Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	ecclesiastical_a	king_n	temporal_a	3,017	5	8.3913	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A29898	Reports of diverse choice cases in law taken by those late and most judicious prothonotaries of the Common Pleas, Richard Brownlow & John Goldesborough ; with directions how to proceed in many intricate actions both reall and personall ... ; also a most perfect and exact table, shewing appositely the contents of the whole book.	Brownlow, Richard, 1553-1638.; Goldesborough, John, 1568-1618.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.	1651 (1651)	Wing B5198; ESTC R24766	613,604	621

Immunities c. of what nature c. be they Ecclesiasticall or Temporall which appertain and belong c. by or in the right of their Religion but the Priviledges and Immunities they have in the right of their Religion and these the Statute of 32. H. 8. gives to the King and there is no cause that they should surmount or that the Statute should give to them more favour then the former Statute hath given to those religious houses which were dissolved by the Statute of 31. Eliz. For the Hospitallers of S. Johns were favourers and maintainers of the Popes Jurisdictions as well as the others as it appears by the Statute of 32. H. 8. Also the words of 32. H. 8. hath only the words of the King and his Successors and doth not speak of his Assigns which words are expressed in the Statute of 32. H. 8 But it is provided by 32. H. 8. that the King cannot use at his will and pleasure which amounts to so much Also the Statute of 31. H. 8. extends to all Religious houses by expresse words and it shall not be intended that the intent of the makers of the statute was to omit that which were to be of the Order of S. Johns of Jerusalem when the mischeif was in equal degree And it hath been agreed that they are religious persons and that they were under the obedience of the Pope for so they are described in the statute of 17. R. 2. by which the possessions of the Templers was transferred to them so that on the matter they are religious which shall not be intended so largely as every Christian may be said religious but Secular and Regular which vow Obedience Chastity and Poverty and for the proof of this he cyted a president Also it seems to him that the Statute of 30. H. 8. extends to those Lands which come to the King by the statute of 32. H. 8. And it is not like to the Arch-Bishop of Canterburies case 2 Coke 47. upon the statute of 1. Ed. 6. For that Statute gives the Lands to the King for other causes and not for the same causes which are contained in the Statute of 31. H. 8. But the Statute of 32. H. 8. is for the same cause and with the same respect to Religion But if these Lands have come to the King by Exchange or by Attainder then they shall not be intended to be within the Statute of 31. H. 8. But if another Statute be made in 32. H. 8. by which all Religious houses have been given to the King this shall be intended within the Statute of 31. H. 8. And the Judges before whom the cause depended judicially ought not to be ignorant of that and so he prayed that a Prohibition might be Shirley Serjeant for the Defendant at another day in Trinity Tearm 9. Jacobi argued that the question only depended upon the Statute of 32. H. 8. upon which the Prohibition is founded with the Statute of 31. H. 8. by which the Lands of Monasteries are given to the King do not extend to those Lands which are given after by Parliament But he intented that the Constitution which discharges the Templers of the payment of Tithes is spirituall and extends only to spirituall persons which may prescribe in not tything see 38. Ed. 3. 6. 2 of Coke the Bishop of Winchesters Case 44. Also he intended when an appropriation was made to the Templers that this is determined by dissolution of their Order So upon the Statute of H. 5. of Priors Aliens which have Impropriations or which have Rent issuing out of them and after the Impropriation is dissolved the Rent is gone for the Impropriation is dissolved Also he took exception to the pleading for that that it is only a branch of the Statute of 32. H. 8. And then by vertue of the premises he was seised which is not good and so hee concluded that it was a good cause of demurrer upon the Prohibition and prayed consultation Barker Serjeant for the Plaintiff seems the contrary and yet he agreed that he could not take benefit of the Statute of 31. H. 8. for that that these Lands came to the King by another Statute but he relyed upon the words of the 32. H. 8. which was made only for the dissolution of the Hospitall of St. Johns of Jerusalem Tythes are as ancient as any thing that the Church hath and before that any Law was written for Abraham payed Tithes to Melchisedeck but it doth not appeare that he paid the tenth part but Tithes are due by the Judiciall Law of God and the King hath power to appoint what quantity shall be paid But at the beginning there were Sacrifices Oblations and Tithes And it was ordained by Edgar King of this Realm that Tithes should be given to the Mother Church Also Edmund Ethelstone William the Conquerour and the Councell of Magans specially provided that Tithes should be paid but did not appoint when they should be paid But the first Law which appointed the quantity was made in the time of Edw. 1. and this ordained when they ought to pay the Tenth with the feare of God And it was resolved in Fox and Cresbrooks case in the Commentaries after severance they are temporall and Action lyes against him which carries them away as of Mortuary as it is resolved 10. H. 4. 1. 6. And before the Councell of Lateran every one might pay his Tithes to what person he would and then were paid to Monasteries as Oblations But of Tithes which are due to any by prescription hee which payes them hath no such election but ought to pay them to him which claims them by prescription 14. H. 4. 17. If a Parson of a Parish claim Tithes in another Parish as portion of Tithes due by prescription to his Rectory he ought to shew the place specially So if Nunns prescribe to have a portion of Tithes they ought to shew the place for it is a question if they are spirituall or not for their office is only to pray in their house 24. Ed. 3. So the book of Entries if a man claim Tithes to his Pupil he ought to shew in what place the Tithes lye in the 17. Ed. 2. The order of the Templers was dissolved and their possessions annexed to St. Johns of Jerusalem and they did not claim by any Bull of the Pope nor other spirituall Canon but by prescription which is priviledg and private Common law and this appears by the Statute of Westminster 2 Chap. 47. That is that they are conservators of his priviledges Also he saith that the Statute of 2. H. 4. discharges Farmers without speaking of Priviledges And the Statute of 7. H. 4. 6. useth the same words which are contained in the Stat. of 32. H. 8. That is that none shall put in execution any Buls containing any priviledges to be discharged of payment of Tithes And Mephams Canon in time of Ed. 1. saith Let the custome be

without title he may have an action of Covenant for the Lessor hath the Evidences and ought to defend the possession of his Lessee and the right also and damages are only to be recovered and so is the difference between a Lease and Inheritance though that the words of the Covenant are all one And also he said that it may be objected that the Incorporation was not well pleaded by Edw. 6. Insomuch that he doth not say after the Conquest for Ed. 3. was Ed. 6. in truth sor there were 3 Edwards before the Conquest and he was the third after And he saith that he hath known many exceptions to be taken to that but hath not known any of them to be allowed and for that he will not insist upon it But the principal matter upon which he insists was that it doth not appear by the pleading that the Deane which made the Lease was dead and it appears by the pleading that he entered in 4 Jacobi and was seised and then of necessity ought to be living and such averment of his life is sufficient as it is agreed in the 13 Eliz. Dyer where a Parson made a Lease for years and the Lessee brought an Ejectione firme and in pleading it was said that the Parson is seised of the reversion and this was allowed to be good without other averment of his life for he cannot be seised if he be not living and then if the Deane shall be intended to be living then they all agreed that the Lease shall be good against him for it was adjudged in this Court between Blackeleech and Smal that if a Bishop makes a Lease for years and after makes a Lease for life the Lease for years being in Esse and dyes and the Successor accepts Rent this shall bind him and by this it appears that the Lease was good against the Dean himself which made it and also against the Successor till he enter and avoid it and then by consequence the action of Covenant shall be very well maintainable and so he concluded also that Judgement should be given for the Plaintiff which was done accordingly Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Browning against Strelley MIchael 2 Jac. Rot. 531. In debt the Margent of the Count contains Nottingham and the Count it self contains that the Obligation was made at the Town of Nottingham which is a County of it self and the Defendant pleads non est factum and the view was of the Town of Nottingham and it was tryed by the Jury of the County of Nottingham and this was moved in arrest of Judgment after verdict for the Plaintif by Nichols Serjeant And it was agreed by all the Justices that Judgment shall be given accordingly to the verdict insomuch that notwithstanding that the Town of Nottingham is a County of it self yet it may be that some part of the Town may be within the County and for that possibility they would not arrest the Judgment Ireland against Smith IN action upon the Case for these words the Plaintiff counts that he was and is Proctor in the Arches and in communication between one Morgat and the Defendant of him the Defendant said to the said Morgat You take part with Ireland against me who is an arrant Papist and hath a Pardon from the Pope and can help you to such an one if you will And after verdict it was moved by Hutton Serjeant in arrest of Judgment that the action doth not lye and he saith that it hath been adjudged in this Court 3 Jacobi Rot. 7031. between Kingstone and Hall that an action doth not lye for like words he is an arrant Papist And it were good that he and all such as he is were hanged for he and all such as he is would have the Crowne from the Kings head if they durst And it was adjudged that an action doth not lye for these words which are more strong then the words in this action but of the other part it was said by Haughton Serjeant that he did not insist upon these words that he is a Papist but that he had obtained a Pardon from the Pope the which by the Statute of 13 Eliz. is made High Treason and then notwithstanding that no time was limited when the Pardon should be procured that is before the Statute or after yet it shall be intended such a Pardon which is against the Statute for the presumption of the Law shall be taken in the worst sense and not like to the Case where a man saith to another that he hath the Pox And also it is alledged by the Count that the Plaintiffe is not above the age of 40. years so that he cannot obtain a Pardon before the Statute of 13 Eliz. And for that he supposed that the action is very well maintainable Coke cheif Justice said that it was adjudged in the Kings Bench in the time of Catlyn cheife Justice there that an action upon the Case doth not lye for calling a man Papist And Winch Justice said that if a man call a Bishop or another man which is trusted with government of the Church and Ecclesiastical causes that he thought the action lyes otherwise not Also he supposed that the Pardon might be for Purgatory or other matters which are not within the Statute of 13 Eliz. And also the Pardon may be procured by another and come to his hands by delivery over afterwards that it had passed two or three and the averment is not sufficient for it is onely Implication and Inference Coke and Warberton Justices sayd that a Papist is one that errs in his opinion and though that the Papists are Authors of many Treasons yet the Law doth not intend so and so of Heretick which is alwaies in a fundamentall point of Religion and yet an action doth not ly for calling a man Heretick also the Pope is a temporall Prince in Italy and for this cause also may pardon and this is out of the statute of 13 Eliz. and so they all agreed that the Action doth not ly for these words Pasche 1612. 10 Jacobi In the Common Bench. Marstones Case IN a common Recovery the Tenant appears by Attorney and vouches one which is present in Court which appears and vouches the common Vouchee and the Attorney hath a Warrant of the party acknowledged before a Judge but this was not entred of record and this was in Hillary tearme 16 Eliz. And it was moved by Dodridge the Kings Serjeant that the Warrant of Attorney might be now amended and entred upon the record and Coke supposed cleerly that it shall not be entred insomuch that it is a want of a Warrant of Attorney but if there had been a mis-construing of the Warrant of Attorney otherwise it is for this seems to be within the Statute of 27 Eliz. Chapter 5. Concerning amendments In Debt upon an obligation with condition to perform Covenants in an Indenture of Lease the Defendant pleads that after

Estcourt and Harrington 272 Earl of Rutlands Case 330 F. Forde versus Pomroy 9 Fetherstones Case 168 Flemming and Jales 280 Freeman against Baspoule 309 Foster against Jackson 311 G. Glover and Wendham 10 Gaudey against Newman 38 Gargrave against Gargrave 52 Gravesend Case 177 Goodyer and Ince 208 Gittins against Cowper 217 Grimes against Peacock 222 Godsalls Case 270 H. Hurrey against Boyer 8 Huntley against Cage 14 Hurrey against Bowyer 20 Hamond against Jethro 97 Hamond Strangis Case 102 Hill againstVpchurch 121 Hall against Stanley 124 Holcraft against French 137 Higgins against Piddle 149 Hare and Savill 273 Heyden against Smith 328 I. Jones against Boyer 27 Jennings against Audley 30 James versus Reade 47 Jacob against Sowgate 12● Ireland against Smith 166 K. Kenrick against Pargiter and Phillips 60 Kemp and Phillip his Wife James and Blanch his Wife against Lawrere and Trallop and the Wife of Gunter 144 L. Linch against Porter 1 Legates Case 41 Lampit against Margeret Starkey 17● Lawry against Aldred and Edmonds 183 M. Master Brothers and Governours of Trinity house againsi Boreman 13 Mallet against Mallet 133 Marstons Case 167 Manley against Jennings 176 Marsam against Hunter 209 Miller and Francis 277 Michelborn against Michelborn 296 Mors against Webbe 297 P. Parkers Case 7 Penns Case ibid. Priddle against Napper 25 Powis against Bowen 29 Parkers Case 37 Petty against Evans 40 Pyat against the Lady Saint-John 56 Portington against Rogers 65 Pits against Dowse 74 Petoes Case 75 Patrick against Lowre 101 Prowse against Worthing 103 Peto against Checy and Sherman and their Wives 128 Peacock against S George Reynel 151 Proctor against Johnson 212 Payne and Mutton 276 R. Robotham and Trevor 11 Reyner against Powell 42 76 Rowles against Mason 85 192 Robinsons Case 271 Rivit against Downe 279 Read against Fisher 297 Rutlage against Clarke 308 S. Symonds against Greene 16 Sir William Chanceyes Case 18 Sir John Watts 29 Sir Edward Ashfeild 48 Styles against Baxter 49 Sturgis against Deane 57 Sir Richard Bulkley against Owen Wood 100 Sir Ed. Puncheon against Legate 137 Sir Henry Rowles against Sir Robert Osborne and Margeret his Wife 169 Strobridge against Fortescue and Barret 190 Sammer and Force 208 Styles Case 216 Stydson against Glasse 223 Simson and Waters 272 Smallman against Powes 291 T. Tey against Cox 35 Tresham against Lambe 46 Trobervill against Brent 97 Tyrer against Littleton 187 The Lord Rich against Frank 202 Trinity Colledge Case 243 The Towne of Barwick 270 The Duke of Lenox Case 301 V. Vivion against Wilde 290 W. Wagginer and Wood 9 Westons Case 11 Wallop against the Bishop of Exeter and Murrey Clark 45 Wickenden against Thomas 58 Weeks against Bathurst 102 Water against the Deane and Chapter of Norwich 158 Warbrook and Griffin 254 Waggoner against Fish 278 Waggoner against Fish Chamberlaine of London 284 Y. Yates and Rowles 207 THE SECOND PART OF BROWNLOWE'S REPORTS Containing divers excellent Cases and Resolutions in Law Lynche against Porter THE Plaintiffe in Prohibition suggests that hee inhabited in London within the Diocesse of the Bishop of London and was cyted to appeare in the Court of the Arches and was out of the Diocesse of London without license of the Bishop of London against the Statute of 23. Henry 8. And upon the first motion the Court gave rule to the Defendant to shew cause why the Prohibition should not be granted and to heare the Civilians and to conferre with them concerning the practise and expounding of the Statute of 23. H. 8. Chap. 9. And at the day appointed three severall Civilians came into the Court and were heard according to the former Order and they say that they use to cyte any Inhabitant that inhabits in London to appeare and to make answer in the Arches originally for the mischief that the Statute of 23. H. 8. intends to prevent was that those which inhabite in Dioces remote from London should not be sued here without licence from the Ordinary but this mischiefe was not in this case And Doctor Martin saith that so it was used by the space of 427. years before the making of the Statute and then was complaint made thereof to the Pope and he was answered that it was the use that any man might be cyted to the Arches out of any Diocesse in England and also that the Arch-Bishop may hold his Consistory in any Diocesse within his Jurisdiction and Province And also that the Arch-Bishop hath concurrent Jurisdiction in the Diocess of every Bishop as well as the Arch-Deacon And then if the suit be first begun in the Court of the Arch-Bishop or the Bishop or Arch-Deacon it ought to be there determined where it had its beginning and shall not be inhibited And then it was objected by Cooke chief Justice that the Statute of 23. H. 8. was affirmed by Canon 94. And this sheweth the agreement of the Civilians with the said Statute And to this Doctor Martin answered that the said Canon was made in the vacancy of the Church of Canterbury for the Sea of the Arch-Bishoprick was then void and also he said that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury prescribes to hold plea of all things and of all persons in England And the Pope hath no power to make Canons against the Law nor against any Custome or Prescription and for this it shall be void and that shall not bind the Arch-Bishop which is against the said prescription and also it seems to the Civilians that the exposition of the said Statute being the Ecclesiasticall Statute appointed to them And also it was said by them that this detracts from the Arch-Bishops Jurisdiction against the custome of the Realm and every Subject hath interest in that And also that the Bishop takes notice that they hold plea of the said cause and took no exception and that made a sufficient assent and amounted to a license in Law and so concluded that a prohibition ought not to be granted in this Case Coke cheife Justice saith that the Mischeife which the Statute of 23. H. 8. was not only to prevent the mischeife that those which inhabited in places remote from London should not be cyted to come to the Court of the Arch-Bishop but also to give to them other priviledges which by the Law they ought to have that is the Appeale that they loose by the beginning of the Suit in the Arches for they may appeal from the Ordinary after the suit begun here to the Arch-Bishop which benefit is lost if the suit be begun before the Arch-Bishop originally and for that the Inhabitants in London are as well within the Mischeife as the body of the Act of 23. H. 8. And also that at the making of the said Canon the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury which late was had the Jurisdiction of the same then committed unto him he then being Bishop of London So that upon the matter he was Arch-Bishop of Canterbury so that the unity of the Sea of