shillings eight pence for the Admittance of a Copyholder in Fee-simple upon a Surrender made For this is not like to a voluntary Grant as when the Copyholder hath but an Estate for life and dieth Or if he hath an Estate in Fee-simple and committeth Felony there Arbitrio Dom. res estimari debet but when the Lord is compellable to admit him to whose use the Surrender is And when Cestui que use is admitted he shall be in by him who made the Surrender and the Lord is but an Instrument to present the same And therefore in such Case the value of two years for such an Admittance is unreasonable especially when the value of the Cottage and one acre of Pasture is a Rack at fifty three shillings by the year 5. It was resolved That the Surjoynder is no more then what the Law saith For in this Case in the Iudgment of the Law the Fine is unreasonable and therefore the same is but ex abundanti and now the Court ought to judge upon the whole speciall matter And for the Causes aforesaid Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And Coke chief Iustice said in this Case That where the usage of the Court of Admiralty is to amerce the Defendant for his default by his discretion as it appeareth in 19 H. 6. 7. That if the Amerciament be outrageous and excessive the same shall not bind the party and if it be excessive or not it shall be determined in the Court in which the Action shall be brought for the levying of it And the Writ of Account is against the Bayliff or Guardian Quod reddat ei rationabilem Computum de exitibus Manerii And the Law requireth a thing which is reasonable and no excesse or extremity in any thing II. Mich. 6 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. Porter and Rochesters Case THis Term Lewis and Rochester who dwelt in Essex within the The Statute of 23 H 8. of citing out of Dioces Dioces of London were sued for substraction of Tithes growing in B. within the County of Essex by Porter in the Court of the Arches of the Bishop of Canterbury in London And the Case was That the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Iurisdiction of fourteen Parishes called a Deanry exempted from the Authority of the Bishop of London whereof the Parish of S. Mary de Arcubus is the Chief And the Court is called the Arches because the Court is holden there And a great question was moved If in the said Court of Arches holden in London within his Peculiar he might cite any dwelling in Essex for substraction of Tithes growing in Essex Or if he be prohibited by the Statute of the twenty third year of King Henry the eighth cap. 9. And after that the matter was well debated as well by Councell at the Bar as by Dr. Ferrard Dr. James and others in open Court and lastly by all the Iustices of the Common Pleas A Prohibition was granted to the Court of Arches And in this Case divers Points were resolved by the Court. 1. That all Acts of Parliament made by the King Lords and Commons of Parliament are parcell of the Laws of England and therefore shall be expounded by the Iudges of the Laws of England and not by the Civilians and Commonists although the Acts concern Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall Iurisdiction And therefore the Act of 2 H. 4. cap. 15. by which in effect it is enacted Quod nullus teneat doceat informet c. clam vel publice aliquam nefandam opinionem contrariam sidei Catholicae seu determinationi Ecclesiae sacro-sanctae nec de hujusmodi secta nephandis Doctrinis Conventiculas faciat And that in such Cases the Diocessan might arrest and imprison such Offender c. And in 10 H. 7. the Bishop of London commanded one to be imprisoned because that the Plaintiff said that he ought not to pay his Tithes to his Curat and the party so imprisoned brought an Action of False Imprisonment against those who arrested him by the commandment of the Bishop and there the matter is well argued What words are within the said Statute and what without the Statute So upon the same Statute it was resolved in 5 E. 4. in Keysars case in the Kings Bench which you may see in my Book of Presidents And so the Statutes of Articuli Cleri de Prohibitione regia De Circumspecte agatis of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. and all other Acts of Parliament concerning Spirituall Causes have alwaies been expounded by the Iudges of the Common Law as it was adjudged in Woods Case Pasch 29 Eliz. in my Notes fol. 22. So the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. hath been expounded by the Iudges of the Realm concerning Pluralities and the having of two Benefices Common Laws and Dispensations see 7 Eliz. Dyer 233. The Kings Courts shall adjudge of Dispensations and Commendams See also 17 Eliz. Dyer 251. 14 Eliz. Dyer 312. 15 Eliz. Dyer 327 18 Eliz. Dyer 352. and 347. 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. Construction of the Statute cap. 12. Smiths Case concerning Subscription which is a meer Spirituall thing Also it appeareth by 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. That for want of subscription the Church was alwaies void by the said Act of 23 Eliz. and yet the Civilians say that there ought to be a Sentence Declaratorie although that the Act maketh it void 2. It was resolved by Coke chief Iustice Warberton Daniel and Foster Iustices That the Archbishop of Canterbury is restrained by the Act of 23 H. 8. cap. 9. to cite any one out of his own Diocesse or his Peculiar Iurisdiction although that he holdeth his Court of Arches within London And first it was objected That the Title of the Act is An Act that no person shall be cited out of the Diocess where he or she dwelleth except in certain Cases And here the Archbishop doth not cite the said Party dwelling in Essex out of the Diocesse of London for he holdeth his Court of Arches within London 2. The Preamble of the Act is Where a great number of the Kings Subjects dwelling in divers Diocesses c. And here he doth not dwell in divers Diocesses 3. Far out of the Diocesse where such men c. dwell and here he doth not dwell far out c. 4. The body of the Act is No manner of person shall be cited before any Ordinance c. out of the Diocesse or peculiar Iurisdiction where the person shall be inhabiting c. And here he was not cited out of the Dioces of London To which it was answered and resolved That the same was prohibited by the said Act for divers Causes 1. As to all the said Objections One answer makes an end of them all For Diocesis dicitur distinctio vel divisio sive gubernatio quae divisa diversa est ab Ecclesia alterius Episcopatus Commissa Gubernatio in unius and is derived a Diâ— quod est duo electio id est
seperatio quia seperat duas Jurisdictiones So Dioces signifies the Iurisdiction of one Ordinary seperated and divided from others And because the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Iurisdiction in London exempt out of the Dioces or Iurisdiction of the Ordinary or Bishop of London For that cause it is fitly said in the Title Peramble and body of the Act That when the Archbishop sitting in his exempt Peculiar in London cites one dwelling in Essex he cites him out of the Dioces or Iurisdiction of the Bishop of London ergo he is cited out of the Dioces And in the clause of the penalty of ten pounds It is said out of the Dioces or other Iurisdiction where the party dwelleth which agreeth with the signification of Dioces before And as to the words Far off c. they were put in the Preamble to shew the great mischief which was before the Act As the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 33. in the Preamble it is Disseisins with strength and the body of the Act saith such Disseisor yet the same extendeth to all Disseisors but Disseisin with force was the greatest mischief as it is holden in 4. and 5 Eliz. Dyer 219. So the Preamble of the Statute of West 2. cap. 5. is Heirs in Ward and the body of the Act is Hujusmodi praesentat as it is adjudged in 44 E. 3. 18. That an Infant who hath an Advowson by discent and is out of Ward shall be within the remedy of the said Act but the Frauds of the Guardians was the greater mischief So the Preamble of the Act of 21 H. 8. cap. 15. which gives falsifying of Recoveries recites in the Preamble That divers Lessees have paid divers great Incomes c. Be it enacted That all such Termors c. and yet the same extends to all Termors and yet all these Cases are stronger then the Case at Bar for there that word such in the body of the Act referreth the same to the Preamble which is not in our Case 2. The body of the Act is No manner of person shall be henceforth cited before any Ordinary c. out of the Dioces or peculiar Iurisdiction where the person shall be dwelling And if he shall not be cited out of the Peculiar before any Ordinary a Fortiori the Court of Arches which sits in a Peculiar shal not cite others out of another Dioces And these words Out of the Dioces are to be meant out of the Dioces or Iurisdiction of the Ordinary where he dwelleth but the exempt Peculiar of the Archbishop is out of the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of London as S. Martins and other places in London are not part of London although they are within the circumference of it 3. It is to be observed That the Preamble reciting of the great mischief recites expresly That the Subjects were called by compulsary proces to appear in the Arches Audience and other high Courts of the Archbishoprick of this Realm So as the intention of the said Act was to reduce the Archbishop to his proper Dioces or peculiar Iurisdiction unlesse it were in five Cases 1. For any Spirituall Offence or cause committed or omitted contrary to the right and duty by the Bishop c. which word omitted proves that there ought to be a default in the Ordinary 2. Except it be in case of Appeal and other lawfull cause wherein the party shall find himselfe greived by the Ordinary after the matter or cause there first begun ergo the same ought to be first begun before the Ordinary 3. In case that the Bishop of the Dioces or other immediate Iudge or Ordinary dare not or will not convent the party to be sued before him where the Ordinary is called the immediate Iudge as in truth he is and the Archbishop unlesse it be in his own Dioces these speciall Cases excepted mediate Iudge scil by Appeal c. 4. Or in case that the Bishop of the Dioces or the Iudge of the place within whose Iurisdiction or before whom the Suit by this Act should be begun and prosecuted be party directly or indirectly to the matter or cause of the same suit Which clause in expresse words is a full exposition of the body of the Act scil That every suit others then those which are expressed ought to be begun and prosecuted before the Bishop of the Dioces or other Iudge of the same place 5. In case that any Bishop or any inferiour Iudge having under him Iurisdiction c. make request or instance to the Archbishop Bishop or other inferiour Ordinary or Iudge and that to be done in cases only where the Law Civill or Common doth affirm c. By which it fully appeareth That the Act intendeth That every Ordinary and Ecclesiasticall Iudge should have the Conusance of Causes within their Iurisdiction without any Concurrent Authority or Suit by way of prevention And by this the Subject hath great benefit as well by saving of travell and charges to have Iustice in his place of habitation as to be judged where he and the matter is best known As also that he shall have many Appeals as his Adversary in the highest Court at the first Also there are two Provisoes which explains it also scil That it shall be lawfull to every Archbishop to cite any person inhabiting in any Bishops Diocesse within his Province for matter of Heresie which were a vain Proviso If the Act did not extend to the Archbishop But by that speciall Proviso for Heresie it appeareth that for all causes not excepted is prohibited by the Act Then the words of the Proviso go further If the Bishop or other Ordinary immediatly hereunto consent or if the same Bishop or other immediate Ordinary or Iudge do not his duty in punishment of the same which words immediatly and immediate expound the intent of the makers of the Act. 2. There is a saving for the Archbishop the calling any person out of the Dioces where he shall be dwelling to the probate of any Testaments which Proviso should be also in vain if the Archbishop notwithstanding that Act should have concurrent Authority with every Ordinary through his whole Province Wherefore it was concluded that the Archbishop out of his Dioces unlesse in the Cases excepted is prohibited by the Act of 23 H. 8. to cite any man out of any other Dioces And in truth the Act of 23. of Henry the eighth is but a Law declaratory of the ancient Canons and of the true exposition of them The Act of 23 H. 8. is a Declaration of the old Canon Law And that appeareth by the Canon Cap. Romana in sexto de Appellationibus and Cap. de Competenti in sexto And the said Act is so expounded by all the Clergy of England at a Convocation in London An. 1 Jac. Regis 1603. Canon 94. Where it is decreed ordained and declared That none should be cited to the Arches or Audience but the Inhabitants within the Archbishops Dioces
any Mortuary but in such manner as is mentioned in the Act upon pain of forfeiture of so much in value as they take more then is limited by the Act and forty shillings over to the party grieved Yet it appeareth by Doctor and Student lib. 2. cap. 55. fol. 105. That if the Parson c. sueth for Mortuaries otherwise then the Act appointeth that a Prohibition lyeth yet there is a Penalty added which is an authority expresly in the Point And the Case at Bar is a more strong Case and that for three reasons 1. It was made in affirmance of the Canon Law 2. It was made for the ease of the People and Subjects and for the maintenance of the Iurisdiction of the Ordinary so as the Subjects have benefit by the Act and therefore although that the King may dispence with the penalty yet the Subject greived shall have a Prohibition And the Rule of the Court was Fiat Prohibitio Curiae Cantuar. de Arcub Inter partes praedict per Curiam And Sherly and Harris Iunior Serjeants at Law were of Councell in the Case III. Mich. 6 Jacobi Regis Edwards Case THe high Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiasticall objected divers High Commission Articles in English against Thomas Edwards dwelling in the City of Executer 1. That Mr. John Walton hath been many yeares trained up in Learning in the Vniversity of Oxford and there worthily admitted to severall degrees of Schools and deservedly took upon him the degree of Doctor of Physick 2. That he was a Reverend and well practised man in the Art of Physick 3. That 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 and to blemish his Reputation Learning and Skill with infamy and reproach did against the Rules of Charity write and send to the said Mr. Doctor Walton a lewd and ungoodly and uncharitable Letter and therein tared him of want of Civility and Honesty and want of Skill and Iudgment in his Art and Profession c. And you so far exceeded in your immoderate and uncivill Letter that you told him therein in plaine termes He may be crowned for an Asse as if he had no manner of skil in his Profession and were altogether unworthily admitted to the said Degrees and therein you purposely and advisedly taxed the whole Vniversity of rashnesse and indiscretion for admitting him to that Degree without sufficiency and desert 5. And further to disgrace the said Mr. Doctor Walton in the said Vniversity did publish a Copy of the said Letter to Sir William Courtney and others and in your Letter was contained Sipsilam lichenen mentegram Take that for your Inheritance and thank God you had a good Father And did not you thereby covertly mean and imply That the Father of the said Dr. Walton being late Bishop of Exeter and a Reverend Prelate of this Land was subject to the Diseases of the French Pox and Leprosie to the dislike of the Dignity and Calling of Bishops 6. That in another Letter you sent to Mr. Doctor Maders Doctor of Physick you named Mr. Doctor Walton and made a Horn in your Letter And we require you upon your Oath to set down whether you meant not that they were both Cuckoulds and what other meaning you had 7. You knowing that Dr. Walton was one of the high Commission in the Dioces of Exeter and having obtained a Sentence against him in the Star-Chamber for contriving and publishing of a Libell did triumphingly say That you had gotten on the hipp a Commissioner for Causes Ecclesiasticall in the Dioces of Exeter which you did to vilifie and disgrace him and in him the whole Commission Ecclesiasticall in those parts Lastly That after the Letter missive sent unto you you said arrogantly That you cared not for any thing that this Court can do unto you nor for their censure 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 Iustice Warberton Daniel and Foster Iustices That the first six Articles were meer Temporall concerning Doctor Walton in his Profession of Physick and so touched the Temporall person and a temporall matter and in truth It is in the nature of an Action upon See Book of Entries 444. 447. Non est Juri consentanium quod quis super iis quo rum cognitio ad nos pertinet in Curia Christianitatis trahatur in placita vi Stat. Circumspecte agatis An. 13. E. 1. Episcopus teneat plicita in Curia Christianitatis de his quae sunt mere Spiritualia Et vi Linwood f. 70. Lit. m. dicuntur mere Spiritualia quia non habent mixturam Temporalem vi 22 E. 4. l. Consultat vi 22 E. 4 the Abbot of Sion case the Case for Scandall in his Profession of Physick And yet the Commissioners themselves do proceed in the same Ex Officio And it was resolved that as for them a Prohibition doth lye for divers causes 1. Because that the matter and persons are Temporall 2. Secondly 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 And for the same reason Suit doth not lye before them for calling the Doctor Cuckould as it was objected in the seventh Article And it was said that the high Commissioners ought to incur the danger of Premunire 2. It was resolved That the Ecclesiasticall Iudge cannot examine any man upon his Oath upon the intention and thought of his Heart for Cogitationis penam nemo emoret And in cases where a man is to be examined upon his Oath he ought to be examined upon Acts or words and not of the intention and thought of his heart and if every man should be examined upon his Oath what opinion he holdeth concerning any point of Religion he is not bound to answer the same for in time of danger Quis modo tutus erit if every one should be examined of his thoughts And so long as a man doth not offend neither in act nor in word any Law established there is no reason that he should be examined upon his thought or Cogitation For as it hath been said in the Proverb Thought is free And therefore for the sixth and seventh Articles they were resolved as well for the matter as for the form in offering to examine the Defendant upon his Oath of his intention and meaning were such to which the Defendant was not to be compelled to answer Ergo It was resolved that as to the Article he might justifie the same because as it appeareth upon his own shewing that the Doctor was sentenced in the Star-Chamber Also the Libell is matter meer Temporall and if it
tenementorum per eundem B. dicto medio tempore percept sine dilatione haberi sacias Et qualiter hoc praeceptum nostrum fuerit execut constare facias c. in Octab. c. By which it appeareth That the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error 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 Error cannot have any remedy against any stranger but only against him who is party to the Writ of Error and therefore the words of the said Writ command the Sheriff to enquire of the Issues and Profits generally between the Reversal and the Iudgment with all which he who recovers shall be charged and as the Law chargeth him with all the mean profits so the Law gives to him remedy notwithstanding the Reversal against all Trespassors in the interim for otherwise the Law should make a construction by relation to discharge them who are wrong doers and to charge him who recovers with the whole who peradventure hath good right and who entereth by the Iudgment of the Law which peradventure is reversed for want of form or negligence or ignorance of a Clark And therefore as to that purpose the Iudgment shall not be reversed ab initio by a Fiction of Law but as the truth was the same stands in force until it was reversed and therefore the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error after the Reversal shall have any Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean because he shall recover all the mean profits against him who recovered nor he recovereth after shall be barred of his Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean by reason that his recovery is reversed because he shall answer for all the mean profits to the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error and therewith agreeth Brian Chief Iustice 4 H. 7. 12. a. Note Reader If you would understand the true sence and Iudgment of the Law it is needful for you to know the true Entries of Iudgments and the Entries of all proceedings in Law and the manner and the matter of Writs of Execution of such Iudgments See Butler and Bakers Case in the third part of my Reports good matter concerning Relations So as it was resolved in the Case at Bar Although that to some intent the Reversal hath relation yet to bar the Wife of her Dower by Fiction of Law by the Fine with proclamations and five years past after the death of her Husband when in truth she had not cause of Action nor any right or title so long as the Attainder stood in force should be to do wrong by a Fiction of Law and to bar the Wife who was a meer stranger and who had not any means to have any Relief until the Attainder was reversed And as unto the other point or Objection that the Demandant on the Petition ought to have an Office found for her it was resolved that it needed not in this case because that the title of Dower stood with the Queens title and affirmed it otherwise if the title of the Demandant in the Petition had disaffirmed the Queens title also in this Case the Queen was not entituled by any Office that the Wife should be driven to traverse it c. for then she ought to have had an Office to finde her title But in Case of Dower although 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 because that Dower is favored in Law she claiming but onely for term of life and affirming the title of the Queen See the Sadlers Case in the fourth part of my Reports And the case which was put on the other side was utterly denyed by the Court for it was resolved That if a man seised of Lands in Fee taketh a Wife of eight years of age and alieneth his Lands and afterwards the Wife attaineth to the age of nine years and afterwards the Husband dyeth that the Wife shall be endowed For although at the time of the alienation the Wife was not dowable yet for as much as the marriage and seisin in Fee was before the alienation and the title of Dower is not consummate until the death of her Husband so as now there was marriage seisin of Fee age of nine years during the Coverture and the death of the Husband for that cause she shall be endowed For it is not requisite that the marriage seisin and age concur together all at one time but it is sufficient if they happen during the Coverture So if a man seised of Lands in Fee take a Wife and afterwards she elopes from her Husband now she is barrable of her Dower if during the Elopement the Husband alieneth and after the Wife is reconciled the Wife shall be endowed So if a man hath issue by his Wife and the issue dyeth and afterwards Land descendeth to the Wife or the Wife purchaseth Lands in Fee and dyeth without any other issue the Husband for the issue which he had before the Discent or purchase shall be Tenant by the curtesie for it is sufficient if he have issue and that the Wife be seised during the Coverture although that it be at several times But if a man taketh an Alien to Wife and afterwards he alieneth his Lands and afterwards she is made a Denizen she shall not be endowed for she was absolutely disabled by the Law and by her birth not capable of Dower but her capacity and ability began onely by her Denization but in the other case there was not any incapacity or disability in the person but onely a temporary Bar until such age or reconcilement which being accomplished the temporary Bar ceaseth As if a man seised of Lands in Fee taketh a Wife and afterwards the Wife is attainted of Felony and afterwards the Husband alieneth and afterwards the Wife is pardoned and afterwards the Husband dyeth the Wife shall be endowed for by her birth she was not uncapable but was lawfully by her marriage and seisin in Fee entituled to have Dower and therefore when the impediment is removed she shall be endowed VIII Trinit 44 Eliz. In the Kings-Bench Sprat and Heals Case JOhn Sprat Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Walter Heal for Tythes Covin substraction of Tythes the Defendant in the Spiritual Court pleaded that he had divided the Tythes from the nine parts and then the Plaintiff made addition to the Libel in the nature of a Replication scil That the Defendant divided the Tythes from the nine parts quod praedict the Plaintiff non fatetur sed prorsus diffitetur yet presently after this pretended division in fraudem legis he took and carryed away the same Tythes and converted them to his own use and the Plaintiff thereupon obtained sentence in the Spiritual Court and to recover the treble value according to the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. And thereupon Heal made a
to the President and Councel of York between Lock Plaintiff and Bell and others Defendants and that was a Replevyn in English was granted by the said President and Councel which I affirmed was utterly against Law For at the Common Law no Replevyn ought to be made but by Original Writ directed to the Sheriff And the Statute of Marlbridg cap. 21. and West 1. cap. 17. hath authorized the Sheriff upon Plaint made to him to make a Replevyn and all that appeareth by the said Statutes and by the Books of 29 E. 3. 21. 8 Eliz. Dyer 245. And the King neither by his Instructions had made the President and Councel Sheriffs nor could grant to them power to make a Replevyn against the Law nor against the said Acts of Parliament but the same ought to be made by the Sheriff And all that was affirmed by the Lord Chancellor for very good Law And I say that it might well be that we have granted other Prohibitions in other Cases of English Replevyns Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between Sir Bethel Knight now Sheriff of the County of York as Executor to one Stephenson who had made him and another his Executors and preferred an English Bill against Chambers and divers others in the nature of an Action upon the Case upon a Trover and Conversion in the life of the Testator of goods and Chattels to the value of 1000 l. and because the other Executor would not joyn with him although he was named in the Bill he had not any remedy at the Common Law he prayed remedy there in Equity and I say that the President and Councel have not any authority to proceed in that Case for divers causes 1. Because there is an express limitation in their Commission that they shall not hold plea between party and party c. unless both parties or one of them tanta paupertate sunt gravati that they cannot sue at the Common Law and in that case the Plaintiff was a Knight and Sheriff and a man of great ability 2. By that Suit the King was deceived of his Fine for he ought to have had 200 l. Fine because that the damages amounted to 4000 l. and that was one of the causes that the Sheriff began his Suit there and not at the Common Law another cause was that their Decrees which they take upon them are final and uncontroulable either by Error or any other remedy And yet the President is a Noble-man but not learned in the Law and those which are of the Councel there although that they have the countenance of Law yet they are not learned in the Law and nevertheless they take upon them final and uncontroulable Decrees in matters of great importance For if they may deny Relief to any at their pleasure without controulment so they may do it by their final Decrees without Error Appeal or other remedy which is not so in the Kings Courts where there are five Iudges for they can deny Iustice to none who hath Right nor give any Iudgment but the same is controulable by a Writ of Error c. And if we shall not grant Prohibitions in Cases where they hold Plea without authority then the subjects shall be wrongfully oppressed without Law and we denyed to do them Iustice And their ignorance in the Law appeared by their allowance of that Suit scil That the one Executor had no remedy by the Common Law because the other would not joyn in suit with him at the Common Law whereas every one learned in the Law knoweth that summons and severance lieth in any Suit brought as Executors and this also in that particular Case was affirmed by the Lord Chancellor and he much inveighed against Actions brought there upon Trover and Conversion and said that they could not be found in our ancient Books Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between the L. Wharton who by English Bill sued before the Counsel Banks Buttermere and others for fishing in his several Fishings in Darwent in the County of C. in the nature of an Action of Trespass at the Common Law to his damages of 200 l. and for the causes next before recited and because the same was meerly determinable at the Common Law we granted a Prohibition and that also was allowed by the Lord Chancellor And as to the case of Information upon the Riotous Rescous I having forgotten to speak to that the King himself asked what the Case was to whom I answered that the case was That one exhibited a Bill there in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus against Watson who upon his Oath affirmed that he had satisfied the Plaintiff and that he owed him nothing and yet because the Defendant did not deny the Debt the Councel decreed the same against him and upon that Decree the Pursuivant was sent to arrest the said Watson who arrested him upon which the Rescous was made and because that the Suit was in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus at the Common Law and the Defendant at the Common Law might have waged his Law of which the Defendant ought not to be barred by that English Bill quia beneficium juris nemini est auferendum the Prohibition was granted and that was affirmed also by the Lord Chancellor whereupon I concluded that if the principal cause doth not belong unto them all their proceedings was coram non Judice and then no Rescous could be done but the Lord Chancellor said that though the same cannot be a Rescous yet it was a Riot which might be punished there which I denyed unless it were by course of Law by force of a Commission of Oyer and Terminer and not by an English Bill but to give the King full satisfaction in that point the truth is the said Case was debated in Court and the Court inclined to grant a Prohibition in the said case but the same was stayed to be better advised upon so as no Prohibition was ever under Seal in the said Case Also I confess that we have granted divers Prohibitions to stay Suits there by English Bill upon penal Statutes for the manner of prosecution as well for the Action Proces c. as for the count is to be pursued and cannot be altered and therefore without question the Councel in such cases cannot hold Plea which was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor And I said that it was resolved in the Reign of Queen Eliz. in Parots Case and now lately in the Case of the President and Councel of Wales That no Court of Equity can be erected at this day without Act of Parliament for the reasons and causes in the Report of the said Case of Parrot And the King was well satisfied with these reasons and causes of our proceedings who of his Grace gave me his Royall hand and I departed from thence in his favour And the surmise of the Number and that the Prohibition in the said Case
Iudg of the Prerogative Dr. James Dr. Martin and divers other Doctors of the Civil and Canon Law came attending upon them to the King to Whitehall the Thursday Friday and Saturday after Easter-Term in the Councel-Chamber where the Cheif Iustice and I my self Daniel Iudg of the Common-Pleas and Williams Iudg of the Kings-Bench by the command of the King attended also where the King being assisted with his Privy Councel all sitting at the Councel-Table spake as a most gracious good and excellent Soveraign to this effect As I would not suffer any novelty or Innovations in my Courts of Iustice Ecclesiastical and Temporal so I will not have any of the Laws which have had judicial allowances in the times of the Kings of England before him to be forgotten but to be put in execution And for as much as upon the contentions between the Ecclesiastical and Temporal Courts great trouble inconvenience and loss may arise to the subjects of both parts namely when the controversie ariseth upon the jurisdiction of my Courts of ordinary Iustice and because I am the head of Iustice immediately under God and knowing what hurt may grow to my Subjects of both sides when no private case but when the Iurisdictions of my Courts are drawn in question which in effect concerneth all my Subjects I thought that it stood with the Office of a King which God hath committed to me to hear the controversies between the Bishops and other of his Clergy and the Iudges of the Laws of England and to take Order that for the good and quiet of his Subjects that the one do not encroach upon the other but that every of them hold themselves within their natural and local jurisdiction without encroachment or usurpation the one upon the other And he said that the onely question then to be disputed was If a Parson or a Vicar of a Parish sueth one of his Parish in the Spiritual Court for Tythes in kinde or Lay-fee and the Defendant alledgeth a custom or prescription De modo Decâ—mandi if that custom or prescription De modo Decimandi shall be tryed and determined before the Iudg Ecclesiastical where the Suit is begun or a Prohibition lyeth to try the same by the common Law And the King directed that we who were Iudges should declare the reasons and causes of our proceedings and that he would hear the authorities in the Law which we had to warrant our proceedings in granting of Prohibition in cases of Modo Decimandi But the Archbishop of Canterbury kneeled before the King and desired him that he would hear him and others who are provided to speak in the case for the good of the Church of England and the Archbishop himself inveighed much against two things 1. That a Modus Decimandi should be tryed by a Iury because that they themselves claim more or less modum Decimandi so as in effect they were Tryors in their own cause or in the like cases 2. He inveighed much the precipitate and hasty Tryals by Iuries and after him Doctor Bennet Iudg of the Prerogative Court made a large Invection against Prohibitions in Causis Ecclesiasticis and that both Iurisdictions as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal were derived from the King and all that which he spake out of the Book which Dr. Ridley hath lately published I omit as impertinent and he made five Reasons why they should try Modum Decimandi And the first and principal Reason was out of the Register fo 58. quia non est consonans rationi quod cognitio accessarii in Curia Christianitatis impediatur ubi cognitio Causae principalis ad forum Ecclesiasticum noscitur pertinere And the principal cause is Right of Tythes and the Plea of Modo Decimandi sounds in satisfaction of Tythes and therefore the Conusance of the original cause scil the Right of Tythes appertaining to them the Conusance of the bar of Tythes which he said was but the accessary and as it were dependant upon it appertained also to them And whereas it is said in the Bishop of VVinchesters Case in the second part of my Reports and 8 E. 4. 14. that they would not accept of any Plea in discharge of Tythes in the Spiritual Court he said that they would allow such Pleas in the Spiritual Court and commonly had allowed them and therefore he said that that was the Mystery of iniquity founded upon a false and feigned foundation and humbly desired the reformation of that Error for they would allow Modum Decimandi being duly proved before them 2. There was great inconveniency that Lay-men should be Tryers of their own Customs if a Modus Decimandi should be tryed by Iurors for they shall be upon the matter Iurors in their own cause 3. That the custom of Modo Decimandi is of Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and Conusance for it is a manner of Tything and all manner of Tything belongs to Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and therefore he said that the Iudges in their Answer to certain Objections made by the Archbishop of Canterbury have confessed that suit may be had in Spiritual Courts pro modo Decimandi and therefore the same is of Ecclesiastical Conusance and by consequence it shall be tryed before the Ecclesiastical Iudges for if the Right of Tythes be of Ecclesiastical Conusance and the satisfaction also for them of the same Iurisdiction the same shall be tryed in the Ecclesiastical Court 4. In the Prohibitions of Modus Decimandi averment is taken That although the Plaintiff in the Prohibition offereth to prove Modum Decimandi the Ecclesiastical Court doth refuse to allow of it which was confessed to be a good cause of Prohibition But he said they would allow the Plea De Modo Decimandi in the Spiritual Court and therefore cessante causa cessabit effectus and no Prohibition shall lie in the Case 5. He said that he can shew many consultations granted in the cause De Modo Decimandi and a Consultation is of greater force then a Prohibition for Consultation as the word imports is made with the Court with consultation and deliveration And Bacon Solicitor-General being as it is said assigned with the Clergy by the King argued before the King and in effect said less then Doctor Bennet said before but he vouched 1 R. 3. 4. the Opinion of Hussey when the Original ought to begin in the Spiritual Court and afterwards a thing cometh in issue which is tryable in our Law yet it shall be tryed by their Law As if a man sueth for a Horse devised to him and the Defendant saith that the Devisor gave to him the said Horse the same shall be tryed there And the Register 57 and 58. If a man be condemned in Expences in the Spiritual Court for laying violent hands upon a Clark and afterwards the Defendant pays the costs and gets an Acquittance and yet the Plaintiff sueth him against his Acquittance for the Costs and he obtains a Prohibition for that Acquittances and Deeds
the plea for the same is no part of the suggestion which onely is the substance of the plea and therefore the Modus Decimandi is proved by two Witnesses according to the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. and not the refusal which proveth that the Modus Decimandi is onely the matter of the suggestion and not the refusal 5. All the said five matters of Discharge of Tythes mentioned in the said Branch of the Act of 2 E. 6. being contained within a suggestion ought to be proved by two Witnesses and so have been always from the time of the making of the said Act and therefore the Statute of 2 E. 6. clearly intended that Prohibitions should be granted in such causes 6. Although that they would allow bona fide de Modo Decimandi without refusal yet if the Parson sueth there for Tythes in kinde when the Modus is proved the same being expresly prohibited by the Act of 2 E. 6. a Prohibition lieth although the Modus be spiritual as appeareth by the said Book of 4 E. 4. 37. and other the Cases aforesaid And afterwards in the third day of debate of this case before his gracious Majesty Dr. Bennet and Dr. Martin had reserved divers consultations granted in Causa Modi Decimandi thinking that those would make a great impression in the Opinion of the King and thereupon they said That Consultations were the Iudgments of Courts had upon deliberation whereas Prohibitions were onely granted upon surmises And they shewed four Presidents One where three joyntly sued a Prohibition in the case of Modo Decimandi and the Consultation saith Pro eo quod suggestio materiaque in eodem contenta minus sufficiens in Lege existit c. 2. Another in Causa Modo Decimandi to be payd to the Parson or Vicar 3. Where the Parson sued for Tythes in kinde and the Defendant alledged Modus Decimandi to be payd to the Vicar The fourth where the Parson libelled for Tythe Wool and the Defendant alledged a custom to reap corn and to make it into sheaves and to set forth the tenth sheaf at his charges and likewise of Hay to sever it from the nine cocks at his charge in full satisfaction of the Tythes of the Corn Hay and Wool To which I answered and humbly desired the Kings Majesty to observe that these have been reserved for the last and center point of their proof And by them your Majesty shall observe these things 1. That the Kings Courts do them Iustice when with their consciences and oaths they can 2. That all the said Cases are clear in the Iudgment of those who are learned in the Laws that Consultation ought by the Law to be granted For as unto the first president the case upon their own shewing appeareth to be Three persons joyned in one Prohibition for three several parcels of Land each of which had a several manner of Tything and for that cause they could not joyn when their interests were several and therefore a Consultation was granted As to the second president The manner of Tything was alledged to be payd to the Parson or Vicar which was altogether uncertain As to the third president The Modus never came in debate but whether the Tythes did belong to the Parson or Vicar which being betwixt two spiritual persons the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Iurisdiction and therewith agreeth 38 E. 3. 6. cited before by Bacon and also there the Prior was of the Order of the Cistertians for if the Tythes originally belonged to the Parson any recompence for them shall not bar the Parson As unto the last president the same was upon the matter of a Custom of a Modus Decimandi for Wool for to pay the Tythe of Corn or Hay in kinde in satisfaction of Corn Hay and Wool cannot be a satisfaction for the Wool for the other two were due of common right And all this appeareth in the Consultations themselves which they shew but understand not To which the Bishop of London said that the words of the Consultation were Quod suggestio praedicta materiaque in eadem contenta minus sufficiens in Lege existet c. so as materia cannot be referred to form and therefore it ought to extend to the Modus Decimandi To which I answered That when the matter is insufficiently or uncertainly alledged the matter it self faileth for matter ought to be alledged in a good sentence and although the matter be in truth sufficient yet if it were insufficiently alledged the plea wanteth matter And the Lord Treasurer said openly to them that he admired that they would alledg such things which made more against them then any thing which had been said And when the King relied upon the said Prohibition in the Register when Land is given in discharge of Tythes the Lord Chancellor said that that was not like to this case for there by the gift of the Land in discharge of Tythes the Tythes were actually discharged but in the case De Modo Decimandi an annual sum is payd for the Tythes and the Land remains charged with the Tythes but ought to be discharged by plea de Modo Decimandi All which was utterly denyed by me for the Land was as absolutely discharged of the Tythes in casu de Modo Decimandi when an annual sum ought to be payd as where Land is given For all the Records and presidents of Prohibition in such cases are That such a sum had been always c. payd in plenam contentationem satisfactionem exonerationem omnium singularium Decimarum c. And although that the sum be not payd yet the Parson cannot sue for Tythes in kind but for the mony for as it hath been said before the Custom and the said Acts of Parliament where there is a lawful manner of Tything hath discharged the Lands from Tythes in kinde and prohibited that no suit shall be for them And although that now as it hath been said the Parsons c. may sue in the Spiritual Court pro Modo Decimandi yet without question at the first the annual payment of mony was as Temporal as annual profits of Lands were All which the King heard with much patience And the Lord Chancellor answered not to that which I had answered him in c. And after that his most excellent Majesty with all his Councel had for three days together heard the allegations on both sides He said That he would maintain the Law of England and that his Iudges should have as great respect from all his Subjects as their predecessors had had And for the matter he said That for any thing that had been said on the part of the Clergy that he was not satisfied and advised us his Iudges to confer amongst our selves and that nothing be encroached upon the Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and that they keep themselves within their lawful Iurisdiction without unjust vexation and molestation done to his Subjects and without delay or hindering
of Iustice And this was the end of these three days consultations And note That Dr. Bennet in his discourse inveighed much against the opinion in 8 E. 4. 14. and in my Reports in Wrights Case That the Ecclesiastical Iudg would not allow a Modus Decimandi and said That that was the mystery of iniquity and that they would allow it And the King asked for what cause it was so said in the said Books To which I answered that it appeareth in Linwood who was Dean of the Arches and of profound knowledg in the Canon and Civil Law and who wrote in the Reign of King Henry the sixth a little before the said Case in 8 E. 4. in his title de Decimis cap. Quoniam propter c. fo 139. b. Quod Decimae solvantur c. absque ulla diminutione and in the gloss it is said Quod Consuetudo de non Decimando aut de non bene Decimando non valet And that being written by a great Canonist of England was the cause of the said saying in 8 E. 4. that they would not allow the said plea de Modo Decimandi for always the Modus Decimandi is lesse in value then the Tithes in specie and then the same is against their Canon Quod decimae solvantur absque diminutione quod consuetudo de non plene Decimando non valet And it seemed to the King that that Book was a good Cause for them in the time of King Edward the fourth to say as they had said but I said That I did not relie upon that but upon the grounds aforesaid scil The common Law Statute-Laws and the continuall and infinite judgements and judiciall proceedings and that if any Canon or Constitution be against the same such Canon and Constitution c. is void by the Statute of 25. H. 8. Cap. 19. which see and note For all Canons Constitutions c. against the Prerogative of the King the common Laws Statutes or Customs of the Realm are void Lastly the King said That the high Commission ought not to meddle with any thing but that which is enormious and exorbitant and cannot permit the ordinary Proces of the Ecclesiasticall Law and which the same Law cannot punish And that was the cause of the institution of the same Commission and therefore although every offence ex vi termini is enormious yet in the Statute it is to be intended of such an offence is extra omnem normam as Heresie Schisme Incest and the like great offences For the King said That it was not reason that the high Commission should have conusance of common offences but to leave them to Ordinaries scil because that the party cannot have any appeal in case the high Commisson shall determine of it And the King thought that two high Commissions for either Province one should be sufficient for all England and no more XV. Mich. 39 and 40 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. Bedell and Shermans Case MIch 39 and 40 Eliz. which is entred Mich. 40 Eliz. in the com-Pleas Rot. 699 Cantabr the Case was this Robert Bedel Gent. and Sarah his wife Farmors of the Rectory of Litlington in the County of Cambridge brought an Action of Debt against John Sherman in the custody of the Marshall of the Marshalsey and demanded 550 l. And declared that the Master and Fellows of Clare-Hall in Cambridge were seised of the said Rectory in fee in right of the said Colledge and in June 10. 29 Eliz. by Indenture demised to Christopher Phesant the said Rectorie for 21 years rendering 17 l. 15 s. 5 d. and reserving Rent-corn according to the Statute c. which Rent was the ancient Rent who entred into the said Rectory and was possessed and assigned all his interest thereof to one Matthew Batâ— who made his last Will and Testament and made Sarah his wife his Executrix and died Sarah proved the Will and entred and was thereof possessed as Executrix and took to husband the said Robert Bedel by force whereof they in the Right of the said Sarah entred and were possessed thereof and that the Defendant was then Tenant and seised for his life of 300 acres of arable Lands in Litlington aforesaid which ought to pay Tithes to the Rector of Litlington and in anno 38 Eliz. the Defendant grano seminavit 200 acres parcel c. And that the Tithes of the same did amount to 150 l. and that the Defendant did not divide nor set forth the same from the 9 parts but took and carried them away against the form and effect of the Statute of 2 E. 6 c. And the Defendant pleaded Nihil debet and the Iury found that the Defendant did owe 55 l. and to the residue they found Nihil debet c. and in arrest of Iudgement divers matters were moved 1. That grano seminata is too generall and incertain but it ought to be expressed with what kinde of corn the same was sowed 2. It was moved If the Parson ought to have the treble value the forfeiture being by expresse words limited to none by the Act or that the same did belong to the Queen 3. If the same did belong to the Parson if he ought to sue for the same in the Ecclesiasticall Court or in the Kings Temporall Court 4. If the husband and wife should joyn in the Action or the husband alone should have the Action and upon solemn argunent at the Barre and at the Bench the Iudgement was affirmed XVI Trinity Term 7 Jocob in the Court of Wards John Bailies Case IT was found by Writ of Diem clausit extremum That the said John Bailie was seised of a Messuage or Tenement and of and in the fourth part of one acre of land late parcel of the Demesne lands of the Mannor of Newton in the County of Hereford in his Demesne as of fee and found the other points of the Writ and it was holden by the two chief Iustices and the chief Barons 1. That Messuagium vel Tenementum is uncertain for Tenementum is nomen collectivum and may contain land or any thing which is holden 2. It was holden that is was void for the whole because that no Town is mentioned in the Office where the Messuage or Tenement or the fourth part of the acre lieth and from the Visne of the Mannor upon a Traverse none can come because it is not affirmed by by the Office that they are parcel of the Mannor but Nuper parcel of the Mannor which implieth that now they are not and it was holden by them that no Melius inquirendum shall issue forth because that the whole Office is incertain and void XVII Trinity 7 Jacobi Regis in the Court of Wards THe Attorney of the Court of Wards moved the two chief Iustices and chief Baron in this Case That a man seised of lands in fee-simple covenants for the advancement of his son and of his name and blood and posterity that he will stand seised
within the body of the County but they do not restrain the execution of the same Court to be served upon the Land for it may be that the party hath not any thing upon the Sea and then it is reason to have it upon the Land and if such a Defendant have nothing wherewithall to make agreement they of the Court have power to take the body of such a Defendant upon the Land in execution In which case these points were observed 1. Although that the Court of Admiralty is not a Court of Record because they proceed there according to the Civil Law see Brook Error 77. acc yet by custom of the Court they may amerce the Defendant for his default by their discretion 2. That they may make execution for the same of the goods of the Defendant in corpore Comitatus and if he hath not goods then they may arrest the body of the Defendant within the body of the County But the great Question between them was If a man committeth See this point resolved 8 Eli. Dyer per curiam which is omitted out of the printed Book Piracy upon the Sea and one knowing thereof receiveth and comforteth the Defendant within the body of the County if the Admiral and other the Commissioners by force of the Act of 28 H. 8. cap. 16. may proceed by Indictment and conviction against the Receiver and Abettor in as much as the offence of the Accessary hath his begining within the body of the County And it was resolved by them that such a Receiver and Abettor by the common Law could not be indicted or convicted because that the common Law cannot take conusance of the original Offence because that is done out of the Iurisdiction of the common Law and by consequence where the common Law cannot punish the principal the same shall not punish any one as accessary to such a principal And therefore Coke chief Iustice reported to them a Case which was in Suffolk in anno 28 Eliz. where Butler and others upon the Sea next to the Town of Laystaft in Suffolk robbed divers of the Queens subjects and spoyled them of their goods which goods they brought into Norfolk and there they were apprehended and there brought before me then a Iustice of the Peace within the same County whom I examined and in the end they confessed a cruel and barbarous Piracy and that those goods which then they had with them were part of the goods which they had robbed from the Queens subjects upon the High Sea and I was of opinion that in that case it could not be Felony punishable by the common Law because that the original act scil the taking of them was not any offence whereof the common Law taketh knowledg and by consequence the bringing of them into a County could not make the same Felony punishable by our Law and it is not like where one stealeth goods in one County and brings them into another there he may be indicted of Felony in any of the Counties because that the original act was Felony whereof the common Law taketh knowledg and yet notwithstanding I committed them to the Gaol until the coming of the Iustices of Assises And at the next Assises the Opinion of Wray chief Iustice and Periam Iustices of Assise was That for as much as the common Law doth not take notice of the original Offence the bringing of the goods stoln upon the Sea into a County did not make the same punishable at the common Law and thereupon they were committed to Sir Robert Southwell then Vice-Admiral of the said Counties and this in effect agrees with Lacies case which see in my Reports cited in Binghams case in the 2 Reports 93. and in Constables case C. 5. Reports 107. See the Piracy was Felony the Book of 40 Assis 25. by Schard where a Master or Captain of a Ship together with some Englishmen robbed the Kings sujects upon the High Seas where he saith that it was Felony in the Norman Captain and Treason in the Englishmen his companions and the reason of the said case was because the Normans were not then under the Obedience and Allegiance of the King of England for King John lost Normandy and for that cause Piracy was but Felony in the Norman but in the English who were under the Obedience and Allegiance of the King of England the same was adjudged Treason which is to be understood of Pettit Treason which was High Treason before and therefore in that case the Pirates being apprehended the Norman Captain was hanged and the English men were hanged and drawn as appeareth by the same Book see Stamford 10. And some objected and were of opinion That Treasons done out of the Realm might have bin determined by the common Law but truly the same could not be punishable but onely by the Civil Law before the Admiral or by Act of Parliament as all Foreign Treasons and Felonies were by the common Law and therefore where it is declared by the Statute of 25 E. 3. That adherence to the Enemies of the King within England or elsewhere is Treason the same shall be tryed by the common Law but where it is done out of the Realm the Offendor shall not be attainted but by Parliament until the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 2. although that there are Opinions in some Books to the contrary see 5 R. 2. Quare impedit c. XXII Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Pettus and Godsalves Case IN a Fine levyed Trinity Term anno quinto of this King between John Pettus Esq Plaintiff and Roger Godsalve and others Deforceants of the Mannor of Castre with the appurtenances c. in the County of Norfolk where in the third proclamation upon the Foot of the same Fine the said proclamation is said to have been made in the sixth year of the King that now is which ought to have been anno quinto of the King and whereas upon the Foot of the same Fine the fourth proclamation is altogether left out because upon the view of the proclamations upon Dorsis upon Record not finis ejusdem Termini per Justiciarias remaining with the Chyrographer and the Book of the said Chyrography in which the said proclamations were first entered it appeareth that the said proclamations were rightly and duly made therefore it was adjudged that the Errors or defects aforesaid should be amended and made to agree as well with the proclamation upon Record of the said Fine and Entry of the said Book as with the other proclamations in Dorsis super pedes aliorum finium of the same Term and this was done upon the motion of Haughton Serjeant at Law XXIII Mich. 7 Jacobi In the Court of Wards Sammes Case JOhn Sammes being seised of Grany Mead by Copy of Court Roll of the Mannor of Tollesham the great of which Sir Thomas Beckingham c. and held the same of the King by Knights service in capite Sir Thomas by
Tenements were holden of the King in capite for this cause the suing of the Writ shall conclude the Heir onely which sueth the Livery and after his death the Iurors in a new Writ of Diem clausit extremum are at large as before is said And if that Iury finde falsly in a Tenure of the King also the Lord of whom the Land is holden may traverse that Office Or if Land be holden of the King c. in Socage the Heir may traverse the last Office for by that he is grieved onely and he shall not be driven to traverse the first Office and when the Father sueth Livery and dyeth the conclusion is executed and past as before is said And note that there is a special Livery but that proceeds of the Grace of the King and is not the Suit of the Heir and the King may grant it either at full age before aetate probanda c. or to the Heir within age as it appeareth in 21 E. 3. 40. And that is general and shall not comprehend any Tenure as the general Livery doth and therefore it is not any estoppel without question And at the Common Law a special Livery might have been granted before any Office found but now by the Statute of 33 H 8. cap. 22. it is provided That no person or persons having Lands or Tenements above the yearly value of 20 l. shall have or sue any Livery before inquisition or Office found before the Escheator or other Commission But by an express clause in the same Act Livery may be made of the Lands and Tenements comprized or not comprized in such Office so that if Office be found of any parcel it is sufficient And if the Land in the Office doth exceed 20 l. then the Heir may sue a general Livery after Office thereof found as is aforesaid but if the Land doth not exceed 5 l. by the year then a general Livery may be sued without Office by Warrant of the Master of the Wards c. See 23 Eliz. Dyer 177. That the Queen ex debito Justitiae is not bound at this day after the said Act of 33 H 8 to grant a special Livery but it is at her election to grant a special Livery or to drive the Heir to a general Livery It was also resolved in this Case That the Office of 35 H. 8. was not traversable for his own Traverse shall prove that the King had cause to have Wardship by reason of Ward And when the King cometh to the possession by a false Office or other means upon a pretence of right where in truth he hath no right if it appeareth that the King hath any other right or interest to have the Land there none shall traverse the Office or Title of the King because that the Iudgment in the Traverse is Ideo consideratum est quod manus Domini Regis a possessione amoveantur c. which ought not to be when it appeareth to the Court that the King hath right or interest to have the Land and to hold the same accordingly See 4 H. 4. fo 33. in the Earl of Kents Case c. XXIX Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis NOte The Priviledg Order or Custom of Parliament either Parliament of the Vpper House or of the House of Commons belongs to the determination or decision onely of the Court of Parliament and this appeareth by two notable Presidents The one at the Parliament holden in the 27 year of King Henry the sixth There was a Controversie moved in the Vpper House between the Earls of Arundel and of Devonshire for their seats places and preheminences of the same to be had in the Kings presence as well in the High Court of Parliament as in his Councels and elsewhere The King by the advice of the Lords spiritual and temporal committed the same to certain Lords of Parliament who for that they had not leisure to examine the same it pleased the King by the advice of the Lords at his Parliament in anno 27 of his Reign That the Iudges of the Land should hear see and examine the Title c. and to report what they conceive herein The Iudges made report as followeth That this matter viz. of Honor and precedency between the two Earls Lords of Parliament was a matter of Parliament and belonged to the Kings Highness and the Lords spiritual and temporal in Parliament by them to be decided and determined yet being there so commanded they shewed what they found upon examination and their Opinions thereupon Another Parliament in 31 H. 6. which Parliament begun the sixth of March and after it had continued sometime it was prorogued until the fourteenth of February and afterwards in Michaelmas Term anno 31 H. 6. Thomas Thorp the Speaker of the Commons House at the Suit of the Duke of Buckingham was condemned in the Exchequer in 1000 l. damages for a Trespass done to him The 14 of February the Commons moved in the Vpper House That their Speaker might be set at liberty to exercise his place The Lords refer this Case to the Iudges and Fortescue and Prisoit the two chief Iustices in the name of all the Iudges after sad consideration and mature deliberation had amongst them answered and said That they ought not to answer to this question for it hath not been used aforetime That the Iustices should in any wise determine the Priviledg of this High Court of Parliament for it is so high and mighty in its nature that it may make Laws and that that is Law it may make no Law and the determination and knowledg of that Priviledg belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Iustices But as for proceedings in the lower Courts in such cases they delivered their Opinions And in 12 E. 4. 2. in Sir John Pastons case it is holden that every Court shall determine and decide the Priviledges and Customs of the same Court c. XXX Hillary Term 7 Jacobi Regis In the Star-Chamber Heyward and Sir Iohn Whitbrokes Case IN the Case between Heyward and Sir John Whitbroke in the Star-Chamber the Defendant was convicted of divers Misdemeanors and Fine and Imprisonment imposed upon him and damages to the Plaintiff and it was moved that a special Proces might be made out of that Court to levy the said damages upon the Goods and Lands of the Defendant and it was referred to the two chief Iustices whether any such Proces might be made who this Term moved the Case to the chief Baron and to the other Iudges and Barons and it was unanimously resolved by them That no such Proces could or ought to be made neither for the damages nor for the costs given to the Plaintiff for the Court hath not any power or Iurisdiction to do it but onely to keep the Defendant in prison until he pay them For for the Fine due to the King the Court of Star-Chamber cannot make forth any Proces for the levying of the