shillings eight pence for the Admittance of a Copyholder in Fee-simple upon a Surrender made For this is not like to a voluntary Grant as when the Copyholder hath but an Estate for life and dieth Or if he hath an Estate in Fee-simple and committeth Felony there Arbitrio Dom. res estimari debet but when the Lord is compellable to admit him to whose use the Surrender is And when Cestui que use is admitted he shall be in by him who made the Surrender and the Lord is but an Instrument to present the same And therefore in such Case the value of two years for such an Admittance is unreasonable especially when the value of the Cottage and one acre of Pasture is a Rack at fifty three shillings by the year 5. It was resolved That the Surjoynder is no more then what the Law saith For in this Case in the Iudgment of the Law the Fine is unreasonable and therefore the same is but ex abundanti and now the Court ought to judge upon the whole speciall matter And for the Causes aforesaid Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And Coke chief Iustice said in this Case That where the usage of the Court of Admiralty is to amerce the Defendant for his default by his discretion as it appeareth in 19 H. 6. 7. That if the Amerciament be outrageous and excessive the same shall not bind the party and if it be excessive or not it shall be determined in the Court in which the Action shall be brought for the levying of it And the Writ of Account is against the Bayliff or Guardian Quod reddat ei rationabilem Computum de exitibus Manerii And the Law requireth a thing which is reasonable and no excesse or extremity in any thing II. Mich. 6 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. Porter and Rochesters Case THis Term Lewis and Rochester who dwelt in Essex within the The Statute of 23 H 8. of citing out of Dioces Dioces of London were sued for substraction of Tithes growing in B. within the County of Essex by Porter in the Court of the Arches of the Bishop of Canterbury in London And the Case was That the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Iurisdiction of fourteen Parishes called a Deanry exempted from the Authority of the Bishop of London whereof the Parish of S. Mary de Arcubus is the Chief And the Court is called the Arches because the Court is holden there And a great question was moved If in the said Court of Arches holden in London within his Peculiar he might cite any dwelling in Essex for substraction of Tithes growing in Essex Or if he be prohibited by the Statute of the twenty third year of King Henry the eighth cap. 9. And after that the matter was well debated as well by Councell at the Bar as by Dr. Ferrard Dr. James and others in open Court and lastly by all the Iustices of the Common Pleas A Prohibition was granted to the Court of Arches And in this Case divers Points were resolved by the Court. 1. That all Acts of Parliament made by the King Lords and Commons of Parliament are parcell of the Laws of England and therefore shall be expounded by the Iudges of the Laws of England and not by the Civilians and Commonists although the Acts concern Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall Iurisdiction And therefore the Act of 2 H. 4. cap. 15. by which in effect it is enacted Quod nullus teneat doceat informet c. clam vel publice aliquam nefandam opinionem contrariam sidei Catholicae seu determinationi Ecclesiae sacro-sanctae nec de hujusmodi secta nephandis Doctrinis Conventiculas faciat And that in such Cases the Diocessan might arrest and imprison such Offender c. And in 10 H. 7. the Bishop of London commanded one to be imprisoned because that the Plaintiff said that he ought not to pay his Tithes to his Curat and the party so imprisoned brought an Action of False Imprisonment against those who arrested him by the commandment of the Bishop and there the matter is well argued What words are within the said Statute and what without the Statute So upon the same Statute it was resolved in 5 E. 4. in Keysars case in the Kings Bench which you may see in my Book of Presidents And so the Statutes of Articuli Cleri de Prohibitione regia De Circumspecte agatis of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. and all other Acts of Parliament concerning Spirituall Causes have alwaies been expounded by the Iudges of the Common Law as it was adjudged in Woods Case Pasch 29 Eliz. in my Notes fol. 22. So the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. hath been expounded by the Iudges of the Realm concerning Pluralities and the having of two Benefices Common Laws and Dispensations see 7 Eliz. Dyer 233. The Kings Courts shall adjudge of Dispensations and Commendams See also 17 Eliz. Dyer 251. 14 Eliz. Dyer 312. 15 Eliz. Dyer 327 18 Eliz. Dyer 352. and 347. 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. Construction of the Statute cap. 12. Smiths Case concerning Subscription which is a meer Spirituall thing Also it appeareth by 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. That for want of subscription the Church was alwaies void by the said Act of 23 Eliz. and yet the Civilians say that there ought to be a Sentence Declaratorie although that the Act maketh it void 2. It was resolved by Coke chief Iustice Warberton Daniel and Foster Iustices That the Archbishop of Canterbury is restrained by the Act of 23 H. 8. cap. 9. to cite any one out of his own Diocesse or his Peculiar Iurisdiction although that he holdeth his Court of Arches within London And first it was objected That the Title of the Act is An Act that no person shall be cited out of the Diocess where he or she dwelleth except in certain Cases And here the Archbishop doth not cite the said Party dwelling in Essex out of the Diocesse of London for he holdeth his Court of Arches within London 2. The Preamble of the Act is Where a great number of the Kings Subjects dwelling in divers Diocesses c. And here he doth not dwell in divers Diocesses 3. Far out of the Diocesse where such men c. dwell and here he doth not dwell far out c. 4. The body of the Act is No manner of person shall be cited before any Ordinance c. out of the Diocesse or peculiar Iurisdiction where the person shall be inhabiting c. And here he was not cited out of the Dioces of London To which it was answered and resolved That the same was prohibited by the said Act for divers Causes 1. As to all the said Objections One answer makes an end of them all For Diocesis dicitur distinctio vel divisio sive gubernatio quae divisa diversa est ab Ecclesia alterius Episcopatus Commissa Gubernatio in unius and is derived a Diâ— quod est duo electio id est
within the body of the County but they do not restrain the execution of the same Court to be served upon the Land for it may be that the party hath not any thing upon the Sea and then it is reason to have it upon the Land and if such a Defendant have nothing wherewithall to make agreement they of the Court have power to take the body of such a Defendant upon the Land in execution In which case these points were observed 1. Although that the Court of Admiralty is not a Court of Record because they proceed there according to the Civil Law see Brook Error 77. acc yet by custom of the Court they may amerce the Defendant for his default by their discretion 2. That they may make execution for the same of the goods of the Defendant in corpore Comitatus and if he hath not goods then they may arrest the body of the Defendant within the body of the County But the great Question between them was If a man committeth See this point resolved 8 Eli. Dyer per curiam which is omitted out of the printed Book Piracy upon the Sea and one knowing thereof receiveth and comforteth the Defendant within the body of the County if the Admiral and other the Commissioners by force of the Act of 28 H. 8. cap. 16. may proceed by Indictment and conviction against the Receiver and Abettor in as much as the offence of the Accessary hath his begining within the body of the County And it was resolved by them that such a Receiver and Abettor by the common Law could not be indicted or convicted because that the common Law cannot take conusance of the original Offence because that is done out of the Iurisdiction of the common Law and by consequence where the common Law cannot punish the principal the same shall not punish any one as accessary to such a principal And therefore Coke chief Iustice reported to them a Case which was in Suffolk in anno 28 Eliz. where Butler and others upon the Sea next to the Town of Laystaft in Suffolk robbed divers of the Queens subjects and spoyled them of their goods which goods they brought into Norfolk and there they were apprehended and there brought before me then a Iustice of the Peace within the same County whom I examined and in the end they confessed a cruel and barbarous Piracy and that those goods which then they had with them were part of the goods which they had robbed from the Queens subjects upon the High Sea and I was of opinion that in that case it could not be Felony punishable by the common Law because that the original act scil the taking of them was not any offence whereof the common Law taketh knowledg and by consequence the bringing of them into a County could not make the same Felony punishable by our Law and it is not like where one stealeth goods in one County and brings them into another there he may be indicted of Felony in any of the Counties because that the original act was Felony whereof the common Law taketh knowledg and yet notwithstanding I committed them to the Gaol until the coming of the Iustices of Assises And at the next Assises the Opinion of Wray chief Iustice and Periam Iustices of Assise was That for as much as the common Law doth not take notice of the original Offence the bringing of the goods stoln upon the Sea into a County did not make the same punishable at the common Law and thereupon they were committed to Sir Robert Southwell then Vice-Admiral of the said Counties and this in effect agrees with Lacies case which see in my Reports cited in Binghams case in the 2 Reports 93. and in Constables case C. 5. Reports 107. See the Piracy was Felony the Book of 40 Assis 25. by Schard where a Master or Captain of a Ship together with some Englishmen robbed the Kings sujects upon the High Seas where he saith that it was Felony in the Norman Captain and Treason in the Englishmen his companions and the reason of the said case was because the Normans were not then under the Obedience and Allegiance of the King of England for King John lost Normandy and for that cause Piracy was but Felony in the Norman but in the English who were under the Obedience and Allegiance of the King of England the same was adjudged Treason which is to be understood of Pettit Treason which was High Treason before and therefore in that case the Pirates being apprehended the Norman Captain was hanged and the English men were hanged and drawn as appeareth by the same Book see Stamford 10. And some objected and were of opinion That Treasons done out of the Realm might have bin determined by the common Law but truly the same could not be punishable but onely by the Civil Law before the Admiral or by Act of Parliament as all Foreign Treasons and Felonies were by the common Law and therefore where it is declared by the Statute of 25 E. 3. That adherence to the Enemies of the King within England or elsewhere is Treason the same shall be tryed by the common Law but where it is done out of the Realm the Offendor shall not be attainted but by Parliament until the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 2. although that there are Opinions in some Books to the contrary see 5 R. 2. Quare impedit c. XXII Trinit 7 Jacobi Regis In the Common-Pleas Pettus and Godsalves Case IN a Fine levyed Trinity Term anno quinto of this King between John Pettus Esq Plaintiff and Roger Godsalve and others Deforceants of the Mannor of Castre with the appurtenances c. in the County of Norfolk where in the third proclamation upon the Foot of the same Fine the said proclamation is said to have been made in the sixth year of the King that now is which ought to have been anno quinto of the King and whereas upon the Foot of the same Fine the fourth proclamation is altogether left out because upon the view of the proclamations upon Dorsis upon Record not finis ejusdem Termini per Justiciarias remaining with the Chyrographer and the Book of the said Chyrography in which the said proclamations were first entered it appeareth that the said proclamations were rightly and duly made therefore it was adjudged that the Errors or defects aforesaid should be amended and made to agree as well with the proclamation upon Record of the said Fine and Entry of the said Book as with the other proclamations in Dorsis super pedes aliorum finium of the same Term and this was done upon the motion of Haughton Serjeant at Law XXIII Mich. 7 Jacobi In the Court of Wards Sammes Case JOhn Sammes being seised of Grany Mead by Copy of Court Roll of the Mannor of Tollesham the great of which Sir Thomas Beckingham c. and held the same of the King by Knights service in capite Sir Thomas by
seperatio quia seperat duas Jurisdictiones So Dioces signifies the Iurisdiction of one Ordinary seperated and divided from others And because the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Iurisdiction in London exempt out of the Dioces or Iurisdiction of the Ordinary or Bishop of London For that cause it is fitly said in the Title Peramble and body of the Act That when the Archbishop sitting in his exempt Peculiar in London cites one dwelling in Essex he cites him out of the Dioces or Iurisdiction of the Bishop of London ergo he is cited out of the Dioces And in the clause of the penalty of ten pounds It is said out of the Dioces or other Iurisdiction where the party dwelleth which agreeth with the signification of Dioces before And as to the words Far off c. they were put in the Preamble to shew the great mischief which was before the Act As the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 33. in the Preamble it is Disseisins with strength and the body of the Act saith such Disseisor yet the same extendeth to all Disseisors but Disseisin with force was the greatest mischief as it is holden in 4. and 5 Eliz. Dyer 219. So the Preamble of the Statute of West 2. cap. 5. is Heirs in Ward and the body of the Act is Hujusmodi praesentat as it is adjudged in 44 E. 3. 18. That an Infant who hath an Advowson by discent and is out of Ward shall be within the remedy of the said Act but the Frauds of the Guardians was the greater mischief So the Preamble of the Act of 21 H. 8. cap. 15. which gives falsifying of Recoveries recites in the Preamble That divers Lessees have paid divers great Incomes c. Be it enacted That all such Termors c. and yet the same extends to all Termors and yet all these Cases are stronger then the Case at Bar for there that word such in the body of the Act referreth the same to the Preamble which is not in our Case 2. The body of the Act is No manner of person shall be henceforth cited before any Ordinary c. out of the Dioces or peculiar Iurisdiction where the person shall be dwelling And if he shall not be cited out of the Peculiar before any Ordinary a Fortiori the Court of Arches which sits in a Peculiar shal not cite others out of another Dioces And these words Out of the Dioces are to be meant out of the Dioces or Iurisdiction of the Ordinary where he dwelleth but the exempt Peculiar of the Archbishop is out of the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of London as S. Martins and other places in London are not part of London although they are within the circumference of it 3. It is to be observed That the Preamble reciting of the great mischief recites expresly That the Subjects were called by compulsary proces to appear in the Arches Audience and other high Courts of the Archbishoprick of this Realm So as the intention of the said Act was to reduce the Archbishop to his proper Dioces or peculiar Iurisdiction unlesse it were in five Cases 1. For any Spirituall Offence or cause committed or omitted contrary to the right and duty by the Bishop c. which word omitted proves that there ought to be a default in the Ordinary 2. Except it be in case of Appeal and other lawfull cause wherein the party shall find himselfe greived by the Ordinary after the matter or cause there first begun ergo the same ought to be first begun before the Ordinary 3. In case that the Bishop of the Dioces or other immediate Iudge or Ordinary dare not or will not convent the party to be sued before him where the Ordinary is called the immediate Iudge as in truth he is and the Archbishop unlesse it be in his own Dioces these speciall Cases excepted mediate Iudge scil by Appeal c. 4. Or in case that the Bishop of the Dioces or the Iudge of the place within whose Iurisdiction or before whom the Suit by this Act should be begun and prosecuted be party directly or indirectly to the matter or cause of the same suit Which clause in expresse words is a full exposition of the body of the Act scil That every suit others then those which are expressed ought to be begun and prosecuted before the Bishop of the Dioces or other Iudge of the same place 5. In case that any Bishop or any inferiour Iudge having under him Iurisdiction c. make request or instance to the Archbishop Bishop or other inferiour Ordinary or Iudge and that to be done in cases only where the Law Civill or Common doth affirm c. By which it fully appeareth That the Act intendeth That every Ordinary and Ecclesiasticall Iudge should have the Conusance of Causes within their Iurisdiction without any Concurrent Authority or Suit by way of prevention And by this the Subject hath great benefit as well by saving of travell and charges to have Iustice in his place of habitation as to be judged where he and the matter is best known As also that he shall have many Appeals as his Adversary in the highest Court at the first Also there are two Provisoes which explains it also scil That it shall be lawfull to every Archbishop to cite any person inhabiting in any Bishops Diocesse within his Province for matter of Heresie which were a vain Proviso If the Act did not extend to the Archbishop But by that speciall Proviso for Heresie it appeareth that for all causes not excepted is prohibited by the Act Then the words of the Proviso go further If the Bishop or other Ordinary immediatly hereunto consent or if the same Bishop or other immediate Ordinary or Iudge do not his duty in punishment of the same which words immediatly and immediate expound the intent of the makers of the Act. 2. There is a saving for the Archbishop the calling any person out of the Dioces where he shall be dwelling to the probate of any Testaments which Proviso should be also in vain if the Archbishop notwithstanding that Act should have concurrent Authority with every Ordinary through his whole Province Wherefore it was concluded that the Archbishop out of his Dioces unlesse in the Cases excepted is prohibited by the Act of 23 H. 8. to cite any man out of any other Dioces And in truth the Act of 23. of Henry the eighth is but a Law declaratory of the ancient Canons and of the true exposition of them The Act of 23 H. 8. is a Declaration of the old Canon Law And that appeareth by the Canon Cap. Romana in sexto de Appellationibus and Cap. de Competenti in sexto And the said Act is so expounded by all the Clergy of England at a Convocation in London An. 1 Jac. Regis 1603. Canon 94. Where it is decreed ordained and declared That none should be cited to the Arches or Audience but the Inhabitants within the Archbishops Dioces
are to be determined in our Law he shall have a Consultation because that the principal belongeth to them 38 E. 3. 5. Right of Tythes between two spiritual persons shall be determined in the Ecclesiastical Court And 38 E. 3. 6. where the Right of Tythes comes in debate between two spiritual persons the one claiming the Tythes as of common Right within his Parish and the other claiming to be discharged by real composition the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Iurisdiction of it And the said Iudges made humble suit to the King That for as much as they perceived that the King in his Princely Wisdom did detest Innovations and Novelties that he would vouchsafe to suffer them with his gracious favor to inform him of one Innovation and Novelty which they conceived would tend to the hinderance of the good administration and execution of Iustice within his Realm Your Majesty for the great zeal which you have to Iustice and for the due administration thereof hath constituted and made fourteen Iudges to whom you have committed not onely the administration of Ordinary Iustice of the Realm but crimina laesae Majestatis touching your Royal person for the legal proceeding also in Parliament we are called by Writ to give to your Majesty and to the Lords of the Parliament our advice and counsel when we are required We two chief Iustices sit in the Star-Chamber and are oftentimes called into the Chancery Court of Wards and other High Courts of Iustice we in our Circuits do visit twice in the year your Realm and execute Iustice according to your Laws and if we who are your publique Iudges 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 without having such reverence and respect as Iudges ought to have The state of this 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 frame or devise new Laws but to inform your Majesty what your Law of England is and therefore it was never seen before that when the Question is of the Law that your Iudges of the Law have been made Disputants with him who is inferior to them who day by day plead before them at their several Courts at Westminster and although we are not afraid to dispute with Mr. Bennet and Mr. Bacon yet this example being primae impressionis and your Majesty detesting Novelties and innovations we leave it to your Grace and Princely consideration whether your Majesty will permit our answering in hoc statu judiciali upon your publique Iudges of the Realm But in Obedience to your Majesties command We with your Majesties gracious favor in most humble manner 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 Iustice at Westminster which Iudgments cannot be reversed or examined for any Error in Law if not by a Writ of Error in a more high and supream Court of Iustice upon legal and judicial proceedings and that is the ancient Law of England as appeareth by the Statute of 4 H. 4. cap. 22. And we being commanded to proceed all that which was said by us the Iudges was to this effect That the Tryal De Modo Decimandi ought to be by the Common Law by a Iury of twelve men it appeareth in three manners First by the Common Law Secondly by Acts of Parliament And lastly by infinite judgments and judicial proceedings long times past without any impeachment or interruption But first it is to see What is a Modus Decimandi 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 always time out of minde to the Parson and his successors in full satisfaction and discharge of all the Tythes in kinde in such a place and such manner of Tything is now confessed by the other party to be a good bar of Tythes in kinde I. That Modus Decimandi shall be tryed by the Common Law that is that all satisfactions given in discharge of Tythes 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 and renewing within the Mannor of Dale at the Feast of Easter The Parson sueth the Lord of the Mannor of Dale for his Tythes of his Mannor in kinde and he in Bar prescribes in manner ut supra The Question is if the Lord of the Mannor of Dale may upon that have a Prohibition for if the Prohibition lyeth then the Spiritual Court ought not to try it for the end of the Prohibition is That they do not try that which belongs to the Tryal of the Common Law the words of the Prohibition being that they would draw the same ad aliud examen First the Law of England is divided into common-Common-Law Statute-Law and Customs of England and therefore the Customs of England are to be tryed by the Tryal which the Law of England doth appoint Secondly 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. fo 17. 19 E. 3. Jurisdiction 28. The Bishop of Winchester brought a Writ of Annuity against the Archdeacon of Surry and declared how that he and his successors were seised by the hands of the Defendant by title of Prescription and the Defendant demanded Iudgment if the Court would hold Iurisdiction being between spiritual persons c. Stone Iustice Be assured that upon title of prescription we will here hold Iurisdiction and upon that Wilby chief Iustice gave the Rule Answer Vpon which it follows that if a Modus Decimandi which is an annual sum for Tythes by prescription comes in debate between spiritual persons that the same shall be tryed here For the Rule of the Book is general scil upon title of prescription we will hold Iurisdiction and that is fortified with an Asseveration Know assuredly as if he should say that it is so certain that it is without question 32 E. 3. Jurisd 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 although it was betwixt spiritual persons should be tryed by the Common Law Vide 22 H. 6. 46. and 47. A prescription that an Abby time out of minde had found a Chaplain in his Chappel to say Divine Service and to minister Sacraments tryed at the Common Law 3. See the Record of 25 H. 3. cited
Court. See 21 Eliz. Dyer 362. If Tenant in Socage dyeth seised in possession his Heir within the age of fourteen years he shall not sue Livery but shall have an Ouster le main una cum exitibus but otherwise it is if the Heir be of the age of fourteen years which is his full age for Socage and therewith agreeth 4 Eliz. Dyer 213. And two presidents were shewed which were decreed in the same Court by the advice of the Iustices Assistants to the Court. One in Trinity Term 16 Eliz. Thomas Stavely the Father enfeoffed William Strelley and Thomas Law of the Mannor of Ryndly in the County of Nottingham upon condition that they re-enfeoff the Feoffor and his Wife for their lives the remainder to Thomas Stavely son and heir apparent of tho Feoffor in Fee which Mannor was holden of Queen Elizabeth in Socage in capite and upon consideration of the saving in the Statute of 32 H. 8. next after the clause concerning Tenure in Socage in chief it was resolved That no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in such case and the reason was because that the precedent clause giveth liberty to him who holdeth in Socage in chief to make disposition of it either by act executed or by Will at his free will and pleasure and before the said act no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in such case and the words of the Saving are Saving c. to the King c. all his Right c. of primer seisin and relief c. for Tenure in Socage or of the nature of Tenure in Socage in chief as heretofore hath been used and accustomed But there was no use or custom before the Act that the King should have any primer seisin or relief in such case and the words subsequent in the said Saving depend upon the former words and do not give any primer seisin or relief where none was before Another president was in Pasc 37 Eliz. in the Book of Orders fo 444. where the case was that William Allet was seised of certain Lands in Pitsey called Lundsey holden of the Queen in Socage in chief and by Deed covenanted to stand seised to the use of his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of Richard his younger son in Fee and dyed his Heir of full age and all that was found by Office and it was resolved ut supra That no Livery or Ouster le main should be sued in that case but the doubt in the case at Bar was because that Henry the Feoffor had a Reversion in Fee which descended to the said VVilliam his eldest son XXI Trinity Term anno 7 Jacobi Regis The Case of the Admiralty A Bill was preferred in the Star-Chamber against Sir Richard Hawkins Vice Admiral of the County of Devon and was charged that one William Hull and others were notorious Pirats upon the High Seas and shewed in certain what Piracy they had committed the said Sir Richard Hawkins knowing the same did them receive abet and comfort within the body of the County and for bribes and rewards suffered them to be discharged And what offence that was the Court referred to the consideration of the two chief Iustices and the chief Baron who heard Councel of both sides divers days at Serjeants Inn. And first it was by them resolved that by the Common Law the Admirals ought not to meddle with any thing done within the Realm but onely with things done upon the Sea and that appeareth fully by the Statute of 13 R. 2. cap. 5. by which it appeareth that such was the Common Law in the time of King Edw. the third and therewith agreeth the Statute of 2 H. 4. cap. 11. and the Statute of 15 H. 2. cap. 3. That because the Admirals and their Deputies encroach to themselves divers Iurisdictions and Franchises more then they ought to have Be it enacted that all Contracts Pleas and Complaints and all other things arising within the bodies of the Counties as well by Land as by Water as also of Wreck of the Sea the Admiral Court shall not have any conusance power or jurisdiction c. Nevertheless of the death of a man and of Mayheme done in great Ships being in the main stream of great Rivers onely below the Bridges nigh to the Sea and not in other places of the same Rivers and to arrest Ships in the great Flotes for the great Voyage of the King and of his Realm and by the Statute of 2 H. 5. cap. 6. the Admirals of the King of England have done and used reasonably according to the ancient Law and Custom upon the main Sea See the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 5. And all this appeareth to be by the common Law and with that agreeth Stamford fo 51. And if a man be killed or slain within the Arms of the Sea where a man may see from the one part of the Land to the other the Coroner shall enquire of it and not the Admiral because that the Country may well know it and he voucheth 8 E. 2. Coron 399. So saith Stamford the same proves that by the common Law before the Statute of 2 H. 4. cap. 11. the Admiral shall not have Iurisdiction unless upon the High Sea See Pla. Com. 37. 6. If the Marshal holdeth Plea out of the Verge or the Admiral within the body of the County the same is voyd See 2 R. 3. 12. 30 H. 6. 6. by Prisoit 2. It was resolved that the said Statutes are to be intended of a power to hold Plea and not of a power to award execution scil de jurisdictione tenendi placiti non de jurisdictione exequendi For notwithstanding the said Statutes the Iudg of the Admiralty may do execution within the body of the County and therefore in 19 H. 6. 7. the case was W. T. at Southwark affirmed a Plaint of Trespass in the Court of Admiralty before the Steward of the Earl of Huntington against J. B. of a Trespass done upon the High Sea upon which issued a Citation to cite the said J. B. to appear before the Steward aforesaid at the common day then next ensuing directed to P. who served the said Citation at which day the said J. B. made default and the usage of the Court is that if the Defendant maketh default he shall be amerced by the discretion of the Steward to the use of the Plaintiff The which J. B. for his default aforesaid was amerced to twenty marks whereupon command was made to the said P. as Minister of the Court aforesaid to take the goods of the said J. B. to make agreement with the beforesaid W. T. by force of which he for the said twenty marks took five Cows and an hundred sheep in execution for the mony aforesaid in the County of Leicester And there it is holden by Newton and the whole Court that the Statutes restrain the power of the Court of Admiralty to hold Plea of a thing done