councel which I affirmed was utterly against Law for at Common-Law no Replevin ought to be made but by Original Writ directed to the Sheriff and the Statute of Marlbridge cap. 21. and West 1. cap. 17. authorize the Sheriff to make a Replevin So 29 Ed. 3. 21. 8 Eliz. Dyer 245. And the King by his Instructions neither had made the President and Councel Sheriffs nor could grant them Power to make a Replevin against Law which the Lord Chancellor affirmed for very good Law and it may well be we have granted others in the like Case Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between Sir Bethel Knight now Sheriff of the County of York as Executor to one Stephenson who made him and another his Executors and preferred an English Bill against Chambers and others in nature of an Action of the Case upon a Trover and Conversion of Goods and Chattels in the Testators Life to the value of 1000 l. And because the other Executor would not joyn with him he had no remedy at Common-Law but was forced to pray remedy there in Equity And I say 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 or one of the Parties tanta paupertate sunt gravati that they cannot sue at Common-Law and in that Case the Plaintiff was a Knight Sheriff and man of great quality 2. Because by that Suit the King was deceived of his Fine which was 200 l. because the Damages amounted to 4000 l. And that was one of the Causes that the Sheriff began his Suit there and not at Common-Law Another Cause was that their Decrees which they take upon them are final and uncontroulable either by Errour or any other Remedy which is not so in the Kings Courts where there are five Judges for they can deny Justice to none who hath Right nor give any Judgment but what is controulable by Errouâ— 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 Justice And their Ignorance in the Law appeared by allowing that Suit viz. That the one Executor had no Remedy at Common Law because the other would not joyn in Suit with him whereas every one Learnâ—d in the Law knows that Summons and Severance lyeth in any Suit brought as Executors And this was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Another Prohibition I confess we granted between the L. Wharton who by English Bill before the Councel sued Bank S. Buttermere and others for fishing in his several Fishings in Darwent in the County of C. in nature of an Action of Trespass at Common-Law to his Damages of 200 l. and for the Causes before recited and because the same was meerly determinable at Common-Law we granted a Prohibition And that also was allowed by the Lord Chancellor Then the King asked me the Case of Information upon the Riotous Rescous To which I answered 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 owed him nothing yet because he did not deny the Debt the Councel Decreed the same against him And upon that Decree the Pursuyvant was sent to Arrest the said Watson who Arrested him upon which the Rescous was made And because the Action was in the nature of an Action of Dâ—bâ— upon a Mutuatus where the Defendant at Common Law might have waged his Law the Prohibition was granted and that was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Also I affirmed it was Rescous because the principal cause belonged not to them but it might be a Riot yet not punishable by them but by course of Law by a Commission of Oyer and Terminer 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 Process 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 affirmed also by the Lord Chancellor And I said no Court of Equity can be Erected at this day without Act of Parl as was Resolved in Q. Eliz. time in Parots Case and lately in the Case of the President and Councel of Wales And the King was well satisfied with these Reasons who gave me his Royal Hand and I departed from thence in his favour Pasch 7 Jac. Regis This Term a Question was moved at Sergeants Inne who by the Common-Law ought to repair the Bridges common Rivers and Sewers and the High-ways and by what means they shall be compelled to it and first of Bridges And as to them it is to be known that of common right all the Country shall be
or Demise of his Lands Wards c. these are Contracts concerning the Kings Revenues and there it cannot be said that the Subjects sponte se obligant as to purchase any the Revenues of the King 3. It ought to be sponte super considerationem non ex mera gratia benevolentia subditi Hil. 4. Ed. 1. in Scaccario c. 4. It ought to be sponte super considerationem quae non loâ—ge reventionem seu interesse Coronae in any thing which the King hath As if a Subject give the King a Summe of Money for Licence in Mortmain or to create a Tenure of himself to have a Fair Market Park Chase or Warren in his Mannor there the Queen shall have it for the Subject did this sponte And this Resolution was reported to the King by Popham in the Gallery at White-Hall Pasch 5 Jac. Regis The Case of Forests This Term it was informed to the King that great wrongs were done in the Forest of Leicester in the County of Leicester and in his Forest of Bowland in the County of Warwick parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster And upon this by Warrant from the King under his Signet all the Justices were assembled to resolve certain Questions to be moved concerning Forests by the Attorney of the Dutchy and the Councel of the other part which were Forests and Chases Which being matter in Fact the Judges could not give their Resolutions but by way of Directions And it was Resolved 1. That if these are Forests it will appear by matter of Record as by Eyres of Justices of Forests Swannimotes Regardors c. But the calling it a Forest in Grants c. proveth it not a Forest in Law 2. Resolved by all the Justices That if there be no Forests in Law but Free-Chases then who hath any Free-hold in them may cut his Wood growing upon it without view or Licence leaving sufficient for Covert to maintain the Kings Games so a common person having Chace in another Soil the Owner may not destroy the Covert nor Browse-wood 3. Resolved That in such a Chase the Owner by Prescription may have Common for his Sheep and Warren for his Coneys by Grant or Prescription but he must not surcharge or make Burrows in other places than hath been used from the time of which nor may he erect a new Warren without Charter 4. Resolved That who hath such a Warren may lawfully build a Lodge upon his Inheritance for preservation of his Game 5. Popham Chief Justice said That in the time of Chief Baron Bett It was adjudged in the Exchequer That a man may prescribe to cut his Wood upon his own Inheritance within a Forest though it was against the Act in the 43 Ed. 1. See the Abridgement Title Forest 21. And this was the Case of Sellenger vide 2 Ed. 2. Title Trespass fol. 9. in the time of Ed. 1. Trespass 239. â—low Com. Dyer 72. 32. 2 Ed. 4. cap. 7. that the Subject may have a Forest Consuetudo ex rationebili causa usitata privat communem Legem And it was held by some that this was but an Ordinance not an Act of Parliament Pasch 5 Jacobi Regis Case of Conspiracy This Term in the Case between Rice ap Evan ap Floyd Plaintiff and Richard Barker one of the Justices of the Grand Sessions in the County of Anglesey and others Defendants 1. Resolved by Popham and Coke Chief Justices the Chief Baron and Egerton Lord Chancellor and all the Court of Star-Chamber That when a Grand Inquest indicts one of Murder or Felony though the Party be acquitted yet no Conspiracy lyes for him against the Inâ—ictors for they are returned by the Sheriff by Law to make Inquiry of Offences upon their Oath for service of the King and Country and are compellable to serve the Law 10 Eliz. 265. And their Indictment or Verdict is matter of Record and called Verum dictum and shall not be avoided by Surmise and no Attaint lyes And with this agrees the Books in 22 Assise 77. 27 Ass 12. 21 Ed. 3. 17. 16 H. 6. 19. 47 Ed. 3. 17. 27 H. 8. 2. F. N. B. 115. a. But otherwise of a Witness for if he conspire out of the Court and after swear in Court his Oath shall not excuse his Conspiracy before for he is a private person 2. Resolved That when the party indicted is convictd of Felony by another Jury upon Not Guilty pleaded there he shall never have a Writ of Conspiracy But when he is upon his Arraignment Lâ—gitimo modo acquietatus But in the Case at Bar the Grand Jury who Indicted one William Price for the Murther of Hugh ap William the Jury who upon Not Guilty pleaded convicted him were Charged Indicted and Convict in the Star-Chamber which was never seen before For if the party shall not have a Conspiracy against the Indictors when Acquitted a multo fortiori when he is lawful Convict he shall neither charge the Grand Inquest nor Jury that convicted him But when a Jury acquits a Felon or Traytor against manifest Proof there they may be charged in the Star-Chamber ne maleficia remanerent impunita But if such Supposals shall be admitted after ordinary Judicial Proceedings it will be a means ad detrahendos Juratores deterrendos a servitio Regis 3. Resolved That Barker who was Judge of Assize and gave Judgement upon the Verdict of Death against the said W. P. and the Sheriff that executed him nor the Justices of Peace that examined the offender and the Witnesses for proof of the murther before the Indictment were not to be drawn in question in the Star-Chamber for any conspiracy nor ought to be charged there with any conspiracy or elsewhere when the party indicted is convicted or Attaint of murther or Felony And though such person were acquitted yet the Judge c. being by Commission and of Record and sworn to do Justice cannot be charged for conspiracy for that he openly did in Court as Judge Justice of Peace c. but if he hath conspired before out of Court this is extrajudiciall but subordinations of Witnesses and false malicious prosecutions out of Court c. amounts to an unlawfull conspiracy And if Judicial matters of Record which are of so high a nature that for their sublimity they import verity in themselves should be drawn in question by partiall and sinister supposall and averments of offenders there will never be an end of Causes but Controversies will be infinite Et infinitum in jure repâ—obatur 47 Ed. 3. 15. 25. Ed. 4 67. and 27 Ass pl. 12. But in a Hundred Court or other Court which is not of Record there averment may be taken against their proceedings 47 Ed. 3. 15. Also one shall never assign for Error that the Jury gave Verdict for the Defendant and the Court entred it for the Plaintiff c. Vide 1 H. 6 4. 39 H. 6. 52. 7 H. 7. 4. 11 H. 7. 28. 1 Mar. Dyer
more Prohibitions had been granted of late than in many years before To this a Sixfold Answer was made 1. That they had exceedingly multiplyed the number of Causes they in five Counties and three Towns having at one sitting 450 Causes at Hearing whereas the Chancery that extends into all England and Wales had in Easter Term but 95. and in Trinity Term but 72. to be heard So that it is no wonder it in such a Multiplication of Causes the number of Prohibitions be increased 2. Besides the Multiplication they have innovated and taken upon them to deal in Causes which we know never any President could and we think never any President and Councel did usurp As first Suits upon Penal Laws As between Hâ—rison and Thurston upon the 39 of Eliz. of Tillage 2. In Hâ—rtley's Case after Indictment of Forcible Entry and Restitution according to the Statute upon English Bill dispossessed by the President 3. After a Recovery in Ejectione Firmae and Habere facias possessionem out of our Court they upon English Bill dispossessed the Plaintiff this was Hart's Case So in other Cases as between Jacksoâ— and Philips Stanton and Child and Binns and Collâ—t 4. They admit English Bills in nature of Writs of Errour Formedons and other reall Actions 5. They wiâ—l â—dmit no Plea of Outlary in disability of the Plaintiff 6. They usually granted Injunctions to stay the Common-Law which is utterly against Law and som times to stay Suits in Chancery and in the Exchâ—quer Chambâ—r for which in respect as well of the Multiplications of Suits as Innovations of others it may very well be that more Prohibitions and Habeas Corpus have been granted of late than in time past And yet there hath been more granted and more antient than is supposed For which see Mich. 7 Eliz. Rot. 31. and Mich. 7. and 8 Eliz. in libro de Habeas Corpus Also Trin. 20 Eliz. ibid. 3. The Judges never grant either Prohibition or Habeas Corpus but upon Motion or Complaint by the Party grieved and therefore as the Subject hath more cause to complain there must needs be more Prohibitions and Habeas Corpus than heretofore 4. The Proceedings there are by absolute Power and their Decrees uncontrollable and finall more than in a Judgment in a Writ of Right which makes them presume too much upon their Authority 5. These Suits grow more prejudicial to the King than ever because thereby the King loseth his Fines c. 6. Remedy for the time past if the Common-Bench erre Writ of Errour lies in Banco Regis if the Kings-Bench erre a Writ of Errour lyes in the Upper-House of Parliament 7. For the time to come 1. That the Instructions be inrolled in Chancery that the Subject may see and know their Jurisdiction 2. That the Presidents and Councels have some Councel Learned in the Court to inform us judicially of their true Jurisdiction and we will give them a day to shew cause that Justice may be done on both sides and if we erre the Law hath provided a Remedy by Writ of Errour And we are sworn to do Justice to all according to the Laws Upon this Answer of the Judges the Lords of the Councel upon Conference among themselves gave by the Earl of Salisbury then Lord Treasurer this Resolution 1. That the Instructions should be Recorded as far as they concerned Criminal Causes or Causes between Party and Party But as to State-Matters not to be published 2. That both Councels should be within the Survey of Westminster Hall viz. the Courts of Westminster 3. The Motion was well allowed that the Presidents and Councels should have Councel learned in every Court that day might be given c. And concerning the remotenesse of the place the Counties of Cornwall and Devon are more remote then York And this was the end of that Dayes Work Case of Heresy Note 2 Ma. title Heresy Brook per omnes Justiciarios et Baker et Hare The Archbishop in his Province in the Convocation may and doth use to convict Heresy by the Common-Law and then to put them convicted into Lay-hands and then by the Writ de Heretico comburendo they were burnt but because it was troublesome to call a Convocation It was ordained by the Statute 2 H. 4. cap. 15. That every Bishop in his Diocesse might convict Hereticks And if the Sheriff was present he might deliver such to be burnt without the Writ aforesaid but if the Sheriff were absent or he were â—o be burnt in another County then the said Writ ought to be had And that the Common-Law was such Vide lib. intra title Indictment pl. 11. Who are Hereticks See 11 H. 7. Book of Entries fol. 319. See Doct. Stud. lib. 2. cap. 29. Cosin 48. 2. 1 2 P. M. cap. 6. Also 3 F. N. B. fol. 269. And the Writ in the Register proves this directly 4 Bracton l. 3. cap. 9. fol. 123 124. And true it is That every Ordinary may convent any Heretick or Schismatick before him pro salute animae and may degrade him and enjoyn him penance according to Ecclesiastical Law but upon such Conviction the Party shall not be burnt Nota The makers of the Act of 1 Eliz. were in doubt what shall be deemed Heresy or Schisme c. and therefore the Statute of 10 Eliz. provides That nothing shall be deemed Heresy but what had been so determined by one of the four general Councels the Word of God or Parliament See Fox in Ed. 6. and Britton 5 Ed. 1. lib. 1. cap. 17. and with this agrees the Statute 2 H. 5. cap. 7. 23 H. 7. 9. 25 H. 8. cap. 14. or that the proceedings in the Commencement and end was altered by the Statute 25 H. 8. then came the Satute 1 Ed. 6. cap. 12. and that repealed 5 R. 2. 2 H. 5. 26 H. 8. and the 2 H. 4. and by general words all Statutes concerning matter of Religion then the 1 2 P. M. c. 6. revived the 2 H. 4. by which the 25 H. 8. lost its force but by the Act 1 2 P. M. cap. 8. expresly repealing 21 H. 8. 23 H. 8. 24 H. 8. 27 H. 8. but the 25 H. 8. cap. 14. was not repâ—aled being repealed before by 〈◊〉 1 Ed. 6. yet in the end of that long Act there is a general Clause sufficient of it self to repeal the Act 25 H. 8. cap. 14. without more then the 1 Eliz. cap. 1. repeals the 1 and 2 P. and M. is repealed except some Branches and in the same Act it is enacted That all other Statutes repealed by the said Act of Repeal 1 and 2 P. and M. and not in this Act specially revived shall remain repealed But the 25 H. 8. cap. 14. was not particularly revived and therefore remains repealed And after the said Statute 1 Eliz. repeals the Act 1 and 2 P. and M. of reviving of three Acts for punishment of Heresyes so that now at
Kings Bench because no Writ of Error lyes but in Plaint Robert Bankes Case Mich. 6 Jac. Regis Mich. 6 Jac. Rot. 639. Robert Bankes Gent. brought an Action upon the Statute of Winton 13 Ed. 1. against the Inhabitants of the Hundred of Burnham in the County of Bucks and counted that certain misdoers to the Plaintiff unknown at Hitcham the 22d of Nov. 5 Jac. assaulted the Plaintiff and robbed him of 25 l. 3 5. 2 d. ob and that he immediately after the robbery the same 22d of Nov. at Joplow and Maalow the next Towns to Hitcham in the said County made Hâ—e-and Cry c. and after the said Robbery and within 20 dayes before the purchase of the Writ viz. the 19 of Fâ—br Aâ— 5. at Dorney in Com. praed the Plaintiff before Sir William Gâ—rrard Knight then Justice of Peace in the said County and living next the said Hundred being examined upon Oath according to the Statute 27 Elâ—z the Plaintiff upon his Oath said He knew not the Parties who robbed him and since the said Robbery 40 dayes are past and the said Inhabitants of Burnham have not made him any amends nor the Bodies of the Felons or any of them have taken but suffered them to escape to which the Defendants plead Not Guiley and Vâ— fa. was awarded de vicineto c. And the Jury gave a special Verdict and found that the Plaintiff was robbed and made Hue-and-Cry as aforesaid and found over That the Plaintiff was sworn before Sir William Gerrard as aforesaid and said upon his Oath in these English words viz. That he on Thursday the 22 d. of Nov. 1604. riding under Hitcham wood c. was then and there set upoâ— by Horsemen which he knew not and robbed of 25 l. 3 s. 2 d. ob but whether the said Oath so taken be true according to the said Statute 27 Eliz. the Jurors pray the direction of the Court. Mouses Case Mich. 6 Jac. Regis In an Action of Trespass brought by Mouse for a Casket and 113 l. taken and carryed away the Case was the Ferryman of Gravesend took 47 Passengers into his Barge to pass to London and Mouse was one of them the Barge being upon the Water a great Tempest happened so that the Barge and all the Passengers were in danger to be drowned if a Hogshead of Wine and other pouderous things were not cast out And it was Resolved per totam Curiam That in a case of necessity for saving the Lives of the Passengers it was lawful to the Defendant being a Passenger to cast the Plaintiff's Casket out of the Barge with what was in it for quod quis ob tutelam corporis sui fecerit jure id fecissâ— videtur Upon the special matter pleaded and Reply De injuria sua propria absque tali causa the first day of this Term the Issue being tryed and it was proved directly That the Men had been drowned if the things had not been cast out The Plaintiff was Non-sult Resolved also That though when the Ferry-man surcharge the Barge yet to save the Passengers Lives in such a Necessity it is lawful for the Passengers to cast the things out of the Barge yet the Owners shall have their Remedy upon the surchage against the Ferry-man but if there was no surcharge but the danger came by the Act of God then every one must bear his own losse for Interest Râ—ipub quod homines conserventur â— Ed. 4. 23. Bull. c. 12 H. 8. 15. 28 H. 8. Dyer 36. Mich. 5. Jac. Regis Prohibitions del Roy. Noâ—e On Sunday the 10. of Nov. in this Term the King upon Complaint made by Bancroft Arch-Bishop of Canterbury concerning Prohibitions the King was informed That when Question was made of what matters the Ecclesiastical Judges have Cognâ—zance c. in any Case in which there is not express Authority in Law the King himself may decide in his Royal Person the Judges being but his Delegates c. And the Arch-Bishop said this was clear in Divinity To which it was answered by Mee in the presence and with the clear Consent of all the Justices of England and Barons of the Exchequer that the King in his own person cannot adjudge any Case either Criminal as Treason c. or betwixt party and party concerning Inheritance Goods c. But it ought to be determined in some Court of Justice according to the Law and Custome of England and all Judgments are given Ideo consideratum est per Curium And the King hath his Court in the Upper House of Parliament in which he with his Lords is the Supream Judge over all Judges And in this respect the King is called Chief Justice 20 H. 7. 7. a. by â—rudnel and it appears in our Bookes 2 R. 3. 9. 21 H. 7. 8. that that the King may sit in the Star-Chamber but this was onely to consult not in judicio So in the Kings-Bench but the Court gives Judgment And 't is commonly said in our Books the King is alwayes present in Court and therefore he cannot be Non-suit And it appears by the Acts of Parliament 2 Ed. 3. c. 9. 2 Ed. 3. c. 1. That neither by the Great Seal nor by the little Seal Justice shall be delayed ergo The King cannot take any Cause out of any of his Courts and give Judgment upon it but in his own Cause he may stay it as appears 11 H. 4. 8. And the Judges informed the King that no King after the Conquest ever assumed to himself to give Judgment in any Cause whatsoever which concerned the Administration of Justice within the Realm 17 H. 6. 14. 39 Ed. 3. 14. the King cannot Arrest any man 1 H. 7. 4. Hussey chief Justice Reports being Attorney to Ed. 4. That Sir John Markham chief Justice said to Ed. 4. That the King cannot Arrest a man for suspition of Treason or Felony as his other Leiges may And it was greatly marvailed That the Archbishop durst inform the King that such absolute Power as aforesaid belonged to him by the Word of God Vide 4 H. 4. cap. 22. Westm 2. cap. 5. vide le stat de Marlbridge cap. 1. stat de Magn. Chart. cap. 29. 25 Ed. 3. c. 5. 43 Ed. 3. c. 3. 28 Ed. 3. c. 3. 37 Ed. 3. c. 18. vide 17 R. 2. ex Rotulis Parliamenti in Turri act 10. A controversy of Land between Parties was heard by the King and Sentence given which was repealed because it did belong to the Common Law Then the King said That the Law was grounded upon Reason and that He and Others had reason as well as the Judges To which it was answered by Me That true it was God had endued his Majesty with excellent Science but his Majesty was not learned in the Laws of England and Causes which concern the Life or Inheritance or Goods of his Subjects which are not to be decided by natural Reason but artificial Reason and Judgment of Law which
Mulier Vide 29 Ass pl. 14. b. Eliz. Dyer 226. 228. If the issue be Quod vacavit pâ—r resignationem part of which is Spiritual part Temporal this shall be tryed per paiis vide 9 H. 7. But admission and in iâ—ution though it be alledged in a stranger to the Writ yet this shall be tryed by the Ordinary as appears 7 Ed. 6. 78. 6. in Dyer similia 2. To the second answered and resolved That if upon Consultation with men learned in the Law they give Sentence according to Law this is well done and no Prohibition ought to granted but if they draw the interest of any man ad alîud examen there Prohibition lyes And in the Case at the Barr they well resolved the Law for by the said Livery of the Charter the Tythes do not pass as in gross because the intention of Parties was to pass the entire Rectory by the Feoffment and to pass the Tythes and so dismember the Rectory 3. As to the third Resolved That by the Ecclesiastical Law a stranger may come in pro interesse suo and when they have Jurisdiction of the Original cause of a Suite we ought not to question their proceeding unless they proceed inverso ordine and this ought to be redressed by appeal 4. As to the fourth Resolved That such a surmise That he hath but one Witness is not sufficient to have a Prohibition because the Court Ecclesiastical hath jurisdiction of the Principle And if such surmise shall be sufficient all Suits in the Ecclesiastical Court shall be delayed or quite taken away for such surmise may be made in every Case It was Resolved upon Evidence by Coke chief Justice de Banco inter J. S. who informed upon the Statute of Usury and Smith that the Parties to the supposed Usurious Contract shall not be admitted Witnesses because upon the matter they were Testes in propria causa High-Commissioners Trin. 8 Jacobi Regis Upon a Ha. Cor. by Eliz. Lady Throgmorton Prisoner in the Fleet the Return was The Lady Throgmorton was committed by George Bishop of London and other Ecclesiastical Commissioners till further Order should be taken for her enlargement And the Cause of Commitment was That she had done many evil Offices between Sir James Scudamore and her Daughter the Lady Scudamore Sir James his Wife to make separation between them and detained her from her Husband and upon her Departure after Sentence for Contemptuous words against the Court saying She had neither Law nor Justice And it was Resolved 1. That for detaining the Wife and endeavouring to make separation no Suit can be before the High-Commissioners 2. For detaining the Wife there is remedy by the Common Law 3. That for such an Offence they cannot imprison the Wife 4. It doth not appear that the words were spoken in Court Secondly It is no Court of Record because they proceed according to the Civil Law so the Admiralty Courte and none can be committed for misdemeanor in Court unless the Court be of Record 5. It doth not appear by the Return what that Court was which is uncertain and upon this upon good Consideration she was Bayled But Randall and Hickins were this Term committed by the High-Commissioners because they were vehemently suspected for Brownists And they obtained a Hâ—beas Corpus and were remanded for this that the High-Commissioners have Power to commit for Heresy See my Treatise of the High-Commissioners Power The Lord Aburgavennye's Case In the Parliament a Question was moved by the Lord of Northampton Lord Privy-Seal in the Upper-House That one Edward Nevill Father of Edward Nevill Lord of Aburgavenny which now is in the 2 and 3 of Queen Mary was called by Writ to Parliament and died before the Parliament If he was a Baron or no and so ought to be named was the Question And it was Resolved by the Lord Chancellor the two chief Justices chief Baron and divers other Justices there present That the direction and delivery of the Writ did not make a Baron or Noble untill he did come to the Parliament and then sit according to the Commandment of the Writ for untill that the Writ did not take its effect And in the 35 H. 6. and other Books he is called a Peer of Parliament which he cannot be untill he sit in Parliament which cannot be before the Parliament begin And the Command of the King by such his Writ may by his Supersedeas be countermanded or else the said Edward might have excused himself or waved it or submitted to his Fines And when one is called by Writ to Parliament the Order is That he be apparelled in his Parliament Robes and his Writ is openly read in the Upper-House and he brought into his place by Two Lords of Parliament and then he is adjudged in Law Inter pares Regni ut cum olim Senatores censâ— eligebantur sic Barones apud nos habiti fuerint qui per integram Baroniam terras suas tenebant sive 13. feoda militum et tertiâ—m partem unius Feodi militis quolibet Feodo computo ad 20 l. c. So that by this appears That every one who hath an entire Barony may have of right a Writ to be summoned to Parliament and with this agree our Books una voce That none can siâ— in Parliament as Peer of the Realm without matter of Record 35 H. 6. 46. 48 Ed. 3. 30. b. 48 Ass pl. 6. 22 Ass pl 2 4. Register 287. but now none can be summoned to Parliament by Writ without the Kings Warrant under the Privy-Seal at least But if the King create any Baron by Letters Patents under the Great-Seal to him and his Heirs or to him and to his Heirs of his Body or for life c. there he is a Nobleman presently and he ought to have a Writ of Summons to Parliament of Course and shall be tryed by his Peers if c. Richard the Second created John Beauchampe of Holt Baron of Kidderminster by Letters Patents dated 10. Octob. eleventh year of his Reign where all others before him were created by Writ Trin. 8 Jac. Regis Oldfield and Gerlins Case In this Term Thomas Oldfield came out of the Dutchy Court and before he came into Westminster-Hall with a Knife stabbed one Ferraâ— a Justice of Peace of which he dyed And if Oldfield should have his right hand cut off was the question before the two Chief Justices chief Baron Walmesly Warberton Foster and divers other Justices And it was Resolved No for it ought to be in Westminster-Hall Sedentibus Curiis as appears 3 Eliz. Dyer 188. 41 Ed. 3. Title Coron 280. And a President was shewn An. 9 Eliz. in Banke le Roy where one Robert Gerlin smote one in White-hall sitting in the Court of Requests and was Fined and Ransomed But if one smite another before the Justices of Assize there his right hand shall be cut off as appears 22 Ed. 3. fol. 13. 19 Ed. 3. Title Judgment And
of the Perjury by all the Lords in the Star-Chamber and it was Resolved by all That it was by the Common-Law punishable before any Statute Hayes Case in Cur-Wardorum By Inquisition in the County of Middlesex Anno 6 Jac. by vertue of a diem clausit extremum after the death of Humphry Willward it was found that the said Humphry died seized of a Messuage and 26 Acres of Land in Stepney and that John Willward was his Heir being 14 years and 9 days old and that the Land was held of the King in capite by Knights Service John Willward died within age and by Inquisition in Middlesex 8 Jun. Anno Jac. by vertue of a Writ of Deveneront after the said John's death it was found that John dyed seized in Ward to the King and that the said Messuage and Lands at the time of the said John's death were holden of the Dean of Pauls as of his Mannor of Shadwel All the mean Rates incurred in John's life-time are paid to the King 1. The Questions are 1. Whether by John's death and finding of the mean Tenure in the Deveneront the fiâ—st Office granted to Points be determined 2. Whether the Tenure found by the first Office may be traversed And as to these Questions it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and chief Baron That where the said John dyed the Office found by force of the Diem clausit extremum after Humphries death whereby the King was entituled to the Guardianship of John hath taken its effect and is executed and does remain as Evidence for the King after Johns death but yet is not traversable for it is traversable during the time it remains in force onely and the Jurors upon the Deveneront after the death of the said John are at liberty to find the certainty of the Tenure and they are not concluded by the first Inquisition and with this agrees 1 H. 4. 68. And this appears by the diversity between the Writ of Diem clausit extremum and the Deveneront which is but in one Point to wit the Diem clausit extremum is general And the Deveneront is not general but does restrain onely the Lands and Tenements quod deveneront c. And thus it was Resolved nono Jacobi in the Court of Wards in the Case of Dune Lewis Award of Capias Uâ—lagatum by Justices of the Peace In this same Term the Opinion of all the Court of Common-Pleus was That if one be out-lawed before Justices of Assize or Justices of Peace upon an Indictment of Felony that they may award a Capias Utlagatum and so was the Opinion of Pâ—riam Chief Baron and all the Court of Exchequer as to Justices of Peace for they that have power to award process of Outlawry have also power to award a Capias utlagatum See 34 H. 8. c. 14. See Lamb. Justice of Peace fol. 503. contra But see 1 Ed. 6. cap. 1. Justices of Peace in case of Profanation of the Sacrament shall award a Capias Utlagatum throughout all England Hersey's Case Star-Chamber John Hersey Gent exhibited his Bill in the Star-chamber against Anthony Barker Knight Thomas Barker Councellor at Law Robert Wright Doctor of Divinity Ravenscroft Clerk and John Hai is and thereby charged the Defendants with forging the Will of one Margery Pain and the Cause came to Hearing ad requisitionem defendentium and upon hearing the Plaintiffs Councel there appeared no Presumption against any of the Defendants but that the Testament was duly proved in the Ecclesiastical Court and upon an Appeal was also affirmed before Commissioners Delegates and Decreed also in Chancery So that it appeared to the Court that the said Bill was preferred of meer malice to slander the Defendants Now because the Defendants had no Remedy at Law for the said Slander and if it should pass unpunished it may encourage men It was Resolved by the Court That by the course of the Court and according to former Presidents the Court may give Damages to the Defendants and so it was done viz. 200 l. to the Doctor of Divinity 200 Marks to the Knight 40 l. to the Clerk 120 l. to the Woman And it was said that Creare ex ihilo quando bonum est est divinum sed creare aliquid ex nihilo quando est malum est diabolicum et plus Maledicite nocâ—nt quam Benedicite docent Hill 2 Jac. Regis Theodore Tomlinson brought an Action of account for Goods against one Philips in the Common Pleas and thereupon Philips sued Tomlinson in the Admiralty supposing the Goods to have been received in Forraign Parts beyond Sea and Tomlinson being committed for refusing to answer upon his Oath to some Interrogatories brought his Habeas Corpus Upon which it was resolved by the Court of Common plea in thrâ—e Points viz. 1. That the Court of Admiralty hath no Cognizance of things done beyond Sea and this appears plainly by the Statute 13 R. 2. cap. 5. and the 19 H 6. fol. 7. 2. That the Proceedings in the Court of Admiralty are according to the Civil Law and therefore the Court is not of Record and so cannot assess a Fine as the Judges of a Court of Record may 3. It doth appear that the Interrogatories were of such things as were within their Jurisdiction and the Parry ought by Law to answer This Case was intended by my Lord Coke to be inserted into his 7th Report but that the King commanded it should not be Printed but the Judges resolved ut supra Corven's Case Right to Sâ—ats in the Church Corven did Libel against Pym for a Seat in a Church in Dâ—vonshire And Pym by Sergeant Hutton moved for a Prohibition upon this Reason that himself is seized of a House in the said Parish and that he and all whose Estates he hath in the House have had a Seat in an Isle of the Church And it was Resolved by the Court that if a Lord of a Mannor or other Person who hath his House and Land in the Parish time out of mind and had a Seat in an Isle of the same Church so that the Isle is proper to his Family and have maintained it at their Charges that if the Bishop would dispossess him he shall have a Prohibition But for a Seat in the Body of the Church iâ— a Question ariseth it is to be decided by the Ordinary because the Freehold is to the Parson and is common to all the Inhabitants And it is to be presumed that the Ordinary who hath Cure of Soules will take Order in such Cases according to right and conveniency and with this agrees 8 H. 7. 12. And the Chief Justice Dame Wick her Case 9 H. 4. 14. which was The Lady brought a Bill in the Kings-Bench against a Parson Quare Tunicam unam vocatam A Coat Armor and Pennons with her Husband Sir Hugh Wick his Arms and a Sword in a Chappel where he was buried and the Parson claimed them as Oblations And it is there
in the Court for such cause And the King would know their Opinions The Judges took time till this Term and then Fleming Chief Justice Tanfield Chief Baron Saig Altham Crook Bromley and Dodderidge Yelverton and Williams Justices being dead since last Term did deliver their Opinions to the Lord Chancellor That the Presidents of each Court are sufficient Warrant for their Proceedings in the same Court and for a long time and in many Successions of Reverend Judges Prohibitions upon Information without any other Plea pending have been granted Issues tryed Verdicts and Judgments given upon Demurrer All which being in force they unanimously agreed to give no Opinion against the Jurisdiction of the Common-Bench in this Case See my Treatise of the Jurisdiction of the Common-Bench in this Point Hill 10 Jac. Regis Parliament in Ireland The Lords of the Councel did write to the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron to look into Poynings Act made 10 H. 7. in Ireland and to consider thereof and certifie what shall be fit to be held concerning the same their Letter bore date Ultimo Janii 1612. Upon which in this Term the said Chief Justices Chief Baron Attorney and Sollicitor General were assembled two days at Sergeants Inne And they considered not onely of the said Act 10 H. 7. c. 4. called Poynings Act but also of an Act made in Ireland 3 4 P. M. c. 4. Entituled An Act declaring how Poynings Act shall be expounded and taken for by the said Act 10 H. 7. it is provided That no Parliament be hereafter holden in Ireland but when the Kings Lieutenant and Councell there first certifie the King under the Great Seal of that Land the causes c. and such causes c. affirmed by the King and his Councel to be good and expedient for the Land and his Licence thereupon c. A Parliament to be holden after the former before c. And any Parliament holden contrary c. to be void in Law Upon which Act divers Doubts were conceived 1. And first Whether the said Act 10 H. 7. does extend to the Successors of H. 7. the Act speaking onely of the King generally and not his Successors 2. If the Queen Mary were within the word King and both were held affirmatively for the word King being spoke indefinitely does extend in Law to all his Successors And this is so expounded by the Act 3 and 4 P. and M. viz. That the said Act 10 H. 7. shall extend to the King and Queens Majesty her Heirs and Successors Secondly where Povnings Act sayes the Kings Lieutenant and Councel the said Act 3 and 4 P. and M. explains it to extend to all other Officers the King shall Depute by what Name soever 3. The greatest Doubt was upon these words of Poynings Act And such Causes Considerations and Acts affirmed by the King and his Councel to be good and expedient for the Land c. Whether the King may make any change or alteration of the Causes c. which shall be transmitted hither from the Lieutenant and Councel of Ireland for that it is not affirmative but correction and alteration of them and therefore it was necessary to explain that the Act 3 and 4 P. and M. was in these words Either for the passing of the said Acts and in such form and tenor as they should be sent into England or else for the change or alteration of them or any part of them 4. Another Doubt arose from these words That dâ—ne a Parliament to be had If at the same Parl. other Acts which have been affirmed or altered here may be Enacted there which is explained by the said last Act in these words viz. For passing and agreeing upon such Acts and no others as shall be returned c. 5. A fifth Doubt arose from the same words Whether the Lieutenant and Councel of Ireland after the Parliament begun and pendente Parliamento may upon debate there transmit any other Considerations c. the which said Act 3 and 4 P. and M. is by express words explained they may And it was unanimously Resolved That the Causes Considerations and Acts transmitted hither under the Great Seal of Ireland ought to be kept in the Chancery in England and not be remanded 2. Iâ— they be affirmed they must be transcribed under the Great Seâ—l and so returned into Ireland 3. If the Acts transmitted hither be in any part altered or changed here the Act so altered must forthwith be returned under the Great Seal of England for the Transcript under the Irish Great Seal to remain in Chancery here shall not be amended but the Amendment shall be under the English Great Seal See 10 H. 6. 8. which begins Mich. 18 H. 6. Rot. 46. coram Rege how a Parliament was holden there before Poynings Act. See also another Act made in Ireland the same 10 H. 7. c. 22. vide R. 3. 12. Hibernia habet Parliamenta faciunt leges nostra statuta non ligant â—os quia non mittunt milites ad Parliamentum sed personae coâ—um sunt subjecti Regis sicut inhabitantâ—s Calinae Gascogniae Guienae But question is made of this in some of our Books vid. 20 H. 6. 8. 32 H 6 25. 1 H. 7. 3. 8 H. 7. 10. 8 R. 2. Precess 204. 13 Ed. 2. Tit. Bastard 11 H. 47. 7 Ed. 4. 27. Plow Comment 368. 13 Eliz. Dyer 35. 2 Eliz. Dyer 366. Calvins Case 7th of my Reports 226. 14 Ed. 3. 184. A Prâ—bend in England made Bishop of Dublin in Ireland his Prebendary is voâ—d See the Sâ—atute of Ireland c. That the Acts of Parliament made in England since the 10 H. 7. do not hind them in Ireland but all made in England before the 10 H. 7. by the Act made in Ireland 10 H. 7. c. 22. do bind them in Ireland Note Cambden King at Arms told me that some held if a Baron dyes having Issue divers Daughters the King confer the Dignity to him who marryes any of them as hath been done in divers Cases viz. In the case of the Lord Cromwel who had Issue divers Daughters And the King did confer the Dignity upon Burchier who marryed the youngest Daughter and he was called Cromwel and so in other Cases Note by Linwood it appears by the Canons Ecclesiastick none may exercise Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction unless he be within the Orders of the Church because none may pronounce Excommunication but a Spiritual Person But now by the 37 H. 8. c. 17. a Doctor of Law or Register though a Lay-man may execute Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction No Ecclesiastical may cite a Church-Warden to the Court but so as he may return home the same day Also the Canons limit how many Courts Ex Officio they may have in a year Mich. 11 Jac. Regis Note If a man give to one of his Children a certain sum in his life and after dyes though this is not given as a Child 's full Portion yet it
Helenam ideo ipsi c. Out of which Record these things are to be observed 1. Though it is Enacted by the Stat. West 2. cap. 21. That in this Case Justiciarii c. puniant appellatorem per prisonam unius Anni c. so that they were not Bailable yet quia eadem Helena praegnans fuit in periculo mortis she was let to Bayl to have her Body 15 Mich. ad satisfaciendum praedicto Laurentio et aliis c. And the Reason of this is because the Common-Law requires in every Case conveniency and it is inconvenient a Woman with Child should remain in Common-Gaol And the Judges of the Common-Law ought to know what the Moral Poet spoke Redâ—ere personae sit convenientia cuique and agrees with Advice of Bracton lib. 2. cap. 2. 2. That the Defendants recover their Damages either wholly against the Principle or wholly against the Abettors and with this agrees Ed. 4. 3. 3. Though the Statute saith Restituant Appellatores damna c. yet the Damages shall be singulatim assessed for as the Defamation of one may be greater than another so the Damages of one may be greater than another 4. Though the Appellor be not sufficient to pay yet his body shall be taken ad satisfaciendum Quia qui non habet in aere luat in corpore 5. Though the Jurors in the Appeal have found the Defendants Abettors yet insomuch as they are strangers to the Original they shal not be concluded Quia res inter alios actae alteri nocere non debent Vide the Book of Entries Title Appeal Divisione Damages 1 2. Vide Placita coram rege apud Ebor. in Crast Sancti Trin. 7 Ed. 3. 44. Divisione Indictments are very well worth observing Duresse per Gaoler See there divers sorts of Presentments as of Wollingover John Alnner Thomas Ballivus de Flaxwel Laughton Thomas de Mandon Ballivus de Boby of Grafton Thomas Carleton Under-Sheriff of the County of Lincoln and Hugo de Baxter c. False Affidavits In an Action suâ—le case it was Resolved per totam Curiam That iâ— a Sumner return one certified upon his Oath in Court-Christian where in truth he was not and thereon he is pronounced contumax and so becometh excommunicate he shall have his Action sur le case for here is damaum et injuria And it was Resolved That Perjury by which Damages do accrew may be punished as a Misuemeanour at the Suit of the King and also the Party may have his Action upon the Case for Perjury may not be committed with Impunity And for that Reason If Jurors themselves use Perjury an Attaint â—yes by the Common-Law as appears by Glanvil lib. 2. cap. 29. 15 H. 8. Title Attaint 75. 6 H. 3. ibid. 73 75. and in the time of Ed. 1. â—ttaint 70. West 1 cap. 38. Vide F. N. B. 109 Vid. 27 H. 6. 25. In like manner it was agreed That if one make a false Affidavit by which the Party is Arrested with Process of Contempt he may have an Actioâ— sur le case and recover Damage And though the Court-Christian may punish pro salute animae yet they cannot award Damages to he party And though the matter be meerly Ecclesiastical yet if the Party grieved hath Damages either by wrongful Proceedings of the Judge or Mâ—sfeasans or Nonfeasans or falsity of any Minister c. the Party grieved may have an Action sur le câ—se and recover Damages Doctor and Stud. 118 119. Action sur le Case lyes against the Ordinary for a wrongful Excommunication touching any thing out of his Jurisdiction c. So in Fitz. 47 H. 6. 8. If an Arch-Deacon refuse to induct the Clerk c. he shall have Action sur le case Which was affirmed for good Law by all the Court with which agrees 26 H. 8. 3. a. If a man proceed against a Prohibition the Party may have an Action upon the Case against him for prosecuting in Court-Christian Vid. Trin. 20 Ed. 3. Rot. 46. in the Treasury Richard Tresil's Case So the like Pasch 13 Ed. 3. Rot. 78. Philip de Harâ—eshals Case Hill 32 Ed. 3. Rot. 78. and Trin. 37 Ed. 1. and Mich. 29 Ed. 3. Rot. 19. similiter and divers other Records you may have See in my Book of Presidents Pasch 14 Jac. Regis An Habeas Corpus to the Marshal of the Admiralty granted in Hillary Term last past for Haukridge Prisoner in the custody of the said Marshal who did return Quaedâ—m causa spolii c. contra Haukridge pendet indecisa pro judicio sententia paratus c. Qui quidem Will Haukridge remanet donec antedict causa per praefat Daniel Dun suerit hoc est causa And also upon another Habeas Corpus he made such a Return and otherwise Parata sit c. Which the Court took to be very insufficient and gave divers days to amend the Return and to shew the cause of Delay and why Sentence was not given and the Marshal would not amend his Return Upon which the Party being in Prison 16 or 18 Weekes always the Return was est parata c. And after in another Writ returnable Crast Ascentionis was another Return of Parata c. without shewing cause of Delay The Return also was insufficient because Quaedam causa spolii civilis maritima quae coram c. which is too general for two Causes 1. Because spolii is uncertain and ought to be specified in some more certainty besides it shews not the value of the Goods 2. That Maritima est super littus or in portu maris and yet the Admiral hath not Jurisdiction Super littus maris or in portu because they are infra corpus comitat And so it was adjudged in Lacies Case Dyer 15 Eliz. the Abbot of Ransey's Case 15 Eliz. Dyer fol. 236. Pasch 17 Eliz. in Scaccar ac contra Digges for which cause he ought to have said Super altum mare intra Jurisdictionem Admiralli See the Stat. 13 R. 2. c. 5. 2 H. 4. c. 11 19 H. 6. 7. For the first all the Court Resolved that it was insufficient also there was shewn no time of the spoyl And for this in the same Term the said Haukridge was bailed in open Court till the next Term according to the Books 6 H. 6. 44. 28 H. 8. c. 15. Note It was said by some That when Judgment is given that one shall be hanged till he be dead the King cannot alter the Judgment and command that he shall be beheaded for the Execution ought to be conform to the Judgment and with this accords 35 H. 6. fol 58. and Stamf. lib. 1. fol. 13. Vide 27 Ass pl. 41. F. N. B. 144. 22 Ass pl. 49. Duke of Somersets Case and the Lord Sturtons Case in Queen Mary's time and the Lord Datres his Case in H. 8. both which were hanged for Felony It was Resolved also That King H. 8. could not by
positivi Juris est And he holds that a Portion is due by the Law of Nature which is the Law of God but it pertains to the Law of Man to assign Hane vâ—l illam portionem And saith further That Tythes may be exchanged into Lands Annuity or Rent c. And also that in Italy and other the East-Countries they pay not Tythes but a certain Portion according to the Custom And forasmuch as the Tenth Part is now due Ex Institutione Ecclâ—â—â—ae that is by their Canons and it appears by 25 H. 8. cap. 19. That all Canons c. made against the King's Prerogative c. are void and that Law was but Declaratory for no Statute or Custome of the Realm can be abrogated by any Cannon c. and that well appeareth by 10 H. 7. fol. 17. cap. 18. The second Point which agrees with the Law at this day which was adjudged in the said Record 25 H. 3. is That the Limits and Bounds of Towns and Parishes shall be trayed by the Common-Law and not by the Spirituall Court And in this the Law hath great Reason for thereupon depends the Title of Inheritance of the Layfee whereof the Tythes were demanded for Fines and Recoveries are the common Assurances of Lay-Inheritances and if the Spiritual Court should try the Bounds of Towns if they determine that my Land lyeth in another Town than is contained in my Fine Recovery or other Assurance I am in danger to lose my Inheritance and therewith agrees 39 Ed. 3. 29. 5 H. 5. 10. 32 Ed. 4. Consultation 3 Ed. 4. 14. 19 H. 6. 20. 50 Ed. 3. 20. and many other Presidents to this day And Note There is a Rule in Law that when the Right of Tythes shall be tryed in the Spiritual Court and the Spiritual Court hath Jurisdiction of the same that our Courts shall be oâ—sted of the Jurisdiction 35 H. 6. 47. 38 H. 6. 21. 2 Ed. 4. 15. 22 Ed. 4. 13. 38 Ed. 3. 36. 14 H. 7. 17. 13 H. 2. Jurisâ— 19 and when not ousted 12 H. 2. Jurisdiction 17. 13 â— 2. ibid. 19. 7 H. 4. 34. 14 H. 4. 17. 38 Ed. 3. 56. 42 Ed 3. 12. And the Causes why the Judges of the Common-Law would not permit the Ecclesiastical Judges to try Modum Decimandi being pleaded in their Court is because that if the Recompence which is to be given to the Parson in satisfaction of his Tythes doth not amount to the value of his Tythes in kind they would overthrow the same And that appears by Linwood among the Constitutions Simonis Mepham tit de Decimis cap. Quoniam propter fol. 139. b. verbo Consuetudines And that is the true Reason and therefore a Prohibition lyes and therewith agrees 8 Ed. 4. 14. and the other Books aforesaid and infinite Presidents See 7 Ed. 6. Dyer 79. and 18 Eliz. Dyer 349. the Opinion of all the Justices Mich. 6 Jacobi Regis In the Exchequer Baron and Boyse Case In the Case between Baron and Boys in Information upon the Stat. 5 Ed. 6. cap. 14. of Ingrossers after Verdict it was found for the Informer that the Defendant had ingrossed Apples against the said Act. The Barons held clearly that Apples were not within the Act and gave Judgment against the Informer upon the matter apparent to them and caused the same to be entred in the Margin of the Record where the Judgment was given The Informer brought a Writ of Errour in the Exchequer Chamber and the onely Question was Whether Apples were within the said Act. The Letter of which is viz. That whatsoever person c. shall ingross or get into his or her hands by buyiâ—â— c. any Corn growing or other Corn or Grain Butter Cheese Fish or other dead Victuall c. to sell the same again shall be accepted c. an unlawsul Ingrosser And though the Sâ—at 2 Ed. 6. 6. 15. numbreth Butchers Brewers Bakers Cooks Coster Mongers and Fruiterers as Victuallers yet Apples are not dead Victuals within the 5 Ed. 6. there being no Provisoe for Coster-mongers and Fruiterers in the said Act as there are for Buyers and Sellers of Corn and other Victualâ— Also ever since the Act they have bought Apples by Ingross and sold them again and yet no Information was ever before this for the same being for Delicacy more than necessary Food But the Stat. 5 Ed. 6. is intended of things necessary for sustenance of man where the Statute of 2 Edward the 6. 15. made against Conspiracies to enhance the Prices was done by express words to extend it to things which are more of pleasure than profit But this was not resolved by the Justices because the Information was conceived upon that Branch of the Statute concerning Ingrossers Hill 27 Eliz. in Chancery Hill 27 Eliz. In Chancery the Case was thus Ninian Menvil seized of certain Lands in Fee took a Wife and levyed a Fine of the said Lands with Proclamations and afterwards was indicted and outlawed of High-Treason and dyed The Conusees convey the Land to the Queen who is now seized The five years pass after the Husband's death the Daughters and Heirs of the said Ninian in a Writ of Errour in the Kings-Bench reverse the said Attainder M. 26 and 27 Eliz. and thereupon the Wife sues to the Queen by Petition containing all the special matter Which Petition being indorsed by the Queen Fait droit aux Parties c. the same was sent into Chancery as the manner is And in this Case divers Objections were made against the Demandant 1. That the Fine with Proclamations should bar the Wife of Dower and the Attainder of her Husband should not help her for as long as that remained in force the same was a Bar also of her Dower But admit the Attainder of the Husband shall avail the Wife the same being reversed by a Writ of Errour and so in Judgment of Law as if it had never been and against which a man might plead there is no such Record agreeing with the Book 4 H. 7. 11. and the Case in 4 H. 7. 10. b. is A. seized of Land in Fee was Attaint of Hâ—gh-Treason The King grants the Land to B. and afterwards A. committed Trespass upon the Land and after by Paâ—l A. was restored and the Attainder void This shall be as auciplable and ample to A. as if no Attainder had been Afterwards B. brinâ—s Trespass for the Trespass Mesne and it was adjudged 10 H. 7. f. 22. b. that the Action of Trespass was not maintainable because the Attainder was annulled ab initio 2. It was objected That the Wife could not have a Petition because there was not any Officâ— by which her Title of Dower was sound viz. her Marriage her Husbands Seizin and Death for it was said that though he was marryed yet if her Husband was not seized after the Age that she is Dowable she shall not have Dower And the Title of him that sueth by Petition ought to be
found by Office as appears by the Books 11 H. 4. 52. Ass 31. 30. Ass 28. 46 Ed. 3. bre 618. 9 H. 7. 24. c. 1 As to the first it was Resolved That the Wife should be endowed and that the Fine with Proclamations was not a Bar to her and yet it was Resolved That the Act 4 H. 7. c. 24. shall barre a Woman of her Dower by such a Fine if the Woman bring not her Writ of Dower within five years after the Husbands death as was adjudged Hill 4 H. 8. Rot. 344. in the Common-Pleas and 5 Eliz Dyer 224. For by the Act the Title of Feâ—e-Covert iâ— saved by taking Action in 5 years after she is uncovert c. But it was Râ—solved That the Wife was not to be aâ—dâ—d by that saving for in respect of her Husbands Attainder she had not any Right of Dower at his death nor could sue for the same after his death But it was Resolved That the Wife was to be aided by another former saving in the same Act viz. And saving to all other persons viz. who were not Parties to the Fine such Action Right c. as shall first grow or come c. to them after the Fine ingrossed and Proclamations made by force of any Gift in Tail or other Cause or Matter before the Fine levyed so that they take their Action and pursue their Title within 5 years after such Right come to them c. And in this Case the Action and Right of Dower accrewed to the Wife after the Reversal of the Attainder by reason of a Title of Record before the Fine by reason of the Seizin in Fee had and Marriage made before the Fine levyed according to the meaning of the said Act. And as to the Point of Relation it was Resolved That sometimes by construction of Law a thing shall relate ab initio to some intent and to some not for relatio est fictio Juris to do a thing which was and had essence to be adnulled ab initio betwixt the same Parties to advance a Right but not to advance a Wrong which the Law hates or to defeat Collateral Acts which are lawful and chiefly if they concern Strangers for true it is as hath been said that as to the mean profits the same shall have relation by construction of Law till the time of the first Judgment given and that is to favour Justice and advance his Right that hath Wrong by the Erroneous Judgment But if a Stranger hath done a Trespass upon the Land in the mean time he who recovereth after the Reversal shall have an Action of Trespass against the Trespassors and if the Defendant pleads there is to such Record the Plaintiff shall shew the Special Matter and maintain his Action And for the better apprehending the Law on this Point it is to know That when any man recovers any Possession or Seizin of Land in any Action by Erroneous Judgment and afterwards the Judgment is reversed as is said before and thereupon the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall have a Writ of Restitution and that Writ reciâ—es the first recovery and the Reversal of it in the Writ of Errour is That the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall be restored to his Possession and Seizin Una cum exitibus thereof from the time of the Judgment c. Tibi praecipimus quod cadem A. ad plenariam seizinam tenementor praed c. restitui facias per Sacramentum proborum c. diligâ—nter inquiras ad quantum exitus proficua tenementor illor c. a tempore falsi Judicii c. usque ad Oct. Sanct. Mich. anno c. quo die Judicium illu c. revocat fuit c. et quâ—liter hoc praecept c. in Octâ—b c. By which it appears that the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall have Restitution against him who recovereth of all the mean Profits without any regard by them taken for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Erâ—our cannot have Remedy against a Stranger and therefore the words of the said Writ command the Sheriff to inquire of the Issues and Profits generally c. And therefore the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour after the Reversal shall have any Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean and therewith agreeth Brian Chief Justice 4 H 7. 12. a. See Butler and Baker's Case in the third Part of my Reports good matter concerning Relations So as it was Resolved in the Case at Bar though to some intent the Reversal hath relation yet to bar the Wife of her Dower by fiction of Law by the Fâ—ne with Proclamations and five years past after the Husbands death when in truth she had not cause of Action nor any Title so long as the Attainder stood in force should be to do a Wrong by a fiction in Law and to bar the Wife who was a meer stranger and could have no Relief till the Attainder was reversed As to the other Objection That the Demandant on the Petition ought to have an Office found for hâ—r It was Resolved That it needed not in this Case because the Title of Dower stood with the Queens Title and affirmed it Also in this Case the Queen was not intitled by any Office that the Wife should be driven to traverse it for then she ought to have had an Office But in case of Dower though that Office had been found for the Queen which doth not disaffirm the Title of Dower in such Case the Wife shall have her Petition without Office See Sâ—dlers Case in the Fourth Part of my Reports And the Case put on the other side was utterly denied by the Court for it was Resolved That if a man seized of Lands in Fâ—e take a Wife of eight years of Age and alien his Lands and after the Wife attains to the Age of nine years and afterwards the Husband dyeth that she shall be endowed because the Title of Dower being not consummate till the death of the Husband and there being Marriage Seizin in Fee age of 9 years and the Husbands death for that cause she shall be endowed it being sufficient that the Marriage Seizin and Age happen during the Coverture So if a man seized of Lands in Fee take a Wife and after she elopes from her Husband now she is barrable of her Dower if during the elopement the Husband alien and after the Wife is reconciled she is Dowable So if a man hath Issue by his Wife and the Issue dyeth and afterwards Land discends to the Wife or she purchase Lands in Fee and dyes without other Issue the Husband for the Issue which he had before the Discent or Purchase shall be Tenant by the Courtesie But if a man taketh an Alien to Wife and afterwards he aliens his Lands and after that she is made a Denizen she shall not be endowed for she was not by her Birth capable of Dower but by her Denization it began But
receive any diminution of such Reverence and Respect in our Places which our Predecessors had We shall not be able to do You such acceptable Service as they did The state of the Question is not in statu deliberativo but in statu judiciali it is not disputed de bono but de vero non de lege fienda sed de lege lata Not to devise or frame new Laws but to inform You what Your Law of England is And it was never seen before that when the Question is of the Law that your Judges of the Law have been made Disputants with their Inferiours that daily plead before them in the several Courts at Westminster And though we are not afraid to dispute with Mr. Bennet and Mr. Bacon yet this Example being primae impressionis and your Mâ—jesty detesting Novelties We leave it to your Princely Consideration whether you will permit our answering in hoc statu judiciali But in obedâ—ence to your Majesties Command We will inform your Majesty touching the said Question which We and our Predecessors before Us have oftentimes adjudged upon Judicial Proceedings in your Courts of Justice at Westminster which Judgments cannot be reversed or examined for any Errour in Law if not by a Writ of Errour in a more High and Supream Court And that this is the antient Law of England appears by the Stat. of 4 H. 4. c. 22. And We being commanded to proceed all that was said by Us the Judges was to this effect That the Tryal de modo Decimandi ought to be by the Common-Law by a Jury of Twelve Men it appears in three Manners 1. By the Common-Law 2. By Acts of Parliament 3. By infinite Judgments and Judicial Proceedings long times past without interruption But first it is to see what is a Modus Decimandi Now Modus Decimandi is when Lands Tenements or Hereditaments have been given to the Parson and his Successors or an Annual certain Sum or other Profit alwayes time out of mind in full Satisfaction and Discharge of all Tythes in kind in such a place and such manner of Tything is now confessed by the other Party to be a good Bar of Tythes in Kind 1. That Modus Decimandi shall be tryed by the Common-Law and therefore put that which is the most common Case That the Lord of the Mannor of Dale prescribes to give to the Parson 40 s. yearly in full Satisfaction and Discharge of all Tythes growing within the said Mannor of Dale at the Feast of Easter The Parson sues the Lord of the Mannor of Dale for his Tythes of his Mannor in kind and he in Bar prescribes ut supra The Question is If the Lord of the Mannor of Dale may upon that have a Prohibition for if the Prohibition lye then the Ecclesiastical Court ought not to try it 1. First The Law of England is divided into Common-Law Statute and Customs and therefore the Customs of England are to be tryed by the Tryal which the Law of England appoints 2. Prescriptions by the Law of the Holy Church and by the Common-Law differ in the times of Limitation and therefore Prescriptions and Customs of England shall be tryed by the Common-Law See 20 H. 6. f. 17. 19 E. 3. Jurisdiction 28. The Bishop of Winchester brought a Writ of Annuity against the Arch-Deacon of Surrey and declared That he and his Successours were seized by the Hands of the Defendant by Title of Prescription and the Defendant demanded Judgment is the Court would hold Jurisdiction between Spiritual Persons c. Stone Justice Be assured That upon Title of Prescription we will there hold Jurisdiction And upon that Wilby Chief Justice gave the Rule Answer Upon which it follows That if a Modus Decimandi which is an Annual sum for Tythes by Prersciption comes in Debate between Spiritual Persons that the same shall be tryed here 32 E. 2. Jurisdiction 26. There was a Vicar who had onely Tythes and Oblations and an Abbot claimed an Annuity or Pension of him by Prescription and it was adjudged That the same Prescription though between Spiritual Persons shall be tryed here Vide 22 H. 6. 46. 47. 3. See the Record 25 H. 3. cited in the Case of Modus Decimandi before and see Register fol. 38. 4. See the Stat. of Circumspecte agatis Decimae debitae seu consuctae which proves that Tythes in kind and a Modus by Custom c. 5. 8 E. 4. 14. and F. N. B. 41. g. A Prohibition lyes for Lands given in discharge of Tythes 28 E. 3. 97. a. There was a Suit for Tythes and a Prohibition lyes 6. 7 E. 6. 79. If Tythes are sold for Money by the Sale the Things Spiritual are made Temporal And so in the Case de modo Decimandi 42 E. 3. 12. agrees 7. 22 E. 3. 2. Because any Appropriation is mixed with the Temporalty otherwise of that which is meer Temporal So it is of reall Composiâ—ion where the Patron ought to joyn Vid. 11 H. 4. 85. 2. Secondly By Acts of Parliament 1. The said Act of Circumspecte agatis that gives power to the Ecclesiastical Judge to sue for Tythes first due in Kind or by Custom viz. Modus Decimandi So as by that Act though the Yearly Sum soundeth in the Temporalty which was paid by Custom in discharge of Tythes yet because the same comes in the place of Tythes and by Constitution the Tythes are changed into Money and the Parson hath not any remedy for the same which is the Modus Decimandi at the Common-Law For that cause the Act is clear that the same was a Doubt at the Common-Law And the Stat. of Articuli Cleri cap. 1. If that corporal punishment be changed into poenam pecuniariam for that Pain Suit lyes in the Spiritual Court For which see Mich. 8 H. 3. Rot. 6. in Thesaur And by the 27 H. 8. cap. 20. It is Enacted That all Subjects of the Realm according to the Ecclesiastical Law and after the laudable Usages and Custom of the Parish c. shall yield and pay his Tythes c. and for substraction thereof may by due process c. compell him to yield the Duties and with that in effect agrees 32 H. 8. c. 7. By the 2 Ed. 3. c. 13. it is Enacted That all the Kings Subjects shall henceforth truly and justly without Fraud c. divide c. and pay all their Predial Tythes in their proper kind as they rise c. And always when an Act of Parl. commands or prohibits any Court be it Spiritual or Temporal to do any thing Spiritual or Temporal if the Stat. be not obtained a Prohibition lyes as upon the Stat. de artic super chart cap. 4. Quod communio Placita non tenentur in Scaccario A Prohibition lyes to the Court of Exchequer if the Barons hold a common Plea there as appears in the Register 187. b. So upon the Stat. West 2. Quod inquisitioâ—â—es quae magnae sunt examinationis non
capiantur in Patria A Prohibition lyes to the Justices of Nisi Prius So upon Articuli super chartas cap. 7. to the Constable af Dover Regist 185. So upon the same Stat. cap. 3. to the Steward and Marshal of the Houshold 185. and yet no Prohibition is given by express words in any of these Statutes So upon the Statutes 13 R. 2. c. 3. 15 R. 2. c. 2. 2 H. 4. c. 11. a Prohibition lyes to the Admiralty Court So upon West 2. c. 43. against Hospitals and Templers Regist 39. a. So upon the Stat. de Prohibitione regia a Prohibition lyes So upon the Stat. 2. H. 5. c. 3. and upon that Stat. 4 E. 4. 37. the Case was Peirce Peckham took Letters of Administration of the Goods of Rose Brown of the Bishop of London afterwards T. T. sued to Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury to have Administration committed to him because Rose Brown had Goods in his Diocess and they were granted to him Afterward T. T. Libelled in the Court of the Arches against Peirce Peckham to repeal his Administration and Peirce Peckham according to the Stat. prayed a Copy to the Libel and could not have it and thereupon he sued a Prohibition and upon that an Attachment And there Catesby Sergeant moved that a Prohibition did not lye for two Causes 1. The Statute says that the Libel shall be deliver'd but not that the Plea shall surcease 2. The Statute is not intended of Matter meerly Spiritual And there Danby Chief Justice If you will not deliver the Lâ—bel according to the Statute you do wrong which wrong is a Temporal matter and punishable at the Common-Law and therefore the party shall have a special Prohibition And always after the said Act in every Term throughout the Reigns of Ed. 6. Q. Mary and Q. Eliz. to this day Prohibitions have been granted in Modo Decimando and Judgments given upon many of them without any contradiction and accordingly all the Judges Resolved 7 Ed. 6. Dyer 79. Et contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege et minime mutanda sunt quae certam habuerunt interpretationem 1. As to the first Objectio That the Plea of Modus Decimandi is but accessary to the Right of Tythes It was Resolved That the same was of no force for three Causes 1. In this Case admitting there is a Modus Decimaâ—di then by the Custom and by the Act 2. E. 6. and the other Acts the Tythes in Kind are extinct and discharged for one and the same Land cannot be subject to two manner of Tythes but the Modus Decimandi is all the Tythe with which the Land is chargeable and it shall be intended that the Modus Decimandi began at first by reall Composition So as in this Case there is neither Principal nor Accessary but an Identity of the same things 2. The Stat. 2 Ed. 6. being a Prohibition in it self and that in the Negative If the Ecclesiastical Judge doth against it a Prohibition lyes as appeareth clearly before 3. Though the Rule be general yet it appears by the Register it self that a Modus Decimandi is out of it for there is a Prohibition in causa modi Decimandi when Lands are given in satisfaction of the Tythes 2. As to the second Objection It was Answered and Resolved That that was from or out of the Question for status Quaestionis non est deliberativussed judicialis for convenient or inconvenient is not the Question but what the Law is 3. As to the third Objection it was answered and resolved First That satisfactio pecuniaria of it self is Temporal But because the Parson hath not remedy pro modo Decimandi at Common by force of the Acts cited before he might sue pro modo Decimandi in the Ecclesiastical Court But that proves not That if he sue for Tythes in Kind which are utterly extinct c. that upon the Plea de modo Decimandi that a Prohibition should not lye for the contrary appears without all question by what hath been said before See also 12 H. 7. 24. b. 39 Ed. 3. 22 E. 4. Consultation As to the Objection That Averment is taken of the Refusal of the Plea of Modus Decimandi It was answered and Resolved That the same is of no force for divers Causes 1. It is onely to inforce the Contempt 2. If the Spiritual Court ought to have the Tryal de modo Decimandi then the refusing to accept such a Plea should give cause of Appeal not of Prohibition 3. From the beginning of the Law no Issue was ever taken upon the Refusal of the Plea in causa modi Decimandi nor any Consultation granted to them because they did not refuse but allow the Plea 4. The Refusal is no part of the matter issuable or material in the Plea and therefore the Modus Decimandi is proved by two Witnesses according to the Stat. 2 E. 6. cap. 13. and not the Refusal which proves the Modus Decimandi is onely the Matter of Suggestion not the Refusal 5. All the said five Matters of discharge of Tythes mentioned in the said Act of 2 Ed. 6. ought to be proved by two Witnesses and so have been always since the making of the said Act. And therefore it clearly intended that Prohibitions should be granted in such Cases 6. Though they would allow bona fide de modo Decimandi without Refusal yet if the Parson sue there for Tythes in Kind when the Modus is proved the same being expresly forbidden by that Act 2 Ed. 6. 13. a Prohibition lyes though the Modus be Spiritual as appears by the Book 4 E. 4. 37. Afterwards the third day of the Debate of this Case before the King Dr. Bennet and Dr. Martin had reserved divers Consultations granted in causa modi Decimandi thinking they might work upon the King's Opinion and thereupon they said That Consultations were the Judgments of Courts had upon Deliberations whereas Prohibitions were onely granted upon Surmises And they shewed 4 Presidents 1. One where three joyntly sued a Prohibition in the Case of modo Decimandi and the Consultation saith Pro co quod suggestio materiaque in eodem content a minus sufficiens in lege existit c. 2. Another in causa modi Decimandi to be paid to the Parson or Vicar 3. Where the Parson sued for Tythes in Kind and the Defendant alleadged modus Decimandi to be paid to the Vicar 4. Where the Parson Libelled for Tythe-Wooll and the Defendant alleadged a Custom to reap Corn and make it into Sheaves and set forth the Tenth Sheave at his Charges and so of Hay to sever it from the Nine Cocks at his Charge in full satisfaction of the Tythes of the Corn Hay and Wooll To which I answer'd and humbly defir'd the King to observe these were reserved for the last and center-point of their Proof And herein these things may be observed 1. That the Kings Courts do them Justice when with
Law The Case was often argued at Bar and now this Term it was argued at the Bench by the Justices and therein these Points were resolved 1. That the first part of the Custom was absurd and repugnant but it extends not to the Case for the last part of the Custom which concerns the cutting down of the Trees concerns the Point in question and so the first part of the Custom is not material And when it was objected that the pleading that the Messuage of the Plaintiff was in decay was too general as appears by the Book 10 Ed. 4. 3. To that it was answered by Cook Chief â—ustice That the said Book proved the pleading in the Case at Bar was certain enough and therewith agrees 7 H. 6. 38. 34 H. 6. 17. 2. It was Resolved That in this Case without question there needs not to alleadge more certainty for the Copyholder doth not here take it according to the Custom but the Lord of the Mannor cuts it down and preventeth the Copyholder of his benefit and therefore he needeth not to shew any decay at all but onely for increasing of Damages for the Lord does the wrong when he cuts down the Tree which should serve for Reparations 3. It was Resolved That of Common-Right as a thing incident to the Grant the Copyholder may take House-bote Hedge-bote and Plough-bote upon his Copy-hold Quia concesso uno conceduntur omnia sine quibus id consistere non potest And with this agrees 9 H. 4. Wast 59. But the same may be restrained by Custome 4. It was Resolved That the Lord cannot take all the Timber-Trees but he ought to have sufficient for Reparation of the Customary Houses and for Plough-bote c. for otherwise great Depopulation will follow And it is to be understood that Bote being on old Saxon Word hath two significations First compensatio criminis as Frithbote signifies to be discharged for giving amends for breach â—f the Peace Manhote to be discharged of amends for the death of a man And secondly for Reparation as Bridgebote Burghbote Castlebote Parkbote c. And it is to be known that Bote and Estovers are all one And Estover is derived of the French Word Estover i. e. fovere i. e. to keep warm cherish c. And there are four kinds of Estovers viz. First Arandi Secondly Ardendi Thirdly Construendi And fourthly Claudendi viz. Ploughbote Firebote Housebote and Hedgebote 5. It was Resolved That the Copyholder shall have a general Action of Trespass against his Lord Quare clausum fregit arborem suam succidit For Custome hath fixed it to his Estate against his Lord. And the Copy-holder in this Case hath as great an Interest in the Timber Trees as he hath in his Messuage which he holds by Copy And if the Lord break or destroy the House without question the Copyholder shall have an Action of Trespass against his Lord Quare domum fregit and by the same Reason for the Timber-Trees which are annexed to the Land and which he may for Reparation of his Messuage or else it cannot stand See Trin. 40 Eliz. Rot. 37. in B. R. between Stebbing and Grosenor See Taylor 's Case in the Fourth Part of my Reports and see 5 H. 4. 2. 2 H. 4. 12. 2 E. 4. 15. 1 H. 6. 4. 7 H. 4. 15. 19 H. 6. 34. 11 H. 4. 28. 11 H. 4. 23. 21 H. 7. 14. b. acc 35 H. 6. 24. 30 H. 6. Tresp 10. c. 21 H. 7. 15. 11 H. 4. 23. See Fitz. Trespass ultimo in the Abridgement And afterwards the same Term Judgment was given on the principal Case for the Plaintiff Pasch 8 Jacobi In Communi Ranco The Parishioners of St. Alphage in Canterbury by Custome ought to choose the Parish-Clerk whom they chose accordingly The Parson by colour of a new Canon made at the Convocation in the Year of the King that now is which is not of force to take away any Custome drew the Clark before Dr. Newman Officiall of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to deprive him upon the Point of right Election and for other Causes And upon that it was moved at the Bar to have a Prohibition And upon hearing of Dr. Newman and himself and his Councel a Prohibition was granted by the whole Court because the Party chosen is a meer Temporal Man And the means of choosing him viz. the Custome is also meerly Temporal So as the Official cannot deprive him but upon occasion the Parishioners may displace him And this Office is like that of a Church-Warden who though they be chosen for two years yet for cause they may displace them as is held in 26 H. 8. 5. And though the Execution of the Office concerneth Divine Service yet the Office it self is meer Temporal See 3 E. 3. Annuity 30. 18 E. 3. 27. And it is to be known that the deprivation of a man of a Temporal Office or Place is a Temporal Thing Upon which no Appeal lyes by the 25 H. 8. but an Assize as in 4 Eliz. Dyer 209. And therewith agrees the Book 8 Ass Sirases Case But if a Dean of a Cathedral Church be deprived before the Commissioners of the King he may appeal to the Delegates within the said Act 25 H. 8. For a Deanery is a Spiritual Promotion and not Temporal And before that Act in such Case the Appeal was to Rome immediately Mich. 5 Jacobi Regis In Banco Regis Prichard and Hawkin's Case John Prichard brought an Action upon the Case against Robert Hawkins for Slanderous Words publish'd the last Day of August 3. Jacob. Viz. That Prichard which serves Mistriss Shelley did murder John Adam's Child Quandam Isabellam Adams modo defunct filia cujusdam Johannis Adams de c. innuendo Upon which a Writ of Errour was brought in the Exchequer-Chamber upon a Judgment given for Prichard in the Kings-Bench and the Judgment was reversed in Easter Term 7 Jac. because it doth not appear that Isabel was dead at the time of speaking the words for tunc defunct ought to have bin in stead of modo defunct Pasch 8 Jac. In Banco Regis Dison and Bestney's Case Humphry Dyson said of Nicholas Bestney a Councellor at Law of Grays-Inne Thou a Barrester Thou art no Barrester Thou art a Barretor Thou wert put from the Bar and darest not shew thy self there Thou study the Law thou hast as much Wit as a Daw. Upon Not Guilty pleaded the Jury found for the Plaintiff and gave 23 l. Damages upon which Judgment was given and upon Writ of Errour in the Exchequer-Chamber the Judgment was affirmed Pasch 8 Jac. Regis In Banco Regis Smith and Hill's Case Noah Smith brought an Action of Assault and Battery against Walter Hill in the Kings-Bench which began Pasch 7 Jac. Rot. 175. Upon Not Guilty pleaded a Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff and 107 l. given for Damages and Costs In a Writ of Errour in the Exchequer Chamber the Errour was