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
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
Common-Law none can be burnt for Heresy but by Conviction at a Convocation Note The High Commission may punish Heresies and upon their Conviction a Writ de Haeretico cumburendo See 6 R. 2. by which the Commons disavowed their assent to the Act of the 5 R. 2. which was contrived by the Prelates in the Name of the Commons whereas they never assented Mich. 6 Jac. Regis Langdale's Case In Langdales Case this Term in a Prohibition to the High Commissioners two Points were moved 1. If a Feme Covert may sue for Alimony before the High-Commissioners 2. If the Court of Common Pleas may grant a Prohibition when there is no Plea pendant there This concerning the Jurisdiction of the Court was first debated and divers Objections were made against it 1. That this Court hath not Jurisdiction to hold Plea without an Original unless by Priviledge of an Attorney Officer or Clerk of the Court and unless it be in a special Case viz. when there is an Action there depending for the same Cause then it was agreed that a Prohibition ought to recite Quod cum tale Placitum pendet c. And it was said That F. N. B. 43. g. agrees with this But a man ought to have his Prohibition out of Chancery or the Kings Bench upon surmise that he is sued in Court Christian for a Temporal Cause and the 2 Ed. 4. 11. 6. was cited To this it was answered and Resolved by Coke chief Justice Warberton Daniell and Foster Justices That the Common Pleas may award a Prohibition though no Suit be there pendent for it is the principal Court of Common Law for Common Pleas Quia Communia Placita non sequantur Curiam nostram as it is Enacted by Magna Charta thirty times confirmed by Parliamâ—â—â— then if the Ecclesiastical Judges incroach upon the Jurisdiction of the Common Pleas there the Court shall Grant a Prohibition and that without Original Writ for divers Causes 1. Because no Original Writ issuing out of Chancery is retornable into the King Bench or Common Pleas but is directed to a Judge or Party or both and is not retornable And upon contempt of the Prohibition the Chancellor may award an Attachment retornable either in the Kings Bench or Common Pleas which in such case is but a Judicial Writ And if such Attachment be retornable in the Common Pleas c. the Plaintiff in the Declaration shall make mention of an Original in Chancery and of the contempt c. as appears in a notable President 2. There was great reason that no Original Writ of Prohibition shall be retornable for the Common-Law was a Prohibition in it self and incroachment upon it incurred a contempt and with this agrees our Books 9 H. 6. 56. And there 't is held That the Statute of the 45 Ed. 3. and the Common Law also was a Prohibition in it self and thus the Rule of the Book 19 H. 6. 54. so is it held in 8 R. 2. Title Attachment Sur Prohibition 15. Note By Clopton a Sergeant at the Common Pleas That if a Plea be held in Court-Christian which belongs to the Court of the King without a Prohibition in facto the Plaintiff shall have an Attachment upon a Prohibition Quod fuit concessum c. Register 77. Estrepement Praecipimus quod inhibeas c. F. N. B. 259. Register 112. A Consultation is as much an Original as a Prohibition And the Court hath granted a Consultation ergo Prohibitions Qui habet jurisdictionem absolvendi habet juris dictionem Ligandi There are several sorts of Prohibitions one sort with this word Probibemus vobis and Letters in nature thereof as Supersedeas And Injunction is a Prohibition and Prohibition of Wast out of Chancery c. Express Prohibition are in two manners the one founded upon a Suggestion the other upon Record Upon Suggestion where Plea is pendent and yet the Suggestion is the Foundation but it is founded upon Record where no Plea is pendent for Prohibitions founded upon Record Ne admittas ought to recite the Plea pendent So a Writ to the Bishop to admit a Clerk is a Judicial Latitat as Dyer defends it As to the pendency of a Plea or not pendency it is not material for divers causes 1. The pendency of the Plea may give a priviledge to the party but no Jurisdiction to the Court in a Collateral Suit between which there is great diversity 2. The Prohibition where Plea is pendent is no process Judicial upon Record for it is a Collateral Suit 3. If the Common-Pleas cannot grant a Prohibition without a Plea pendent then the Kings which onely holds Plea of Common-Pleas by second means cannot But inasmuch as the Common-Law is instead of an Original as hath been said both Courts may grant it 4. Infinite Presidents may be shewn of Prohibition out of the Common Pleas without recital of any Plea pendent And true it is That it ought to be if the Court hath not Jurisdiction to grant any without Plea-pendant every petty-Clerk of the Common-Pleas shall have by his Priviledge a Prohibition without Plea-pendent A fortiori the Common Law it self may prohibite any one 4 Ed. 4. 37. 37 H. 8. 4. 5. A President is in the 22 Ed. 4. where a Prohibition was granted for that the Plaintiff might have a Writ of false Judgment at the Common Law The Record and Report agree the words of the Record are 6. That Officers and Clerks as well in the Common-Pleas as in the Exchequer c. may have by Privileng of Court a Prohibition without Original a fortiori the Law it self shall have greater Priviledge than an Officer or Clerk and to enforce the party to bring an Action will be a means to multiply Suits to no end 4 Ed. 4. fol. 37. every Prohibition is as well at the Kings Suit as at the Parties 28 Ed. 3. 97. false Latin shall not abate nor excommunication in the Plaint is no Plea 15 Ed. 3. Title Corrody 4. Note Though the Original cause was in the Kings Bench for Corrody Excommunication is no Plea in disability of the Plaintiff Vide 21 H. 7. 71 Kelway 6. quare non admissit 4 Ed. 4. 37. for not delivery of a Libel in the Common Pleas he shall have a Prohibition by all the Justices So upon 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. See 38 H. 6. 14. 22. Ed. 6. 20. 13 Ed. 3. Title Prohibition 11. 32 H. 6. 34. An Attorney in the Palace assaulted and menaced the Court shall take a Bill and inquire of it 4 Ed. 4. 36 37. Statham Prohibition 3. Prohibition super articulos title Prohibition pl. 5. gives a Prohibition before Scil. coram Justiciaâ—iis nostris apud Westm Vide F. N. P. fol. 69. b. in a Writ of Pone Register indic coram Justicia iis nost is apud Westm is the Common Pleas F. N. B. 64. d. 38 Ed. 3. 14. Statute 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. Hales Case in my Reports Many Prohibitions were granted in the
in the 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
Ayd Hill 6 Jacob. Regis Prohibitions Upon Ashwednesday in Feb. 1606. A great Complaint was made by the President of York to the King That the Judges of the Common-Law had in Contempt of the Kings Command last Term granted 50 or 60 Prohibitions out of the Common-Plâ—as to the President and Councel of York after the 6th of February and named 3 in particular 1. Between Bell and Thawptes 2. Another between Snell and Huâ—t 3. And another in an Information of a Riotous Rescue by English Bill by the Attorney-General against Christopher Dickenson one of the Sheriffs of York and others in rescuing one William Watson out of the Custody of the Deputy of one of the Purseyvants of the said Councel who had Arrested the said Watson by force of a Commission of Rebellion by the said President and Councel awarded Which Prohibition upon the Information was as was said denyed upon a Motion in the Kings-Bench the last Term but granted by Us. And the King sent for me to answer the Complaint and I onely all the rest of the Justices being absent waited upon the King who in the presence of Egerton Lord Chancellor and others of the Privy-Councel rehearsed to me the Complaint aforesaid And I perceived well that the King had thereupon conceived great displeasure against the Judges of the Common-Pleas but chiefly against Me To which I having the Copy of the Complaint sent me by the Lord Treasurer answered in this manner That I had made search in the Office of Prothonotaries of the Common-Pleas and as to the Cases between Bell and Thawpts and Snell and Huet no such could be found but I would not take advantage of a Misprisal And the truth was the 6th of February the Court of Common-Pleas had granted a Prohibition to the President and Councel of York between Lock Plaintiff and Bell and others Defendants and that was a Replevin in English was granted by the said President and Councel which I affirmed was utterly against Law for at Common-Law no Replevin ought to be made but by Original Writ directed to the Sheriff and the Statute of Marlbridge cap. 21. and West 1. cap. 17. authorize the Sheriff to make a Replevin So 29 Ed. 3. 21. 8 Eliz. Dyer 245. And the King by his Instructions neither had made the President and Councel Sheriffs nor could grant them Power to make a Replevin against Law which the Lord Chancellor affirmed for very good Law and it may well be we have granted others in the like Case Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between Sir Bethel Knight now Sheriff of the County of York as Executor to one Stephenson who made him and another his Executors and preferred an English Bill against Chambers and others in nature of an Action of the Case upon a Trover and Conversion of Goods and Chattels in the Testators Life to the value of 1000 l. And because the other Executor would not joyn with him he had no remedy at Common-Law but was forced to pray remedy there in Equity And I say the President and Councel have not any Authority to proceed in that Case for divers causes 1. Because there is an express Limitation in their Commission that they shall not hold Plea between Party and Party c. unless both or one of the Parties tanta paupertate sunt gravati that they cannot sue at Common-Law and in that Case the Plaintiff was a Knight Sheriff and man of great quality 2. Because by that Suit the King was deceived of his Fine which was 200 l. because the Damages amounted to 4000 l. And that was one of the Causes that the Sheriff began his Suit there and not at Common-Law Another Cause was that their Decrees which they take upon them are final and uncontroulable either by Errour or any other Remedy which is not so in the Kings Courts where there are five Judges for they can deny Justice to none who hath Right nor give any Judgment but what is controulable by Errouâ— c. And if we shall not grant Prohibitions in Cases where they hold Plea without Authority then the Subjects shall be wrongfully oppressed without Law and we denyed to do them Justice And their Ignorance in the Law appeared by allowing that Suit viz. That the one Executor had no Remedy at Common Law because the other would not joyn in Suit with him whereas every one Learnâ—d in the Law knows that Summons and Severance lyeth in any Suit brought as Executors And this was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Another Prohibition I confess we granted between the L. Wharton who by English Bill before the Councel sued Bank S. Buttermere and others for fishing in his several Fishings in Darwent in the County of C. in nature of an Action of Trespass at Common-Law to his Damages of 200 l. and for the Causes before recited and because the same was meerly determinable at Common-Law we granted a Prohibition And that also was allowed by the Lord Chancellor Then the King asked me the Case of Information upon the Riotous Rescous To which I answered That one exhibited a Bill there in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus against Watson who upon his Oath affirmed that he had satisfied the Plaintiff and owed him nothing yet because he did not deny the Debt the Councel Decreed the same against him And upon that Decree the Pursuyvant was sent to Arrest the said Watson who Arrested him upon which the Rescous was made And because the Action was in the nature of an Action of Dâ—bâ— upon a Mutuatus where the Defendant at Common Law might have waged his Law the Prohibition was granted and that was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Also I affirmed it was Rescous because the principal cause belonged not to them but it might be a Riot yet not punishable by them but by course of Law by a Commission of Oyer and Terminer Also I confess that we have granted divers Prohibitions to stay Suits there by English Bill upon penal Statutes for the manner of prosecution as well for the Action Process c. as for the Count is to be pursued and cannot be altered and therefore without question the Councel in such Cases cannot hold Plea which was affirmed also by the Lord Chancellor And I said no Court of Equity can be Erected at this day without Act of Parl as was Resolved in Q. Eliz. time in Parots Case and lately in the Case of the President and Councel of Wales And the King was well satisfied with these Reasons who gave me his Royal Hand and I departed from thence in his favour Pasch 7 Jac. Regis This Term a Question was moved at Sergeants Inne who by the Common-Law ought to repair the Bridges common Rivers and Sewers and the High-ways and by what means they shall be compelled to it and first of Bridges And as to them it is to be known that of common right all the Country shall be
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
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
Service Tenant Richard Hulme dyed after whose death 31 H. 8. it was found that he dyed seized of the said Mesnalty and that the same descended to Edward his Son and Heir within Age and found the Tenure aforesaid c. And during nonagâ— Robert Male dyed seized of the said Tenancy peravail and that the same descended to Richard his Son and Meir as was found by Office 25 H. 2. within age and that the said Tenancy was holden of the King as of his said Dutchy by Knights Service whereas in truth the same was holden of Edward Hulme then in Ward of the King as of his Mesnalty for which the King seized the Ward of the Heir of the Tenant And afterwards Anno quarto Jacobi Rogis nunc after the death of Richard Male the lineal Heir of Robert Male by another Office it was found that Richard dyed seized of the Tenancy and held the same of the King as of his Dutchy c. his Heir within age Whereupon Richard Hulme Cozen and Heir of the said Richard Hulme preferred a Bill to be admitted to traverse the Office found 4 Jac. Regis And the Question was Whether the Office found 35 H. 8. be any Estoppel to the said Hulme or if that the said Hulme should be first driven to Traverse that And it was objected That he ought first to traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. as in the Case 26 E. 65. And that the first Office shall stand as long as the same remaines in force To which it was Answered and Resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron and Court of Wards That the finding of an Office is not any Estoppel for that is but an Inquest of Office and the party grieved shall have a Traverse to it But when an Office is found falsly that Land is holden of the King by Knights Service in capite or of the King himself in Socage if the Heir fueâ—h a general Livery it is holden 46 Ed. 3. 12. by Mowbray and Persey that he shall not after adde that the Land is not holden of the King But that is not any Estoppel to the Heir himself and shall not conclude his Heir for so saith Mowbray himself expresly 44 Ass pl. 35. See 1 H. 4. 6. b. So 33 H. 6. 7. And there is no Book that saith that the Estoppel shall endure longer than his life but that is to be intended of a general Livery but a special Livery shall not conclude one And if a Jury find falsly in a Tenure of the King the Lord of whom the Land is holden may traverse that Office Or if Land be holden of the King in Socage c. the Heir may traverse the last Office for by that he is grieved and he shall not be driven to traverse the first Office And when the Father sues Livery and dyes the Conclusion is executed and past as is aforesaid And note there is a special Livery but that proceeds of the King's Grace and is not the Suit of the Heir and the King may grant it either at full age before aetate probanda or to the Heir within age as appears 21 E. 3. 40. And then is general and shall not comprehend any Tenure as the several Livery doth and therefore it is not any Estoppel without question See the 33 H. 8. cap. 22. 23 Eliz. Dyer 177. It was also Resolved in this Case that the Office of 35 H. 8. was not traversable for his own Traverse shall prove that the King had cause to have Wardship by reason of Ward And when the King comes to the Possession by a false Office or otherwise if it appears the King have any other Right to have the Land there none shall traverse the Office or Title of the King because the Judgment in the Traverse is Ideo consideratum est quod manus Domini Râ—gis amoveantur c. See 4 H. 4. fol. 33. in the Earl of Kents Case c. Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis Note The Priviledge Order or Custom of Parliament either of the Upper-House or House of Commons belongs to the Determination of the Court of Parliament and this appeareth by two notable Presidents 1. The one at the Parliament holden in the 27 H. 6. There was a Controversie moved in the Upper-House between the Earles of Aâ—undel and Devonshire for their Seats Places and Pre-eminences of the same to be had in the King's Presence as well in Parliament as in Councels and elsewhere The King by the Advice of Lords Spiritual and Temporal committed the same to certain Lords of Parliament who not having leisure to examine the same by the said Lords Advice referred it to the Judges of the Land to hear see and examine the Title c. and to report what they conceive herein The Judges reported as followeth That this matter viz. of Honour and Pre-eminency between the two Earles Lords of Parliament was a matter of Parliament and belonged to the King and his Lords in Parliament to be decided Yet being so commanded they shewed what they found upon Examination and their Opinions thereon Another Parliament 31 H. 6. 6th of March begun and after some continuance was prorogued to the 14 of February and afterwards in Michaelmas Term the same 31 H. 6. Thomas Thorpe Speaker of the Commons House was condemned in the Exchequer in 1000 l. Damages at the Duke of Buckingham's Suit for a Trespass done to him The 14th of Feb. the Commons mâ—ved in the Upper-House that their Speaker might be set at liberty to exercise his Place c. The Lords refer it to the Judges and Fortâ—scue and Prisoit the two Chief Justices in the Name of all the Judges answer'd That they ought not to consider this Question c. but it belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Justices But as to their Proceedings in the Lower-Courts in such Cases they deliver'd their Opinions See 12 E. 4. 2. Hill 7 Jac. Regis In Cam. Stâ—ll Heyward and Sir John Whitbrook's Case In the Case between Hyward and Sir John Whitbrook in the Star-Chamber the Defendant was convicted of divers Misdemeanours and Fine and Imprisonment imposed on him and Damages to the Plaintiff And it was moved that a special Process might be made out of that Court to levy the said Damages upon the Lands and Goods of the said Defendant And it was referred to the two Chief Justices whether any such Process might be made who this Term moved the Case to the Chief Baron and the rest of the Judges and Barons and it was unanimously by them all Resolved That no such Process could or ought to be made neither for the Damages nor for the Costs given to the Plaintiff the Court having no such power but onely to keep the Defendant in Prison till he pay them For for a Fine due to the King they can make no Process to levy it but they estreat it into the Exchequer which hath power by Law to write forth Process
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
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
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