Nicholas Bishop of Norwich against whom he then being in the Custody of the Marshall the Kings Attorney did prefer a Bill of Premunire the matter whereof was this In Thetford in Com. Norfolke hath been de tempore cujus c. such Custom that all Ecclesiastical Causes rising in that Town should be determined before the Dean of that Town who hath particular Jurisdiction there and that none in that Town shall be drawn in Plea in any other Court-Christian unless before the same Dean And if it ought to be done against the same Custom this to be presented before the Mayor of the same Town and the Party to forfeit 6 s. 8 d. That One such sued in the Consistory of the Bishop for a thing arising within the said Town which was presented before the Mayor for which he forfeited 6 s. 8 d. The Bishop cited the Mayor to appear before him at his House at Hoxin in Suffolk generally pro salute animae but upon appearance◠〈◊〉 upon all the Matter and enjoyn'd him on pain of Excommunication to annul the said Presentment The Bishop had Council assigned him who objected That as well the Presentment as Custom was void and therefore not contra Coronam c. nor drawn by the Bishop ad aliud examen 2. They objected That the Bishop's Court was not intended within the Act of 16 R. 2. but in Cur. Romana aut alibi and this alibi ought not to be out of the Realm but it was Resolved by Fitz James chief Justice Et. per totam Curiam that be the Custom or Presentment good or bad this is a Temporal thing determinable at Common Law and not in Spiritual Court and therefore the Bishop hath incurred the Premunire 3. That alibi extends as well to the Bishop's Courts c. as well within the Realm as else-where and so the Court said it had been often adjudged whereupon the Bishop confessed the Indictment And Judgment was given That he shall be out of the King's Protection and that his Lands Goods and Chattels should be forfeited and his Body to be imprisoned ad voluntatem Regis c. Nicholas Fuller's Case In the great Case of Nicholas Fuller of Grays-Inn these Points were Resolved by all the Justices and Barons of the Exchequer 1. Resolved That no Consultation can be granted out of Term because it is a final award of the Court and can neither be granted in Term nor out of Term by all the Judges except in Court the name of the Writ signifying the same 2. Resolved That the Construction of the Statute 1 Eliz. cap. 1. and of the Letters Patents of High-Commission in Ecclesiastical Causes founded upon the said Act belongs to the Judges of the Common Law And therefore the Consultation which was granted with this restraint Quatenus non agat de authoritate et validitate Literarum Patentium pro causis Ecclesiasticis vobis vel aliquibus vestrum direct aut de expesitione et interpretatione Statuti de anno primo nuper Reginae c. As if the King hath a Benefice donative by Letters Patents this shall not be visitable nor deprivable by any Ecclesiastical Authority but by the Chancellor of the King or Commissioners under the Great Seal 3. Resolved When there is any Question concerning what Power or Jurisdiction belongs to Ecclesiastical Judges in any such Case the determination of this belongs to the Judges of the Common Law in what cases they have Cognizance and in what not And according to this Resolution Bracton lib. 5. tract de except cap. 15. fol. 412. Vide also Entries fol. 445. There was a Question whether Court-Christian should have Cognizance of a Lamp and a Prohibition was granted Quod non procedant in Curia Christianitatis quousque in Curiae â—ostra discussum fuerit utram cognitio placiti illius ad Curiam nostram vel ad forum Ecclesiasticum pertineat And all this appears in our Books that the Judges of the Common Law shall determâ—ne in what Cases the Ecclesiastical Judges have Power to punish any pro Laesioae fidei 2 H. 4. fol. 10. 11 H. 4. 88. 22 Ed. 4. 20. or of the bounds of Parishes 5 Ed. 3 8 8 Ed. 3. 69. 70. 18 Ed. 3. 58. 12 Ed. 4. 9 H. 7. 1. 10 H. 7. 9. And therefore in this Case of Fuller one other Restraint was added in the Consultation Et quatenus non agat de aliquibus scandalis contemptibus sâ—u aliis rebus quae ad communen legem aut Statuta Regni nostri Angliae suat puâ—ienda et determinanda 4. Resolved That if a Councellor at Law in his Argument shall scandal the King or his Government Temporal or Ecclesiastical this is a misdemeanor and and contempt to the Court for which he shall be indicted fined and imprisoned but not in Court Christian but if he publish any Heresy Schisme or erroneous Opinion in Religion he may for this be punished by the Ecclesiastical Judges for the Rule is Quod non est juri consonum quod quis pro aliis quae in Curiis nostris act a sunt quorum cognitio ad nos pertinet trahatur in placitum in Curia Christianitatis See the Book of Entries fol. 448. And for this cause a Consultation was granted Quoad Schismata Hereses c. Vide Mâ—ch 18 H. 8. Rot. 78. in Banco Regis The Case was a Leet was â—eld Jovis post Festum Sancti Mich. Arch. 17 H. 8. of the Prior of the House of St. John de Bethelehem de Shrine of this Mannor of Levisham in Com. Surrey before John Beare Steward there a Grand Jury was charged to inquire for the King of all Offences inquirable within the said Leet where one Phillip Aldwin who was a resident within the said Leet appeared Idemque Phillippus sciens quandam Margaretam uxorem Johannis Aldwin apud East-Greenwich infra jurisdictionem Letae proed pluries per antea corpus suum in adulterio viciose exercuissse c. eisdem sic juratis de dicta c. informationem veraciter dedit Upon which the said Margaret drew the said Phillip into the Archbishop of Canterbury his Court and there libelled against him for defamation of Adultery and that the Phillip said in hisce Angl. verbis Margaret Allen is a Whore and a Bawde and it is not yet three weeks agone since a man might take a Priest betwixt her Legs which words were parcel of the words by which he informed the Jury at the Leet And upon this he had a Prohibition and by this Record it appears and by the Statute 10 Ed. 3. c. 11. that Indictors of Lay-People or Clerks in Turneys and after delivering them before Justices shall not be sued for Defamation in Court-Christian but that the Plaintiff grieved shall have a Prohibition Vide Pasch 6 Eliz. In the Lord Dyers Reports which Case is not Printed John Halles in the Case of Marriage between the Earl of Hereford and the Lady Katharine Gray declared his Opinion against the
October 28. H. 8. there was an Insurrection of the Lord Hussey and 20000 Men in Lincolnshire about Religion which was appeased by the Duke of Suffolk This was no sooner over but 40000 Men under Sir Robert Aske made a Commotion in Yorkshire Soon after was a great Rebellion in Lancashire Westmerland Cumberland and Northumberland which the Earl of Derby quieted Then Musgrave Tilby and others assaulted Carlisle Castle and were overthrown by the Duke of Norfolk Soon after Sir Francis Pigot Rebelled at Setrington in Yorkshire Soon after the Lord Darcy c. began a Commotion about Hull appeased by the Duke of Norfolk And all these Rebellions were between the 28. of and 30. of H. 8. in which time many of the Rebels were Executed And the King having effected in the 31 year of his Reign the Suppression of the greater Houses of Religion he establisht a Councel there for the quiet of the Counties of Yorkshire Northumberland Westmerland Cumberland Durham the Counties of the City of York Kingston upon Hull and Newcastle upon Tyâ—e for preventions of Ryots c. And in this time of Necessity the King Armed the President and Councel with two Authorities in one Commission The one A Commission of Oyer and Terminer de quibuscunque Congregationibus conventiculis illicitis coadjutoribus Lolardiis c. per quae pax tranquilitas subditorum nostrorum Comitatibus c. praedict gravat c. secundum legem coâ—suetudinem regni nostri Angliae c. The other Authority was Nec non quascunque actionesreales seu de libero tenemento personales causasque de bitorum demandorum quorumcunque in Com. c. praed quando ambae partes vel altera pars sic gravata paupertate fuerit quod commode Jus suum secundum legem Regni nostri aliter prosequi non possit c. And this was the Authority that the President and Councel had at first without any private Instructions as appears by the Commission under the Great Seal 31 H. 8. 6 pars Roberto Landavensi Episcopo Presidenti Consilii aliis out of which these things were observed 1. That the intention of the Commission was Quod pax subditorum tranquilitas preserventur 2. That they hear and determine Riots Routs c. according to Law or their Discretions which without question was no otherwise intended but that they should proceed according to Law for that is summa discretio and not according to private Conceits for talis discretio discretionem confundit so the other Clause concerning reall and personal Actions in all the Counties and Places aforesaid was onely ad faciendum populum for it was utterly void in Law 1. Because no such general Authority granted may be made by the Commission of the King to hear and determine all reall Actions within such a County according to Law as he may be Charter in a particular County or place As it was Resolved in Scrogges Case An. 2 Eliz. so 175. in Dyer Vid. Dyer 236. But the King by Letters-Patents may grant to a Corporation in such a Town Tenere placita realia personalia mixta And none can by this be prejudiced for the proceeding ought to be according to Law and if they erre a Writ of Errour lies See Magna Charta cap. 12. and Westm 2. cap. 30. which Acts give Authority to Justices of Assize in their proper Counties whereby it appears that without an Act of Parliament the King by Letters Patents cannot authorize Justices De Assize capiend to take them in another County As a Justice of one Bench or other ought to be made by Commission not by Writ yet he may be discharged by Writ 5 Ed. 4. 32. But Justices in Eyre are by Writ Bracton lib. 3. cap. 11. Britton fo 1. Also Westm 2. cap. 30. and of York cap. 4. sic de ceteris Also it was observed that at first the Commission extended onely when one or both Parties were so poor as they were not able to prosecute at Law Also they had no power to grant Injunctions and lastly their Commission was a Patent under the Great Seal and enrolled in Chancery And thus much was said concerning the first Institution of the Court 2. That our Proceedings in granting Prohibitions is for matter justifiable by Law As to this whereas at first their Authority was Patent it is now private for the Letters-Patent refer to private Instructions which are no where of Record Et de non apparentibus non existentibus eadam est ratio besides the danger to the Subject is great for if they lose their Instructions which hath and may happen all is Coram non Judice The second Reason is drawn from the contumacy of the Party supposed to be grieved by the Prohibition and against whom it is granted for if the Authority of the Councel be never so good yet being a late Jurisdiction the Party must of necessity plead it so as it may appear judicially for as we are Judges of Record so must we be informed of Record And no party prohibited ever yet moved in Court to have a consultation by which might be set forth the Jurisdiction of that Court and Councel so as the granting of Prohibitions hath been just The third Reason is drawn from the great Injury offered to the Defendants for it is a true Rule Misera servitus ubi jus est vagum aut incertum The Defendants by Law may in all Courts plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court but how can they do so when no man can possibly know what Jurisdiction they have And the keeping of them in such Secrecy bewrayeth that the Councel are afraid that they would not be justified if they were known 3. That the manner of our Proceedings was respectful for a Jury of Officers and Attorneys of our Court being according to an antient Custome time out of mind used sworn to present among other things all Defaults of Officers and Ministers in not executing the Process of this Couâ—t and all Impediments of the due Proceedings thereof And finding upon their Oaths divers unjust Impediments of the said Proceedings by the said Councel in particular thereupon a motion being made in open Court in Michaelmas Term last by the King 's Serjeant Philips of many Grievances done thereby prayed the Court according to Law and Justice to grant several Prohibitions in all those several Causes which we could not deny Yet first we conferred with Sir Cuthbert Pepper Attorney of the Wards and one of that Councel to let him understand the partâ—cular Gâ—ievances who upon Motion came to us to Seâ—geants Inne with whom we conferred who would not take upon him to justifie the same in no sort but said he would acquaint the President and Councel therewith and return their Answer Which for that it was neglected upon further Motion in Court we granted Prohibition as in Justice we ought 4. Now to answer all Objections And first where it was objected
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
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
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
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-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-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-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
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
hath well observed Vide Dyer 298. vide le Stat. 27 Eliz. Pasch 9 Jacobi Regis Sir William Chancâ—ys Case In this Term Sir William Chancy having the priviledg of this Court and being a Prisoner in the Fleet was brought to â—he Bar by Habeas Corpus by the Guardian of the Fleet who returned That the said Sir William was committed to the Fleet by Warrant from the High-Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes which Warrant follows in these words viz. These are to Will and Require you in his Majesties Name by Vertue of his Hâ—gh-Commission c. to Us and others directed c. That herewithal you take and receive into your Custody the Body of Sir William Chancy Knight whom we will that you keep c. untill further Order c. letting you know the cause of his Committment to be for that being at the Suit of his Lady convented bâ—fore c. for Adultery and expelling her from his Company and Co-habiting with another Woman without allowing her any competent Maintenance and by his own Confession convict thereof he was thereupon enjoyned to allow his Wife a competent Maintenance c. and to perform such Submission and other order for his Adultery as by Law should be enjoyned him which he expresly refused to do in contempt c. Given at London 19 Martii 1611. subscribed Henry Mountague George Overall Thomas Morton Zach. Paâ—field And it was moved by Nicholas Serjeant a Councel with Sir William that this return was insufficient 1. Because Adultery ought to be punished by the Ordinary and not by the High-Commâ—ssioners on which the Offender is remediless and can have no appeal Quod fuit concessum per Coke Warberton and Foster but Walmesly doubted of Adultery 2. That by force of the Act of the 1. of Eliz. the High-Commissioners cannot imprison Sir William for Adultery nor for denying Alimony to his Wife And Doderidge the Kings Sâ—rjeant of Council on the other side did not defend the Imprisonment to be lawful And it was clearly agreed by Coke Walmesly Warberton and Foster That the Commissioners had not power to imprison in this Case And Walmâ—sly said That though they have used this Power for twenty years without any exception yet when it comes before them judicially they ought to Judge according to Law and upon this Sir William Chancy was Bailed And it was resolved per totam Curiam That when it appears upon the Return that the Imprisonment is not lawful the Court may discharge him of Imprisonment Also it was Resolved That the Return was insufficient in form 1. It is not shewn when the Adultery was committed 2. He was enjoyned to allow his Wife a competent Maintenance without any certainty and to perform such submission c. as by Law shall be enjoyned which is all infuturo and uncertain Vide in my Treatise at large the Reasons and Causes why the High-Commissioners may sue and imprison Vide Pasch 42 Eliz. Rot. 1209. Pasch 9 Jacobi Regis Empringham's Case In this Term a Case was moved in Star-Chamber upon a Bill exhibited by the Attorney-General against Robert Empringham Vice-Admiral in the County of York Marmaduke Ketthewell one of the Marshals of the Admiralty and Thomas Haâ—rison an Informer in the same Court for Oppression and Extortion in Fining and Imprisoning divers of the Kings Subjects in the said County which no Judge of the Admiralty can justifie because it is not a Court of Record but they proceed according to the Civil Law and upon their Sentence no Writ of Error lyeth but an Appeal Also the said Empringham hath caused divers to be cited to appear before him for things done in the Body of the County which were determinable by the Common Law and not before the Admiralty whose authority is limited to the High Sea And for these and other Oppressions they were fined and imprisoned and sentenced beside to make Restitution c. Trin. 9 Jacobi Regis Memorandum That upon the Thursday before this Term all the Justices of England by the Kings Command were assembled in the Council-Chamber at Whitehall where was Abbot Archbishop of Canterbury and with him two Bishops and divers Civillians the Archbishop complained of Prohibitions out of the Common-Pleas and delivery of Persons by Haheas Corpus but chiefly of Sir William Chancy I defended our proceedings according to my Treatise thereof which I delivered before the High-Commissioners And after great dispute between the Archbishop and Me at last he said He had a Point not yet touched upon in my Treatise which would give satisfaction to the Lords and Us also and upon which he would rely And that the Clause of Restitution and Annexation viz. And that all such Jurisdictions c. Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any power Spiritual hath heretofore or hereafter lawfully may be used c. for visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation Order and Correction of the same and of all Errors Heresies Schismes c. shâ—ll for ever by authority of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And it was said That H. 8. and Ed. 6. did give Power by their Commissions to divers to impose Mulcts c. in Ecclesiasticall Causes c. and upon this he concludes That this having been used before 1 Eliz. this is given to Queen Eliz. and her Successors Also inasmuch as by 2 H. 4. and 2 H. 7. the Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical may Fine and Imprison in particular Causes therefore Power to Fine and Imprison in all Ecclesiastical Causes is given to the King And this he said he uttered that it might be answered 1. To which I for a time gave this Answer That it was good for the Weal-publick that the Judges at the common-Common-Law should interpret the Statutes within this Realm 2. It was said by me That before the Statute of 1 Eliz. no Ecclesiastical Judge may impose a Fine or Imprison for any Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Offence unless there be Authority by Act of Parliament And this was so affirmed by all the Justices Vide my Book of Presidents the Commission at large to Cromwel to be Vicegerent Afterwards in this very Term the Privy-Council sent for the Justices of the Common-Pleas only and there the Reasons of the said Resolution were largely debated and strong Opposition made hy Egerton Lord Chancellor but the Justices of the Common-Pleas remained constant in their Resolution Afterward the Council sent for the chief Justice of the Kings Bench Justice Williams Justice Crook Chief Baron Taâ—field Snig Althan and Bromly who were not acquainted with the Reasons of the said Rule of the Common-Pleas nor knew why they came before the Council And hearing the Lord Chancellor affirm That the High-Commissioners have alwayes by the Act 1 Eliz. imposed Fines and Imprisonments for exorbitant Crimes without any Conference with us or among then selves or hearing the matter debated were of Opinion with us And after at another day this
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
Fostér Justices That the Archbishop of Canterbury is restrained by the 23 H. 8. cap. 9. to câ—â—e any one out of his own Diocess for Diocâ—ses dicitur distinctio c. quae divisa vel diversa est ab Ecclesia alterius Episcopatus commissa gubernatio in unius and is derived a Di that signifies duo two et Electio quia separat duas Jurisdictiones And because the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Jurisdiction in London for this cause it is fitly said in the Title Preamble 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 Bishop of Londons Diocess ergo out of the Diocess And in the Clause of the Penalty of 10 l. it is said Out of the Diocess c. where the Party dwelleth which agrees with the signification of Diocess befóre And the words far off were put in the Preamble to shew the great mischief that was before the Act as the 32 H. 8 cap. 33. in the Preamble it is disseizins with strength And the Body of the Act saith such Disseizor the same extending to all Disseizors but Disseizin with force is the greatest mischief 4 and 5 Eliz. Dyer 219. So West 2. cap. 5. adjudged 44 Ed 3. 18. So 21 H. 8. cap. 15. In all which the Case is stronger than the Case at Barre there the word such in the Body of the Act referring to the Preamble which is not in our Case 2. The Body of the Act is No Person shall be henceforth cited before any Ordinary c. out of the Diocess or peculiar Jurisdiction where the Person shall be dwelling and if so then a fortiori the Court of Arches which sits in a Peculiar shall not cite oâ—hers out of another Diocess And the words out of the Diocess are meant of the Diocess or Jurisdiction of the Ordinary where he dwelleth 3. Observe the Preamble of the Act recites expresly That the Subjects were called by compulsory Process to appear in the Arches Audience and other Courts of the Archbishoprick of this Realm So that the Intention of the Act was to reduce the Archbishop to his proper Diocess unless in five Cases 1. For any Spiritual Offence or Cause committed or omitted contrary to Right and Duty by the Bishop c. which word omitted proves there ought to be a Default in the Ordinary 2. Except it be in Case of Appeal and other lawfull Cause where the Party shall find himself grieved by the Ordinary after the matter there first begun ergo it ought to be first begun before the Ordinary 3. In case the Bishop or Ordinary c. dare not or will not convent the Party to be sued before him 4. In case the Bishop or Judge of the place within whose Jurisdiction 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 5. In case any Bishop or other inferiour Judge under him c. make Request to the Archbishop Bishop or other inferiour Ordinary or Judge and that to be done in Cases onely where the Law Civil or Common doth affirm c. 1. Also there are two Provisoes which explain it also viz. That it shall be lawful for every Archbishop to cite any person inhabiting in any Bishop Diocess in his Province for matter of Heresie by which it appears that for all Causes not excepted he is prohibited by the Act. 2. There is a saving for the Archbishop calling any Person out of the Diocess where he shall be dwelling to the Probate of any Testament which Provisoe should be vain if notwithstanding that Act should have concurrent Authority with every Ordinary throughout his whole Province Wherefore it was concluded That the Arch-Bishop out of his Diocess unless in the Cases excepted is prohibited by the 23 H. 8. to cite any man out of any other Diocesse which Act is but a Law declaratory of the antient Canons and a true Exposition of them And that appears by the Canon Cap. Romana in sexto de Appellationibus Cap. de competenti in sexto And the said Act is so expounded by all the Clergy of England at a Convocation at London Anno 1 Jac. Regis 1603. Canon 94. And whereas it is said in the Preamble of the Act in the Arches Audience and other High-Courts of this Realm It is to be known that the Archbishop of this Realm before that Act had power Legantine from the Pope By which they had Authority not onely over all but concurrent Authority with every Ordinary c. not as Archbishop of Canterbury c. but by his Power and Authority Legantine Et tria sunt genera Legatorum 1. Quidam de latere Dom. Papae mittuntur c. 2. Dativi qui simpliciter in Legatione mittuntur c. 3. Nati seu nativi qui suarum Ecclesiarum praetextu legatione fingantur et sunt 4. Archiepiscopus Cant. Eboracensis Remanensis et Pisanis Which Authority Legantine is now taken away and abolished utterly 3. It was Resolved That when any Judges are by Act of Parliament if they proceed against the Act there a Prohibition lyes As against the Steward and Marshal of the Houshold Quod non teneant placita de libero tenemento de debito de Conventione c. So Articuli super Chartas cap. 3. Register fol. 185. So against the Constable of Dover So to Justices of Assize Quod inquisitiones quae sunt magni exactionis non capiantur in Patria So to the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequerâ— upon Art super Chart. c. 4. Stat Rutland cap. ult See F. N. B. 45. 46 c. 17 H. 6. 54. vide 13 Ed. 3. Title Prohibition So against all Ecclesiastical Judges upon 2 H. 5. 3. and therewith agrees 4 Ed. 4. 37. and F. N. B. 43. c. So the Case upon the Stat. 2 H. 5. c. 15. as appears by the President 5 Ed. 4. Keysons Case 10 H. 7. 17. See Paston's Opinion 9 H. 6. 3. See the 35 H. 6. 6. when any things is prohibited by a Statute if the Party be convicted he shall be fined for the Contempt to the Law And if every person should be put to his Action upon the Statute it would encrease Suits and a Prohibition is the shorter and easier way And the Rule of the Court was Fiat prohibitio Curiae Cantuar. de Arcubus Inter partes praedict per Curiam And Sherly and Harris jun. Sergeants at Law were at Councel of the Case Mich. 6 Jac. Reges Edward's Case The High-Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiastical objected divers English Articles against Thomas Edwards of Exeter As 1. That Mr. John Walton being trained up in Oxferd University was there worthily admitted to several Degrees of Schools and deservedly took upon him the Degree of Dr. of Physick 2. That he was a Reverend and well-practised man in the Art of Physick 3. That
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
were High Treason or no And in this the Justices were divided my self and divers others holding That this Act was not Treason but the chief Justice and divers others were against us 2. If it be High Treason then whether he may be indicted generally for the Counterfeiting of the Great Seal or else the special Fact must be expressed By reason of diversity of Opinions Râ—spectuatur vid. Fleta lib. 1. cap. 22. Item crimen falsi dicitur cum quis illicitus cui non fuerit ad haec data authoritas de sigillo Regis rapto vel invento et brevia Carteria vide le Attainder de Elizabeth Barton Edw. Bocking by Parliament c. 25. H. 8. c. 12. Hill 24 Eliz. In the Exchequer A Merchant brought eighty weigh of Bay-Salt by Sea to a Haven in England and out of the Ship sold 20 weighs and discharged them to another Ship wherein they were transported being never actually put on shore and for the residue viz. 60 weigh he agreed for the Custome and put them upon Land and now the dâ—nbt was 1 Eliz. cap. 12. for the words of the Statute concerning Exportation sent from the Wharfe Key or other place on the Land and concerning Importation taken up discharge and lay on Land If in this Case the said 20 weighs which alwayes were waterborn and never touched the Land ought to pay Custome as well inwards as outwards And it was Resolved That in both the Cases Custome ought to be paid and forasmuch as no Custome was paid It was Resolved That the Goods were forfeited Note No Act of Parliament can bind the King from any Prerogative which is sole and inseperable to his person but that he may dispence with it by a non obstante as his Soveraign Power of Commandines his Subjects to serve him for the publick Weal See 23 H. 6. cap. 8. 2 H. 7. 66. 13 R. 2. Parl. 2. cap. 1. See also 4 H. 4. cap. 31. Coke l. 2. fol. 69. But in things which are not incident solely and inseparably to the person of the King but belongs to every Subject and may be severed there an Act of Parliament may absolutely bind the King As if an Act of Parliament do disable any Subjects of the King to take any Land of his Grant or any of his Subjects as Bishops as it is done by the Statute 1 Jac. cap. 3. to Grant to the King this is good for to grant or take Lands or Tenements is common to every Subject Hill 4. Jac. Regis Care of High Commissioners If they have Power to Imprison Mich. 4 Jac. post prand There was moved a Question amongst the Judges and Sergeants at Sergeants Inn If the High Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes may by force of their Commission imprison any man or not First Resolved by all That before the Statute of the first of Eliz. the King might have granted a Commission to hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes yet the Commissioners ought to proceed according to the Ecclesiastical Law allowed within the Realm Vide Caudrye's Case 5 Report Then all the Question rests upon the Act 1 Eliz. which hath three Branches 1. Such Commissioners have power to exercise Jurisdiction Spiritual and Ecclesiastical 2. By force of Letters-Patents they have power to visit reform c. all Heresies c. which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power c. can or lawfully may be Reformed c. So that these Branches limit the Jurisdiction 3. That after such Commission delivered to them shall have power by vertue of this Act and the said Letters-Patents to exercise c. all the Premisses c. according to the Tenor c. This Branch gives them Power to execute their Commission But it was Objected That this Branch gave no power to the Queen to alter the Proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Law or to prescribe what manner of proceedings or punishment concerning the Lands Goods or Bodies of the Subject And this appears by the Title of the Act Restoring the intent being to make Restitution not any Innovation Vide a notable Case adjudged in this Point Hill 42. El. â—o 389. as to Imprisonment Smith's Case for at the last Consultation was granted And at last by the better Opinion as to things committed to them by Commission they may put Fine and Imprisonment By the 3 H. 7. cap. 14. 't is Ordained where Women as well Maids as Widows and Wives having substance c. for the lucre of such substance be taken by Misdoers contrary to their Wills and after marryed c. or defiled That what person henceforth so taketh c. against her will c. such taking c. to be Felony And the Misdâ—ers c. to be reputed as Felons Upon this great question was moved 4 5 Phil. Mar. in the Star-Chamber If the Eloym ent against her without Mariage or Carnal Copulation be Felony or no And the Opinion of Brook and some other of the Justices was that It was Felony But Sanders Lord Chief Justice was against it and afterwards as Peryam chief Baron did Report It was Resolved by all the Justices That such Eloynment onely is not Felony by the intent of the Statute without Marriage or Carnal Copulation Note By the express purview of the Act the Accessary both before and after is made Principal Pasch 4 Jac. Regis By the Commandement of the King it was referred to Popham Chief Baron and my self what Right the Queen which now is hath and in what Cases to a Right claim'd by her called Aurum Reginae that is to say Pro centum marcis argenti una marca Auri solvendum per illum qui se sponte obligat And upon consideration had thereof and view of Records and Presidents viz. Librum Rubrum in Scaccario fol. 56. de Auro Reginae where it is said that this is to be taken De iis qui sponte se obligant Regi c. which is the Foundation of this Claim And of a Record in the Tower 52 H. 3. And a Record in the Exchequer 4 Ed. 1. And a Record in the Exchequer Hill 12 Ed. 3. And in the Tower in the same year in Rot. Claus And of Acts of Parliament 15 Ed. 3. cap. 6. and 31 Ed. 3. cap. 13. and 13 R. 2. in Turri And divers other Presidents and Process out of the Exchequer in the time of R. 2. H. 4. and other Kings till H. 7. It was Resolved that the Queen hath Right to it but with these Limitations 1. It ought to be sponte by the Subject sine coactione And for this all Fines upon Judgments or by Offer or Fine for Alienation or any other Case where the Subject doth it not sponte sine aliqui coactione That the King of Right ought to have it there the Queen shall have nothing 2. It ought to be sponte sine consideration alicujus reventionis seu interesse That the King hath in esse in jure Coronae As upon Sale
2. Parl. accord 1 R. 3. against Benevolence Vide Claus 4 Ed. 3. n. 22. bis Case of Libells between Edwards and Wooton In Cam. Stellat The Case was That Doctor Wooton writ to Edmunds an infamous malicious scandalous and obscene Letter with his Name subscribed And this he Sealed and directed to his Loving Friend Mr. Edward Speed this and after the said Doctor dispersed to others a great number of Copies of the said Letter And it was Resolved by the Lord Chancellor Egerton the two chief Justices et per totam curiam That this was a subtle and a dangerous kind of Libell For though the writing of a private Letter without other Publicatior the Party to whom it is directed cannot have an Action Sur le Case but where it is published to others ' to the Plaintiffs Scandal Action lyeth The Doctor thought this could not in any manner have been punish't but 't was Resolved That the infamous Letter which in Law is a Libell shall be punished in the Star-Chamber being an Offence to the King and a motive to breach of the Peace And in the Case at Bar the dispersing of Copies of it aggravates the Offence for which also the Party may have an Action Sur le Case Note By the Civil Law a Person disabling himself to bear Office or making a Libell against himself shall be punished And though the Doctor subscribed his Name to the said Letter yet it importing matter Scandalous is in the Law a Libell The Law of the Lydians is That who slanders another shall be let Blood in the Tongue who hears it and ascents to it in the Ear c. Mich. 5 Jac. Regis Wooton and Edwins Case In Replevin the Defendant avowed and the Plaintiff demurred and the Case was thus William Hawes was seized in Fee of a Messuage and 55 Acres of Land five Acres of Meadow and six Acres of Pasture in Formanton in Com. Hereford and 27. Junii 28 H. 8. by Indenture demised the Tenement aforesaid to N. Traheron for 79 years Reddendo inde annuatim praefat Gulielm Hawes et assign suis 26 s. 8 d. at the Feasts of the Annunciation and St. Michael by equal portions And after the Lessor dyed and the Reversion descended to William his Son under whom the said John Edwin Claimed And the sole Point was If the Rent reserved in this Case shall go to the Heir or be determined by the death of the Lessor If the Lessor had reserved the Rent to him without more this shall determine by the death of the Lessor And the addition of the word Assignes shall not enlarge the reservation for the Assignes cannot have the Rent longer than the Lessor himself should have it Vide 18 Ed. 3. tit Ass 86. 10 Ed. 4. 18. 27 H. 8. 19. per Audlâ—y et vide Hâ—ll 33 Eliz. Rot. 1341. In a Replevin enter Richmond and Butcher Butcher avowed for Rent as Heir to his Father upon a Demise made by his Father of certain Lands for 21 years by these words Reddendo proinde durant termin 21 annos praefat Patri executor et assignat suis 10 l. legalis c. ad festa c. And it was adjudged That by this Reservation the Heir should not have the Rent because the Reservation was to the Father and his Executors c. not to his Heirs Mich. 5 Jac. Regis Case concerning Buggary The Letter of the Statute 25 H. 8. cap. 6. If any Person shall commit the detestable sin of Buggary with Mankind or Beast c. it is Felony which Act being Repealed 1 Mar. is revived and made perpetual 5 Eliz. cap. 17. and he lose his Clergy It appears by antient Authorities of the Law That this was Felony but they vary in the punishment For Britton who writ 5 Ed. 1. cap. 17. saith That Sorcerers Sodomers and Hereticks shall be burned F. N. B. 269. agrees with it But Fleta lib. 1. cap. 35. Christiani Apostati c. debent cumburi this agrees with Britton but Pecorantes et Sodomitae terra vivisâ—ffodiantur But in the Mirror of Justice vouched in Plow Com. in Fogosses Case the Crime is more high for there it is called Crimen laesae majestatis a horrible Sin against the King either Celestial or Terrestial in three manners 1. By Heresy 2. By Buggary 3. By Sodomy Note Sodomy is with mankind and is Felony and to make that Offence Opertet rem penetrate et semen naturae emittere et effundere for the Indictment is Contra ordinationem Creatoris et naturae ordinem rem habuit veneream dictumque puerum carnaliter cognovit and so it was held in the Case of Stafford Paederastes â—mator puerorum Vide Rot. Parl. 50 Ed. 3. 58. So in a Rape there must be penetration and emission of Seed Vide Stamf. fol. 44. which Statute makes the Accessary Guilty of Felony West 1. cap. 34. If a Man ravish a Woman 11 H. 4. 18. If one Ayd another in a Rape or be present he is principle in the Buggary Vide Levit. 18. 22. et cap. 10. 13. 1 Cor. 6. Case of Premunire In Doctor Cosines Book intituled An Answer c. and publisht 1584. And a Pamphlet lately publisht by Doctor Ridley they would obtrude upon the World That in regard by the Act 10 Eliz. cap. 1. all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Power within the Realm is annexed to the Crown and the Law thereof is the Kings Ecclesiastical Law That therefore no Premunire lyes against any Spiritual Judge for any cause whatsoever And the Reasons some of their Profession give to confirm it are 1. That when the Statute of Premunire was made the Pope usurped Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction though de jure it belonged to the King But now since the King as well de facto as de jure is Supream Head of all The cause being changed the Law is changed also 2. â—T conclusion of the Writ of Premunire is in Domini Regis contemptum et prejudicium et dictae Coronae et dignitatum suarum Laesionem et exhaeredationem manifestam et contra forman statuti c. which proves the Jurisdictions united to the Crown and what is united to and derived from the Crown cannot be said contra Coronam et dignitatem Regis 3. The High Commission Court is the Kings Court and therefore though it may be said The Consistory Courts are Curiae Episcoporum yet that Court by force of the High Commission is the Kings and so their Proceedingâ— shall not be lyable to the Premunire 4. This new Court is erected by Act of Parliament c. And because the Sâ—atute of R. 2. speaks de curia Romana seu alibi c. This alibi cannot extend to a Court erected by Act of Parliament 10 Eliz. But to these Objections it was answered and resolved by divers Justices in this Term That without Question theâ— Statutes of 27 Ed. 3. 16 R. 2. c. de Premunire are yet in force And all proceedings before any
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
die causa c. Et iidem Justiciarii hic visa causa illa ulterius fieri fecerint quod c. Et modo hic ad hunc diem viz. diem Sab. prox Oct. Sanct. Mich. isto eoâ—um termino venit praed Anthonius in propria persona suaâ— sub custod praed Guard ad Barr. hic praed idem Guardianus tunc hic mand Quod ante advent brevis praed vâ—z 9. die Oct. ult praeter praed Anthonii Roper mil. reducit se prison praed perantea Commissus virtute cujusdam â—arranti dat 30 die Junii ult praeter quod sequitur in haec verba viz. These are in his Majâ—sties Name to require and charge you by Vertute of his High-Commission for causes Ecclesiastical under the Great Seal of England to us and others directed that herewith you receive and take into your Custody the Body of Sir Anthony Roper Knight and him safely detain c. signifying unto you That the cause of his Commitment for that there being a certain cause c. betwixt him the said Sir Anthony Roper and John Bullbrooke Vicar of Bently for that he detained wrongfully from him the said Vicar a certain yearly Pension c. Given at Lambeth this thirtieth of June 1607. Et quod haec suit causa captionis et detentionis praed Anthonii in prison praed corpus tamen praed Anthonii modo hic paratus hâ—bet prout â— super quo visis praemissis per Justiciurios hic plenius examinatis videtur iisdem Justiciariis hic quod praed causa Commissionis praed Anthonii prison de Fleet praeâ— in retorn spâ—cificat minus sufficiens in lege existit c. Idco prad Anthonius a prisona prad per-Cur hic dimittitur ac idem Guardianus de hujusmodi Custodia per eand Cur. hic plene exoneretur And this was resolved una voce by Coke chief Justice Walmesly Warberton Daniel and Foster Justices And in the same Term in I am's Case A Parson in Noâ—folk that sued one of his Parishioners before the High-Commissioners for Scandal in saying only in the Church on a Sabbath day That he was a wicked man and an arrant Knave Prohibition lyes for this That it was not so enormous as the Staâ—â—te intended Hill 5 Jac. Regis Note It was moved to the Justices this Term upon consideration of the Acts of 34 H. 8. and 18 Eliz. If the Justices in Wales may be Constituted by Commission and it was conceived they could not but that it ought to be by Patent as hath been ever used since 34 H. 8. Then it was moved If the King by force of a Clause there in might do it which Clause is That the King 's most Royal Majesty shall and may at all times hereafter change adde alter minish and reform all manner c. And it seemed to divers of the Justices that this Power given to the King determin'd by his Death for divers Causes 1. Because it wants these Words His Successors and to draw it in Succession by Construction would be against the Intention of the Maker of the Act For they gave this high Power of Alteration c. of Laws to the King as to his most Excellent Wisdom shall be thought most meet which words want His Successors For they well knew his Wisdom did not go in Succession so the Power went not in Succession And for this that Eorum progressus ostendent multa quae ab initio provideri non possunt And what ensues upon this concerning this uniting of Wales and England none could divine But it was never the Intention of the said Act to give Power to the King and his Successors for ever to alter c. 2. Power of Alteration of Laws c. is a Point of Confidence concerning the Administration of Justice which the Act by omitting of his Successors intended to unite this Confidence to the Person of H. 8. and not to extend it without Limitation of time to his Successors 1 Ed. 5. 1. 1 H. 7. 1. 14 Ed. 4. 44. All Commissions concerning Administration of Justice determine by the King's Death Not so if he make a Lease durante bene placito or present one to a Church these are not void by his Death untill revoked by his Successor And upon Certificate of the Justices Opinion That the Justices of Wales cannot be Constituted by Commission Baron Snig had a Patent for the Circuit of Wales as others before him had Trin. 6 Jac. Regis This Term it was Resolved per totam Curiam in Communi Banco viz. Coke Chief Justice Walmesly Warberton Daniel and Foster in the Case of Allan Ball That the High-Commissions cannot be force of the Act 1 Eliz. cap. 1. send a Pursivant to Arrest any Person subjâ—ct to their Jurisdiction to answer to any matter before them But they ought to proceed according to Ecclesiasticall Law by Citation And in the Circuit of Northampton when the Lord Anderson and Glanvile were Justices of Assize a Pursivant was sent by the Commissioners to Arrest the Body of a Man to appear before them and in resistance of the Arrest and striving among them the Pursivant was killed And if this was Murther or not was doubted and it was Resolved that the Arrest was tortious and by consequence that this was not Murther though the killing of an Officer of Justice whose Authority is lawful in Execution of his Office is Murther But they may send Citation by a Puisivant and upon default proceed to Excommunication and then to have a Capias Excommunicatum which Writ de excommunicato capiendo is preserved and returnable by the Statute 5 Eliz. See Magna Charta and all the antient Statutes Vid. Rast Title Accusation Marmaduke Langdale's Case In the Case of Marmaduke Langdale of Leventhorp in the County of York by Joan his Wife being sued for maintenance before the Bishop of Canterbury and others High-Commissioners It was Resolved per totam Curiam praeter Walmesly that a Prohibition before granted was well maintainable because it was not any Enormity nor Offence within the Statute but a neglect of his duty and a Breach of his Vow of maintenance And the Rule of the Court was That the Plaintiff shall count against the High-Commissioners and upon Demurrer joyned the Case to be argued and adjudged and the Party grieved to have a Writ of Errour si sibi viderit expedire c. Upon Complaint made to the King and Councel by the Lord President of Wales and the Lord President of York against the Judges of the Realm and the King's Pleasure signified to them Upon Consideration had of the parts of the Complaint they Resolved upon these Answers And because of the Lord President of York first opened the Cause of his Grief more amply they first answered those Objections made on the behalf of that Councel And first as to the Institution of that Court. 1. After the Suppression of all Religious Houses Anno 27. H. 8. in
Judgment requires long Study and Experience With which his Majesty was greatly Offended and said Then he should be under the Law which was Treason to be said To which I said that Bracton saith Quod Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo et Iege Mich. 8 Jacob. Regis Robert's Case In this Term in the Case of one Roberts a Prohibition had been granted in a Case upon Substraction of Tythes upon surmise that the Plaintiff being Defendant in the Spiritual Court had but one Witness there to prove his Demise to which the Court said That singugaris Testis is not allowable And upon sight of a Prohibition in the same Case in Hill 3 Eliz. in Banâ—o Regis It was Resolved by Coke chief Justice Et totam Curiam in Communi Banco that Consultation should be granted for divers Reasons 1. It appears by the Register fol. 5. that it is put for a Rule Quod non est consonum rationi quod cognitio accessorii in Curia Christianitatis impediatur ubi cognitio causae principalis ad forum Ecclesiasticum â—â—scitur pertinere and with this agrâ—es 1 R. 3. 4. 2. If such a surmise shall be allowed then in every Case for meer delay such a surmise may be made And when the spiritual Court hath Jurisdiction of the principal Cause they determine the accessory But it was objected That if A. claiming a Lease by B. of a Rectory Libels for substraction of Tythes and the Defendant pleads a former Lease made by B. and C. and the Defendant hath but one Witness in the Case to prove the former Lease if no Prohibition shall be granted the Defendant shall be charged And if C. sue him upon the Statute 2 Ed. 6. the testimony of one only shall be then sufficient and so he shall he twice charged To which it was answered That first the fault was the Defendants that he would not set forth his Tythes and then he shall be charged whosoever takes them But in such the Ecclesiastical Court will upon one good Witness and any concurrent vâ—hement presumption allow of such a proof But if a question arise upon construction of a Statute and the Ecclesiastical Court will Judge of it against the Rule of Law there upon special surmise of it a Prohibition lies And Coke chief Justice cited a notable Judgment Pasch 35 Eliz. in Banke le Roy. Fuller brought a Prohibition against Clements and Wiskard and Fuller counted that himself was Owner of the Rectory of Longham in the County of Norfolk and libelled against Clements before the Bishop of Norwiches Official for substraction of Tythes scil Wheat pendent which Suit Wiskard intervening pro intercesse suo made there allegations against Fuller 1. That the said Rectory was impropriate to the Monastery of Windling and by dissolution thereof came to H. 8. and conveyed it by mean Discent to Queen Elizab. who by Letters Patents granted it to Min and Hall who enfeofâ—ed Bozome who let it to Wiskard for four years and upon proof of his allegations in fine Sentence was given against Fullâ—r and several Costs given to Clements and Wiskard Fuller appeals to the Court of the Arches and there Claims the said Rectory from Halls being seized of it who by his Deed granted the same to Sir Edward Clere before Bozomes Feoffment and that Sir Edward did enfeoff Fuller and offered to prove the Deed made to Sir Edward by one sole Witness which the Ecclesiastical Court would not allow of And Fuller further said That though he had alledged these matters were determinable at Common Law yet they gave Sentence The Defendants to have a Consultation pleaded That Fuller proved the delivery of the Deed by Clere and Mouse but could not prove Livery and Seisin according to the Deed and that therefore Sentence was given without that that the Judges would not admit the proof without other Witnesses upon this Fuller demurred and his Council objected 1. That Wiskard pleads matter determinable meerly at Common Law viz Letters Patents c. and on the other part Fuller Claims an Estate in the Rectory by conveyance at Common Law And the Question in the Court Ecclesiastical being Who hath the best Estate in the Rectory this ought to be tryed by the Common Law for this is the Birth-right of the Subject 2. It was Objected That all matters in Law ought to be determined by the Judges of the Law And in this Case matters of Law arising as if a Rectory be granted by Deed with all Tythes c. and no Livery is made If the Tythes may pass with any Livery this is a question to be decided by the Judges of the Common Law Quod quisque novit in hoc se exerceat 3. It was objected That Wiskard was a meer stranger to the Suit and all his Allegation is Temporal and for that it is a stronger Case to maintain a Prohibition 4. It was Objected That Fuller had but one Witness to prove the delivery of the Deed and in the Ecclesiasticall Law Unus Testis et nullus Testis for which causes it was prayed the Prohibition might stand To which it was answered by Sir Christopher Wray chief Justice Et per totam Curiam to the first Objection That 1. Where the original belongs to the Ecclesiastical Court the determination of all that depends on it belongs to the same Court though the matter be tryable at Law but where the Original matter belongs to the Common Law and there commenced and issue taken upon matter tryable by the Ecclesiastical Law there the Judges of our Law shall write to the Judges of the Ecclesiastical Court to try it and to certify As in action Ancestral if Bastardy be pleaded in the Demandant and upon this Issue is joyned this shall be tryed by the Bishop and his Certificate shall bind So in a Quare Impedit But though such issues are in their nature Tryable by the Law Ecclesiastical yet if the Case was such that the Ecclesiastical Court could not try it then that Justice be not wantâ—ng such Ecclesiastical matter shall be tryed by the Common Law as 4 Ed. 3. 26. But against this was objected the Statute de Articulis Cleri cap. 13. Quod de Idoneitate personâ— persoâ—atae ad beneficium Ecclesiasticum pertineat examinatio ad Judicom Ecclesiasticum upon which it was concluded That the Tryall de idomeitate personae in all Cases belong to Court-Christian To which it was answered and resolved That the Tryal of ability belongs to them but this Tryal must be by examination of the Party 〈◊〉 39 Ed 3. 2. That Earl of Arundâ—ll'â— Case and 4 Ed. 3. 25. 16 Eliz. Dyer 327. So if Bastardy be alledgâ—d in one who is dead Vide 17 Ed. 3. 5. where Bastardy is alledged in the Tenant and one who is a stranger to the Writ who are Sâ—sters Vide 32 Ed. 3. Trial 59. where the Tenant doth alledge Bastardy in himself and the Demandant doth aver him
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
same Term the said Judges of the Kings Bench Barons of the Exchequer and Justice Fenner and Yelverton who were omitted before and We the Justices of the Common-Bench were commanded to attend the Council And being all assembled We of the Common-Pleas were commanded to retire and then the King demanded their Opinions in certain Points touching the High-Commission wherein they unanimously agreeing We viz. Coke Walmesly Warberton and Foster were called before the King Prince and Council where the King declared That hy the Advice of his Council and the Justices of the Kings Bench and Barons he will reform the High-Commission in divers Points which after he will have to be obeyed in all Points Whereupon I said to the King That it was grievous to Us his Majesties Justices of the Bench to be severed from our Brethren but more grievous that they differed from us in Opinion without hearing one another especially since in what we have done in Sir VVilliam Chancys Case aud others the like concerning the Power of the High-Commissioners was done judicially in open Court upon argument at the Bar and Bench. And further I said to the King that when we the Justices of the Common-Pleas see the Commission newly reformed We will as to that which is of Right seek to satisfie the Kings expectation and so We departed c. Trin. 9 Jac. Regis Stockdale's Case in the Court of VVards The King by Letters Patents dated 9. April the ninth year of his Reign did Grant to VVilliam Stockdale in these words Such and so many of the Debts Duties Arrearages and Sums of Money being of Record in our Court of Exchequer Court of Wards Dutchy-Court or within any Court or Courts c. in any year or several years from the last year of the Reign of H. 8. to the 13th year of Our Dear Sister as shall amount to the sum of 1000 l. To have takâ— levy c. the said Debts c. to the said VVilliam Stockdale his Executors c. And in this Case divers Points were resolved 1. That the said Grant of the King is void for â—he incertainty for thereby no Debt in certain can pass As if the King have an 100 Acres of Land in D. and he Grants to a Man 20 Acres of the Lands in D. without describing them by the Rent Occupation or Name c. this Grant is void 2. When the Patentee Claims by force of this word Arreragia It was resolved clearly That he shall not have Arrearages of Rents Reliefs and mean Rates of Lands c. in the Court of Wards c. if the Patent go not further But the Proviso in the end of the Patent viz. Provided that the said VVilliam Stockdale shall take no benefit by any means of Arrearages of any Rents c. untill Sir Patrick Murrey and others be paid the sum of 1000 l. c. hath well explained what Arrearages the King intended But clearly mean Rates are not within the words for they are the Profits of Demesne Land Trin. 9 Jacobi Regis Divers men playing at Bowles at great Marlow in Kent two of them fell out and a third man who had not any quarrel in revenge of his Friend struck the other with a Bowl of which he dyed This was held Manslaughter because it happened upon a suddain motion In the same Term a special Verdict divers years past found in the County of Hertford which was That two Boyes fighting together one was seratched in the Face and bled very much at the Nose and so he run three quarters of a Mile to his Father who seeing his Son so abused he took a Cudgel and run to the place where the other Boy was and stroke him upon the Head upon which he dyed And this was held but Man-slaughter for the Passion of the Father was continued and no time to judge it in Law Malice prepense And this Case was moved ad mensam c. Mich. 9 Jac. Regis Memorandum upon Thursday in this Term a High Commission in Causes Ecclesiastical was published in the Archbishops great Chamber at Lambeth in which I with the Chief Justice Chief Baron Justice VVilliams Justice Crooke Baron Altham and Baron Bromly were named Commâ—ssioners among all the Lord of the Council divers Bishops Attorney and Sollicitor and divers Deans and Doctors in the Cannon and Civil Laws And I was commanded to sit by force of the said Commission which I refused for three Causes 1. Because neither I nor any of my Brethren of the Common-Pleas were acquainted with it 2. Because I did not know what was contained in the new Commission and no Judge can execute any Commission with a good Conscience without knowledg for Tantum sibi est permissum quantum est Commissum 3. That there was not any necessity of my sitting who understood nothing of it so long as the other Judges whose advise had been had in this new Commission were there 4. That I have endeavoured to inform my self of it by a Copy from the Rolls but it was not enrolled 5. None can sit by force of any Commission till he hath taken the Oath of Supremacy according to 1 Eliz. and if I may hear the Commission read and have a Copy to advise upon I will either sit or shew cause to the contrary The Lord Treasurer perswaded me to siâ— but I utterly refused it and the rest seemed to incline Then the Commission was openly read containing divers Points against the Laws and Statutes of England At hearing of which all the Judges rejoyced they sate not by it Then the Archbishop made an Oration during all which as the reading of the Commission I stood and would not sit and so by my Example did the rest of the Judges And so the Archbishop appointed the great Chamber at Lambeth in Winter and the Hall in Summer and every Thursday in the Term at two a clock Afnoon and in the Forenoon one Sermon Mich. 9 Jacob. Regis In this Term the Issue in an Information upon the 〈◊〉 2 H. 6. 15. was tryed at the Bar and upon Evidencâ— upon the words of the Statute which are That evâ—â—y person that sets or fastens in the Thames any Nets or Enâ—iâ—â—s called Trincks or any other Nâ—ts to any â—â—sts c. to stand continually day and night forfeits to â—he King 100 s. for every time c. And the Defendants having set and fastned Nets called Trincks in the Thames c. to Boats day and night as long as the Tide served and nor continually The Question was If this was within the Statute and it was clearly Resolved That it was within the Statute for the Nets called Trinks cannot stand longer than the Tyde serve and for this the word continually shall be taken for so long as they may stand to take Fish for lex non intendit aliquid impossibile Mich. 9 Jacob. Regis Shulters Case in the Star-Chamber The Case was such John Shulter of Wisbich of the age of 115 years
holden That if one were to sit in the Chancel and hath there a place his Carpet Livery and Cushion the Parson cannot claim them as Oblations for that they were hanged there in honour of the Deceased the same Reason of a Coat-Armour c. And the Chief Justice said the Lady might have a good Action during her Life in the Case aforesaid because she caused the things to he set up there and after her death the Heir shall have his Action they being in the nature of Hire-looms which belong to the Heir And with this agrees the Laws of other Nations Bartho Cassanâ—us sol 13. Coâ—cl 29. Actioâ— dat si aliquis arma in aliquo loco posita deleat aut abrasit c. and in 21 Ed. 3. 48. in the Bishop of Carlisle's Case Note That in Easter Term 10 Jacob. it was Resolved in the Star-Chamber in the Case between Hussâ—y and Katharine Leyton that if a man have a house in any Parish and that he and all those whose Estate he hath have used to have a certain Pew in the Church that if the Ordinary will displace him he shall have a Prohibition but where there is no such Prescription the Ordinary shall dispose of common and vulgar Seats Earl of Shrewes buryes Case Sir Humphry Winch Sir James Ley Sir Anthony St. Leger and Sir James Hullesâ—on certified the Lords of the Councel by Command from them by Letters dated 28. Martii 1612. of the Claim of Gilbert Earl of Shrewesbury to the Earldome of Waterford and Barony of Dungarvan in Ireland as followeth King Henry the Sixth by Letters-Patents in the 20th year of his Reign did Grant to his Cosin John Earl of Shrewsbury in consideration of his Loyal Services in the City and County of Waterford pro se c. ipsum in Comitem Waterford una cum stilo et titulo ac nomine ac honore eisdem debitis ordinamus creamus habendum to the said Earl and his Heirs-males of his Body and further did Grant the Castles Lordships c. of Dungarvan to the said Earl and the Heirs-males of his Body To hold c. of the King and his Heirs by Homage and Fealty and by the Service of being his Majesties Seneschal in Ireland After in the Parliament called Des Absentees holden at Dublin in Ireland 10. Maii 28 H. 8. It was enacted by reason of the long absence of George Earl of Shrewesbury out of the said Realm That the King his Heirs c. shall enjoy in right of his Crown of England all Honors Mannors Castles c. and all and singular possessions c. as well Spiritual as Temporal which the said George Earl of Shrewesbury and VVaterford or any other Persons had to his Use c. King Henry the 8th by his Letters Patents dated 29th of his Reign reciting the said Statute Nos praemissa Considerantes c. did Grant to the said Earl and his Heirs the Abbey of Rufford with the Lands thereunto c. in the County of Nottingham and the Lordship of Rotheram in the County of York the Abbeys of Chestersteld Shirbrook and Glossaâ—dale in Derbyshire with divers other Lands c. to be holden in Capite And the Questions were as followeth 1. Whether by the long absence of the Earl of Shrewsbury out of Ireland the Title of the Honor be lost and forfeited he being a Peer of both Realms and refiding here in England 2. Whether by the Act Des absentâ—es 28 H. 8. the Title of Dignity of Earl of VVaterford be taken from the said Earl as well as the Land c. Afterwards by other Letters Patents dated 27th of Sept. 1612. the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron were required to consider of the Case and to certifie their Opinions which Case being argued by Councel learned in the Law in behalf the said Earl and they having taken great advisement It was unanimously Resolved by them all as followeth 1. As to the fiâ—st Resolved That since it does not appear what defence was requisite and that the Consideration Executory was not found by Office to be broken in that Point the said Earl of Shrewsbury notwithstanding does remain Earl of Waterford 2. As to the second It was Resolved That the said Act 28 H. 8. Des Absenteâ—s does not onely take away the Possessions given him at his Creation but also the Dignity it self for though one may have a Dignity without Possession yet is it very inconvenient that Dignity should be cloathed with Poverty and so it was resolved in the Lord Ogles Case in Edw. 6. Reign as the Baron of Burleigh 35 Elâ—z did report The cause of Degradation of George Nevil Duke of Bedford is worth observation which was done by Act of Parliament 16 June 17 Ed. 4. which Act reciting the making the said George Duke sets forth the cause of his Degradation in these words And for so much as it is openly known that the said George hath not or by Inheritance may have any livelyhood to support the said Name Estate and Dignity c. Therefore the King by Advice of his Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons c. Enacteth c. That from henceforth the same Creation of the said Duke and all Names of Dignity given to the said George or to John Nevil his Father be void and of none effect Wherein are to be observed 1. That though the Duke had not Possessions to maintain his Dignity yet it could not be taken from him but by Act of Parliament 2. Great Inconveniencies follow where there is great State and Dignity and no means to maintain it 3. It is good reason to take away such Dignity by Act of Parliament and then the Act shall be expounded to take away such Inconvenience And though the Earl of Shrewsbury be of great Honour Vertue and Possessions in England yet it was not the Intention of the Act to continue him Earl in Ireland when his Possessions there were taken away And where it was objected that the general words Honours and Hereditaments are explained and qualified by the said Relative subsequent which the said George or any to his use hath Now in regard no man can be seized of the said Digniâ—y therefore the Act doth not extend to it 'T is answered that is to be understood Reddendo singula singulis and these words which the said G. E. hath are sufficient to pass the Dignity and with this agrees all the Judges Opinions in England in Nevils Case upon the like in the Statute 28 H. 8. in 7th Part of my Reports sol 33 and 34. Hill 2 Jacob. Regis Jurisdiction of the Court of Common-Pleas In the last Term by the King's Commands the Justices of the Kings Bench and Barons of the Exchequer were assembled before the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere at York-house to deliver their Opinion Whether there was any Authority in our Books that the Justices of the Common-Bench may grant Prohibitions or whether every Plea ought to be pending
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-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
c. Mills c. and to correct repair or pull down c. as cause requireth according to their discretions c. after the effect of the Statute made before the 1. of March 23 H. 8. By which appears that the Commissioners discretion was limited viz. to proceed according to the Statutes and Ordinances before made c. And the said Act provides That all and every Statute Act and Ordinance heretofore made concerning the Premises not contrary to this Act nor repealed shall stand good and be effectual for ever But the said Acts 25 Ed. 3. and 1 H. 4. are not contrary to the said Act nor repealed and always such construction ought to be made that one part of the Act may agree with another And according to this Resolution We certified the Lords of the Councel that the said Star 25 E. 3. 1 H. 4. remained yet in force and that the Authority given by the Commission of Sewers did not extend to Mills Mill-stanks Cawseys c. erected before Ed. 1. unless they have been inhanced and then they are not to be subverted but reformed by abating the Inhancement onely Trin. 7 Jacobi Regis The Case de modo Deciâ— andi and of Prohibitions Richard Archbishop of Canterbury with the Bishops of London Bath and Wells and Rochester divers Doctors of the Civil and Canon-Law as Dr. Dun Judge of the Arches Dr. Rennet Judge of the Prerogative Dr. James Dr. Martin and others came and attended the King at White-Hall the Thursday Friday and Saturday after Easter Term in the Councel-Chamber where the Chief Justice and I my self Daniel Judge of the Common-Pleas and Williams Judge of the Kings-Bench by the King's Command attended also where the King assisted with his Privy-Councel all sitting at the Councel-Table spake as a most Gracious Soveraign to this effect As He would not suffer any Novelties or Innovations in his Courts of Justice Ecclesiastical and Temporal so he would not have any the Laws which had Judicial Allowances in the Times of his Predecessors Kings of England to be forgotten And forasmuch as Contentions between the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts cannot but breed great Inconvenience to the Subjects especially when the Controversie ariseth upon the Jurisdiction of his Ordinary Courts of Justice And because he was the Head of Justice immediately under God and knowing what hurt may grow to his Subjects when the Jurisdiction of his Courts are drawn in question He thought it concerned him as a King to hear the Controversies between the Bishops and Clergy and the Judges of his Laws of England and to take Order that the one do not encroach upon the other And He said The onely Question then to be disputed was If a Parson or Vicar of a Parish sues one of his Parish in the Spiritual Court for Tythes in Kind or Layfee and the Defendant alleadgeth a Custom or Prescription de modo Decimandi if that Custom or Prescription shall be tryed and determined before the the Judge 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 Judges should declare the Reasons of our Proceedings and what Authorities in the Law we had to warrant our Proceedings in granting Prohibitions in Cases de modo Decimandi But the Archbishop of Canterbury kneeled before the King and desired he would hear him and others provided to speak in the Case for the good of the Church of England And the Archbishop inveighed chiefly against two things 1. That a Modus Decimandi should be tryed by a Jury because they themselves claim more or less modum Decimandi so as in effect they were Tryers in their own Cause or in the like Cases 2. He inveighed much the precipitate and hasty Tryals by Juries and after him Dr. Bennet made a large Invection against Prohibitions in causis Ecclesiasticis and he made five Reasons why they should try modum Decimandi 1. The first and principal was out of the Register fol. 58. quia non est consonans rationi quod cognitio accessarii in Curiae Christianitatis impâ—diatur ubi cognitio causae principalis ad forem Ecclesiasticum noscitur peâ—tinere And the principal cause is Right of Tythes and the Plea of Modus Decimandi sounds in satisfaction of Tythes and therefore the Conuzance of the Original Cause viz. the Right of Tythes belonging to them the Conuzance of the Bar of Tythes belonged to them And whereas it is said in the second Part of my Reports in the Bishop of Winchesters Case and 8 Ed. 4. 14. that they would not accept of any Plea in discharge of Tythes in the Spirituall Court he said they would allow such Pleas and had allowed them being duly proved before them 2. There was great inconveniency that Lay-men should be Tryers of their own Customs for they shall be Jurors in their own Cause 3. That the Custom of Modo Decimandi is of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for it is a manner of Tything and all manner of Tything belongs to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and therefore he said if the Right of Tythes be of Ecclesiastical Conuzance and the Satisfaction also for them of the same Jurisdiction the same shall be tryed in the Ecclesiastical Court 4. In the Prohibitions of Modus Decimandi Averment is taken that though the Plaintiff in the Prohibition offer to prove Modum Decimandi the Ecclesiastical Court doth refuse to allow it but he said they would allow such Plea and therefore Cessante causa cessabit et effectus and no Prohibition shall lye 5. He said he can shew many Consultations granted in the Cause de modo Decimandi and a Consultation is of greater force then a Prohibition And Bacon Sollicitor General being as is said assigned with the Clergy by the King said less then Dr. Bennâ—t but he vouched 1 R. 3. 4. the Opinion of Hussey when the Originall ought to begin in the Spiritual Court and afterwards a thing cometh in Issue and is Tryable by our Law yet it shall be tryed by their Law See the Register 57 58. 38 Ed. 3 5. and 38 Ed. 3. 6. And the Judges made humble Suit to the King That in regard they perceived his Majesty in his Princely Wisdom derested Novelties and Innovations that He vouchsafe to suffer them to inform him of one Innovation which they did conceive would tend to hinder the Administration of Justice within his Realm Your Majesty for the due Administration of Justice hath made 14 Judges to whom you have committed not onely the Administration of ordinary Justice but crimina Laesae Majestatis Also in Parliament we are called by Writ to give our Advice and Councel to your Majesty and the Lords when we are required We two Chief Justices sit in the Star-Chamber Chancery Court of Wards and other High-Courts of Justice We in our Circuits do visit twice in the Year your Realm and execute Justice according to your Laws and if We
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-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
their Consciences and Oaths they can 2. That all the said Cases are clear in the Judgment of those who are Learned in the Laws that Consultation ought by the Law to be granted 1. For as to the first President the Case upon their own shewing is Three Persons joyned in one Prohibition for three several parcels of Land each having a several sort of Tything and their Interests being several they could not joyn and therefore a Consultation was granted 2. To the second the manner of Tything was alleadged to be paid to the Parson or Vicar which is uncertain 3. To the third The Modus never came in Debate but whether the Tythes did belong to the Parson or Vicar which being between two Spiritual Persons the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Jurisdiction and therewith agrees 38 E. 3. 6. 4. To the last The same was upon the matter of a Custom of a Modus Decimandi for Wooll for to pay the Tythe of Corn or Hay in Kind in satisfaction of Corn Hay and Wooll cannot be a satisfaction for the Wooll for the other two were due of common right The Bishop of London answer'd That the words of the Consultation were Quod suggestio praedicta mattriaque in eadem cohtenta minus sufficiens in lege existit c. So as materia cannot be referâ—ed to Form and therefore it ought to extend to the Moâ—us Decimandi To which I answer'd That when the Matter is insufficiently or uncertainly alleadged the Matter it self faileth and though the Matter be in truth sufficient yet if it were insufficiently alleadged the Plea wanteth matter Then the Lord Treasurer saâ—d he wondered they would produce things that made more against them then any thing had been said And when the King relyed upon the Prohibition in the Register when Land is given in discharge of Tythes the Lord Chancellor said That was not like this Case For there by the Gift of the Land the Tythes were discharged but in the Case de modo Decimandi an Annual Sum is paid yet the Land remains charged and is to be discharged by Plea de modo Decimâ—ndi All which I utterly denied For the Land was as absolutely discharged of the Tythes in casu de modo Decimandi as where Lands are given All which the King heard with patience and the Chancellor answer'd no more After the King with all his Councel had for 3 dayes together heard the Allegations on both sides he said He would maintain the Laws of England and that his Judges should have as great respect from all his Subjects as their Predecessors And for the Matter he said for any thing had been said on the Clergies part he was not satisfied and advised Us the Judges to confer among our selves and that nothing be encroached in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdâ—ction and they to keep within their Jurisdiction And this was the end of these three dayes Consultation Note Dr. Bennet in his Discourse inveighed much against the Opinion 8 E. 4. 14. and in my Reports in Wrights Case That the Ecclesiastical Judge would not allow a Modus Decimandi and said that was the Mistery of Iniquiâ—y and they would allow it The King asked for what cause it was so said in the said Books To which I answer'd That it appears in Linwood who was Dean of the Arches and a Profound Canonist who wrote in Henry the Sixth's time in his Title De decimis cap Quoniam propter c. fol. 139. b. Quod decimae soluantur 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 so great a Canonist was the cause of the said Saying in 8 E. 4. that they would not allow the said Plea de modo decimandi And it seemed to the King that that Book was a good cause for them in Edward the Fourth's time to say as they had said But I said I did not rely thereon but on the Grounds aforesaid Lastly The King said that the High Commission ought not to meddle with any thing but that which is enormous and which the Law cannot punish as Heresie Schism Incest and the like great Offences And the King thought that two High-Commissions for either Province one should be sufficient for all England and no more Mich. 39 40 Eliz. In the Kings-Bench Bedel and Sherman's Case Mich. 39 40 Eliz. Which is entred Mich. 40 Elizâ— in the Common-Pleas Rot. 699. Cantabr the Case was this Robert Bedel Gent. and Sarah his Wife Farmers of the Rectory of Litlington in the County of Cambridge brought an Action of Debt against John Sherman in custodia mariscalli c. and demanded 550 l. and declared that the Master and Fellows of Clare-Hall in Cambridge were ieized of the said Rectory in Fee in right of the said Colledge and the 10 Jun. 29 Eliz. by Indenture dâ—nised to Christopher Phesâ—nt the said Rectory for 21 years rendring 17 l. 15 s. 5 d. and reserving Rent-corn according to the Statute c. which Rent was the antient Rent who entred and was possessed and assigned all his Interest to one Matthew Bats who made his last Wâ—ll and made Sarah his Wife Executrix and dyed Sarah proved the Will and entred and was thereof possessed as Executrix and took to Husband the said Robert Beâ—el by force whereof hey in right of the said Sarah entred and were possessed and the Defendant was thâ—n Tenant and seized for his life of 300 Acres of Arable Lands in Litlington aforesaid which ought to pay Tythes to the Rector of Litlington and in 38 Eliz. the Defendant Sâ—minavit grano 200 Acres paâ—c â— c. the Tythes whereof amounted to 150 l. And the Defendant did not set forth the same from the Nine Parts but carryed them away contrary to the Statute 2 E 6 c. The Defendant pleaded Nihil debet And the Jury â—ound that the Defendant did owe 55 l. and to thâ— rest they found Nihil debet And in Arrest of Judgment divers Matters were moved 1. That Grano Seminata is too general and it ought to be expressed with what kind of Grain the same was sowed 2. It was moved If the Parson ought to have the treble value the Forfeiture being â—xoresly limited to none by the Act. or that the same beâ—ong to the Queen 3. If the same belong to the Parson if he ought to sue for it in the Ecclesiastical Court or in the King 's Temporal Court 4. If the Husband and Wife should joyn in the Action or the Husband alone and upon solemn Argument at the Barre and Bench Judgment was affirmed Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards John Bayley's Case It was found by Writ of Dien clausit extremum that the said John Bayley was seized of a Messuage and of and in the 4th part of one Acre of Land late parcel of the Demesne Lands of the Mâ—nnor of Newton in the
shall be extinct for Fealâ—y is by necessity of Law incident to the Reversion but the Rent shall be divided pro rata portionis and so it was adjudged And it was also adjudged That though Collins come to the Reversion by several Conveyances and at severall times yet he might bâ—ing an Action of Debt for the whole Rent Hill 43 Eliz. Rot. 243. West and Lassels Case So Hill 42 Eliz. Rot. 108. in the Common Pleas Ewer and Moylâ—s Case Note It was adjudged 19 Eliz. in the Kings-Bench that where one obtained a Prohibition upon Prescription de modo Decimandi by payment of a sum of money at a certain day upon which Issue was takeâ— and the Jury found the modus Decimandi by payment of the said sum but at another day the Case being well debated at last it was Resolved That no Consultation should be granted for though the day of payment may bâ— mistaken yet a Consultation shall not be granted where the Soitâ—tual Court hath not Jurisdiction of the Cause Taafi ld Chief Baron hath the Report of this Cause Mich. 7 Jac. Regis In an Ejectione Firmae he Writ and Declaration were of two parts of certain Lands in Hetherset and Windham in the County of Norfolk and saith not in two parts in three parts to be divided and yet it was good as well in the Declaration as the Writ for without question the Writ is good de duabus partibus generally and so is the Register See the 4 E. 3. 162. 2 E. 3. 31. 2 Ass 1. 10 Ass 12. 10 E. 3. 511. 11 Ass 21. 11 E. 3. Bre. 478. 9 H. 6. 36. 17 E. 4. 46. 19 E. 3. Bre. 244. And upon all the said Books it appears that by the Intendment and Construction of the Law when any parts are demanded without shewing in how many parts the whole is divided that there remains but one part undivided But when any Demand is of other parts in other form there he ought to shew the same specially And according to this difference it was resolved in Jordan's Case in the Kings-Bench and accordingly Judgment was given this Term in the Caseat Bar. Mich. 7 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas Muttoa's Case An Action upon the Case was brought against Mutton for calling the Plaintiff Sorce and Inchanter who pleaded Not Guilty and it was found against to the Damage of six pence And it was holden by the whole Court in the Common-Pleas that no Action lyes for the laid words for Sortilegus est qui per sortes futura praenunciat Inchantry is vordis aut rebus adjunctis aliquid praeter naturam moliri See 45 Ed. 3. 17. One was taken in Southwark with the Head and Visage of a dead man and with a Book of Sorcery in his Mayl and he was brought into the Kings-Bench before Knevet Justice but no Indictment was framed against him for which the Clerks made him swear never after to commit Sorcery and he was sent to Prison and the Head and Book were burn'd at Tuthil at the Prisoners charges The antient Law was as by Britton appears that who were attainted of Sorcery were burned but the Law at this day is they shall onely be fined and imprisoned So if one call another Witch an Action will not lye But if one say She is a Witch and hath bewitched such a one to death an Action upon the Case lyes if in truth the party be dead Conjuration in the Stat. 5 Eliz. cap. 16. is taken for Invocation of any evil and wicked Spirits and the same by that Act is made Felony But Witchcraft Inchantment Charms or Sorcery is not Felony if not by them any person be killed or dyeth The first Statute made against Conjuration Witchcraft c. was the Act 33 H. 8. c. 8. and by it they were Felony in certain Cases special but that was repealed by the 1 Ed. 6. c. 12. Mich. 7 Jae Regis In the Court of Wards Sir Allen Percy 's Case Sir John Fitz and Bridget his Wife being Tenants for life of a Tenement called Ramshams the remainder to Sir John Fitz in Tail the remainder to Bridget in Tail the reversion to Sir John and his Heirs Sir John and Bridget his Wife by Indenture demised the said Tenement to William Sprey for divers years yet to come except all Trees of Timber Oakes and Ashes and liberty to carry them away rendring Rent And afterwards Sir John dyed having Issue Mary his Daughter now Wife of Sir Allen Percy Knight and afterwards the said William Sprey demised the same Tenement to Sir Allen for 7 years The Question was Whether Sir Allen having the immediate Inheritance in right of his Wife expectant upon the Estate for the life of Bridget and also having the Possession of the said Demise might cut down the Timber Trees Oakes and Ashes And it was objected he might well do it for it was Resolved in Sanders Case in the 5th Part of my Reports That if Lessee for years or life assigns over his term or Estate to another excepting the Mines or the Trees c. that the Exception is void But it was answered and Resolved by the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron that in the Case at Bar the Exception was good without question because he who hath the Inheritance joyns in the Lease with the Lessee for life And it was further Resolved That if Tenant for life Leaseth for years excepting the Timber Trees the same is lawfully and wisely done for otherwise if the Lessee or Assignee cut down the Trees the Tenant for Life should be punished in Wast and should not have any remedy against the Lessee for years But when Tenant for life upon his Lease excepteth the Trees if they be cut down by the Lessor the Lessee or Assignee shall have an Action of Trespass Quare vi armis and shall recover Damages according to his loss And this Case is not like the Case of Sanders for there the Lessee assigned over his whole Interest and therefore could not except the Mines Trees c. But when Tenant for life leases for years except the Timber Trees the same remaineth yet annexed to his Free-hold and he may command the Lessee to take them for necessary Reparations of his Houses And in the said Case of Sanders a Judgment is cited between Foster and Miles Plaintiffs and Spencer and Bourd Defendants That where Lessee for years assigns over his Term except the Trees that Wast in such Case shall be brought against the Assignee But in this Case without question Wast lyeth against Tenant for life and so there is a difference Mich. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards Hulme's Case The King in Right of his Dutchy of Lancaster Lord Richard Hulms seized of the Mannor of Male in the County of Lancaster holden of the King as of his Dutchy by Knights Service Mesne and Robert Male seized of Lands in Male holden of the Mesne as of his said Mannor by Knights