for the avoiding of Leases made by a Parson by his Absence from his Living by the space of eighty daies in one year and also shews that one Stallowe who was Parson of Sharrington to whom these Tithes did belong and in whose Right the Defendant claimed them was Absent from his Parsonage by the space of eighty daies in one year and shews in what year and so by this his interest determined and Agreement with the Plaintiff by this made void but they found further as the Plaintiff made it to appear That Stallowe the Parson of Sharrington was not Absent in manner as it was alledged for that they found that he did dwell in another Town adjoyning but that he came constantly to his Parish-Church and there read Divine Service and so went away again They did also find hat he had a Parsonage-house in Sharrington fit for his habitation and whether this were an Absence within the Statute as to avoid his Lease they left that to the Judgment of the Court Yelverton Justice This is a good Non-Residency within the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. but not an Absence to avoid a Lease made within the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 20. It cannot be said here in this Case that he was Absent for he came four daies in every week and in his Parish-Church did read Divine Service Williams Justice upon the Statute of 13 and 14 Eliz the Parson ought not to be Absent from his Church eighty daies together in one year à Rectoria sua but this is not so here for he came to his Church and read Divine Service there every Sunday Wednesday Friday and Saturday and therefore clearly this cannot be such an Absence within the scope and intention of these Statutes as thereby to avoid his Lease Yelverton Justice he ought to be Absent eighty daies together per spatium de Octogin diebus ultra and this to be altogether at one time and so the same ought to have been laid expresly the which is not so done here for that it appears here that he was at his Parsonage-house and did read Prayers every Sunday Wednesday Friday and Saturday and so the whole Court were clear of Opinion that this Absence here as the same appeared to be was not such an Absence by the space of eighty daies in one year to avoid his Lease within the said Statute and so the Defendants Plea in Barr not good and therefore by the Rule of the Court Judgment was entered for the Plaintiff 17. An Information was Exhibited against Two Parsons by J. S. upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. against one of them for Non-Residency and against the other for taking of a Farm the one of them pleaded Sickness and that by the Advice of his Physicians he removed into better Air for Recovery of his health and this is justifiable by the whole Court vid. more for this Coke 6. par fo 21. in Butler and Goodall's Case The other pleaded That he took the Farm for the maintenance of his House and Family And this also is justifiable by the Opinion of the whole Court Crooke moved the Court for the Defendants That the Plaintiff was a Common Informer and that he did prefer this Information against them only for their vexation and so to draw them to compound with him as formerly he hath so done by others for which they prosecuted an Indictment in the Countrey upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. made to punish Common Informers for their Abuses The whole Court did advise them to prosecute this Indictment against him Crooke moved for the Defendants That in regard the Informer is a man of no means that the Court would order him to put in sufficient Sureties to answer Costs if the matter went against him and that then the Defendants would presently answer the Information Williams Justice nullam habemus talem legem this is not to be done but the Rule of the Court was That the Defendants should not answer the Information until the Informer appeared in person 18. In an Action of Covenant the Plaintiff in his Declaration sets forth that the Defendant was Parson of D. and did Covenant That the Plaintiff should have his Tithes of certain Lands for thirteen years and that afterwards he Resigned and another Parson Inducted by which means he was ousted of his Tithes and for this cause the Action brought The Defendant pleads in Barr the Statutes of 13 Eliz. cap. 20. and 14 Eliz. cap. 11. for Non-Residency upon which Plea the Plaintiff demurr'd in Law It was urged for the Plaintiff That the Plea in Barr was not good because it is not averred that the Defendant had been Absent from his Parsonage by the space of Eighty daies in a year for otherwise the Covenant is not void by the Statutes For the Defendant it was alledged That the pleading of the Statute of 13 Eliz. is idle but by the Statute of 14 Eliz. this Covenant is made void for by the Statute all Covenants shall be all one with Leases made by such Parsons And in this case if this had been a Lease this had been clearly void by Surrender of the Parson and so in case of a Covenant Doderidge and Houghton Justices The Statutes of 13 and 14 Eliz. do not meddle with Assurances at the Common Law nor intended to make any Leases void which were void at the Common Law and therefore this Covenant here is not made void by the Statute unless he be Absent Eighty daies from his Parsonage Coke Chief Justice agreed with them herein They all agreed in this Case for the Plaintiff and that by the Preamble of 14 Eliz. it is shewed the intent of the Statute to be to make Covenants void within the Provision of 13 Eliz. by Absence for Eighty daies And Judgment in this Case was given for the Plaintiff CHAP. XXIX Of Abbots and Abbies also of Chauntries and of the Court of Augmentations 1. Abbot what why so called the several kinds thereof and how many anciently in England 2. A famous Abbot anciently in Ireland The manner of their Election prescribed by the Emperour Justinian Anciently the Peers of France were frequently Abbots 3. The ancient Law of King Knute concerning Abbots 4. The Abbot with the Monks making a Covent were a Corporation 5. Abbots were either Elective or Presentative they were Lords of Parliament How many Abbies in England and which the most Ancient Founded by King Ethelbert 6. Chaunter and Chauntries what and whence so called their use and end 47 belonging anciently to St. Pauls in London when and by what Laws their Revenues were vested in the Crown 7. Before King John's time Abbots and Priors were Presentative afterwards Elective 8. Six Differences taken and Resolved in a Case at Law touching Chauntries 9. Certain Cases in Law touching Lands whether under pretence of Chauntries given by the Statute to the King or not 10. What the Court of Augmentations was the end
and shall recover the Treble value of the Tithes in an Action of Debt for although the Treble value be not given to the Parson or other Proprietor of the Tithes by any express words of the Statute yet forasmuch as he is the party grieved and hath the Right of the Tithes in him the Treble value is given to him For wheresoever a Statute giveth a Forfeiture or penalty against any one who wrongfully detaineth or dispossesseth another of his Right or Interest in that case he that hath the wrong shall have the forfeiture or penalty and shall have his Action at the Common Law for the same or he may Sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for the same But in his Action at Common Law it seems he shall recover no Costs as hath been Adjudged But if the Parson or other Proprietor will sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for the subtraction of the Tithes he shall recover there but the double value of them because in that Court he shall recover the Tithes themselves which is equivalent to the Treble value at the Common Law In another Case where Debt upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. was brought for not setting forth of Tithes the Plaintiff shewed That Two parts of the Tithes did appertain to the Rectory and a Third part to the Vicarage and that he had a Lease for years of the Rectory and another Lease of the Vicarage And for not setting forth of the Tithes he demanded the Treble value upon Non Debet it being found for the Plaintiff it was urged in stay of Judgment that he ought to have brought several Actions being grounded upon several Leases as his Title is several But it was Resolved That the Action was well brought in regard he had both Titles in him and the Action is brought upon the wrong because he did not sett out the Tithes Again in Debt for not setting forth of Tithes upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. The Case was Corn was growing upon the glebe-Glebe-Lands of the Vicar which was discharged of Tithes being in his own use It happened that the Vicar died before the Tithe was severed and his Executors did cut and carry away the Corn and he that had the Parsonage appropriate brought the Action The Counsel of the Defendant prayed the Opinion of the Court whether he might plead Nihil debet But the Court refused to deliver their Opinion in it because it hanged in Suit before them In the Case of Mountford against Sidley it was said That where Tithes are sett out the Parson hath a liberty for a convenient time to come and carry them away And this convenience of Time is triable by a Jury if he exceed this he shall be subject to an Action and then by Judgment of Law he shall be taken to be a Trespasser ab initio Otherwise it shall be of a License in Fact given by the Parson himself And it was holden by the Court if the Corn had continued over long his Remedy had been by Action upon the Case And as a Parson ought to have convenient time to carry away his Tithes so likewise he ought to have for that end free ingress egress and regress to through and from the Land where the Tithes are wherein if he meet with any obstruction he ought to see how he Sues and lays his Action for in a Case where a Parson Libelled for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court and set forth That the Tithes were set forth and that the Defendant did hinder him and stop him from carrying them away But because he did not Sue there upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. for he did not mention the Double value as he ought and it was Agreed by all the Justices he ought to have done nor mention the Statute as he ought also to have done a Prohibition in that Case was awarded The Grant of a Tithe for Life to begin at a day to come is not good Yelvert 131. If a man will lett a Lease of his Tithes the Lease must be by Deed and not by word only therefore if a Parson doth Demise his Rectory for years the Tithes will pass inclusive although the Lease be by word only but if the Parson Lease his Tithes alone they will not pass unless the same be by Deed or Writing Yet the Parson may Demise his Tithes to the Owner of the Land for a year by word only as hath been agreed by all the Justices but to a Stranger he cannot Demise them otherwise than by Deed And although Tithes will as aforesaid pass by Contract to the Owner of the Soil yet may the Parson sue the Owner for Tithes in kind in the Spiritual Court and as it hath been holden the Owner by reason of the Contract shall not have a Prohibition In which case the Ower of the Soil may sue the Parson upon the Contract in the Temporal Court and recover as much in Dammages but then in his Pleading he must not declare of a Verbal Contract but must set forth the same to have been made in Writing and so it hath been Adjudged And in the Lord Shandois Case it was holden by the Court That a Suggestion of an Agreement between him and the Parson in consideration of a certain Sum to be yearly paid to the Parson during their Joynt-Lives and his continuing Parson that his Messuage and Lands in the Parish of D. and the Tenants thereof should be discharged from the payment of Tithes thereof shewing that the said yearly Sum was paid accordingly and that notwithstanding the Defendant sued the Plaintiff being his Farmer for Tithes In this Case it was held That this was not a sufficient Surmize to maintain a Prohibition For an Agreement to be discharged from Tithes may be a year by word but to have such an Agreement for life or years cannot be without Deed Likewise in an Ejectione Firme brought of a Lease of Tithes the Plaintiff did not shew that the Lease was by Deed and because Tithes cannot pass without Deed after a Verdict found for the Plaintiff It was Ruled to be ill and Adjudged for the Defendant To conclude In the 19 El. B. R. it was debated whether Tithes were Jure divino or by the Constitution of men only The Judg. were all it seems of Opinion That they were due as well by the Constitution of Kings as by the Law of God And therewith doth Dr. Stu. 166. if the Qu. be de Quota parte For there it is held that the 60 part is due only by mans Law And the Opinion of Gerson the Divine is cited in his Treatise Entituled Regulae Morales where it is said Solutio Decimarum Sacerdotibus est jure Divino quatenus inde sustentur sed quoad hanc quam illam partem assignare aut in alios reditus commutare Positivi juris est And elsewhere Non vocatur portio Curatis Decima pars imo est
c. may have an Action of Trespass 36. In an Action upon the Case D. shewed he was seized of a Messuage and Land in P. to the same belonging and in the Parish of P. time whereof c. and yet is a Chappel in the North part of the Chancel called the Parsons Chancel and the Plaintiff and all those c. have used to sustain and repair the said Chancel and have used for him and his Family to sit in Seats of the said Chancel and to Bury there the persons dying in the said Messuage and that none other during all the said time c. without their License have used to sit there or to be buried there and that the Defendants Praemissorum non ignari malitiose impediverunt him to enter and sit in the said Seats The Defendant said That the Earl of N. was seized of the Honour of F. and the said Chappel was parcel of the said Honour and that the Defendants being Servants of the said Earl and resident within the said Honour did divers times in the time of Divine Service sit in the Seats of the said Chancel by the command of the said Earl upon which it was Demurred Exceptions were taken to the Declaration because he prescribes to have a Liberty appertaining to his House and doth not shew it is an Ancient House And 2 That the Allegation of the disturbance was ill being general without alleding a special Disturbance and how he was disturbed Resolved That when it is supposed he is seized in Fee of a Capital Messuage and time c. it is there included that it is an ancient Messuage and so might have such a priviledge And for the second it is sufficient to alledge a general Disturbance as is usual in the Case of a Fair or Market 37. D. was Indicted upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for striking in Paul's Church-yard he pleaded that he was by the Queens Letters Patents created Garter King of Arms and demanded Judgment because he was not so named It was the opinion of the Court that because it was a parcel of his Dignity and not of his Office only and because the Patent is Creamus coronamus nomen imponimus de Garter Rex heraldorum that therefore in all Suits brought against him he ought to be named by this name and thereupon he was discharged of the Indictment And in Penhallo's Case who was Indicted upon the same Statute for drawing of Dagger in the Church of B. against J. S. and doth not say with intent to strike him for which cause the Judgment was quashed Likewise in Child's Case who was Indicted for striking in the Church-yard and it was apud generalem Sessionem Pacis tent apud Blandford and it was not said in Comitatu praedicto for which reason the party was discharged though the County was in the Margin 38. In Pym's Case before-mentioned Corven did Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court against Pym for a Seat in a Church in Devonshire And Pym by Serjeant Hutton moved for a Prohibition upon this Reason That himself is seized of a House in the said Parish and that he and all whose Estate he hath in the House have had a Seat in an Isle of the Church And it was Resolved by the Court That if a Lord of a Mannor or other person who hath his House and Land in the Parish time out of mind and had a Seat in an Isle of the same Church so that the Isle is proper to his Family and have maintained it at their charges That if the Bishop would dispossess him he shall have a Prohibition But for a Seat in the Body of a Church if a question ariseth it is to be decided by the Ordinary because the Freehold is to the Parson and is common to all the Inhabitants And it is to be presumed That the Ordinary who hath cure of Souls will take order in such cases according to right and conveniency and with this agrees 8 H. 7. 12. And the Chief Justice Damc Wick her Case 9 H. 4. 14. which was The Lady brought a Bill in B. R. against a Parson Quare tunicam unam vocatam A Coat Armor and Pennons with her Husband Sir Hugh Wick his Arms and a Sword in a Chappel where he was buried and the Parson claimed them as Oblations And it was there held That if one were to sit in the Chancel and hath there a place his Carpet Livery and Cushion the Parson cannot claim them as Oblations for that they were hanged there is honour of the decased The same reason of a Coat-Armour c. And the Cbief Justice said The Lady might have a good Action during her life in the case aforesaid because she caused the things to be set up there and after her death the Heir shall have his Action they being in the nature of Heir-Looms which belong to the Heir And with this agrees the Laws of other Nations Bartho Cassanae fo 13. Con. 29. Actio datur si aliquis Arma in aliquo loco posita deleat aut abrasit c. And in 21 Ed. 3. 48. in the Bishop of Carlisle's Case Note That in Easter-Term it was Resolved in the Star-Chamber in the case between Hussey and Katherine Leyton That if a man have a House in any Parish and that he and all those whose Estate he hath have used to have a certain Pew in the Church that if the Ordinary will displace him he shall have a Prohibition but where there is no such prescription the Ordinary will dispose of common and vulgar Seats 39. In the County of Dorset there was a Mother-Church and also a Chappel of Ease within the same Parish they of the Mother-Church did rate and tax them of the Chappel of Ease towards reparations of the Mother-Church for the which upon their refusal to pay the same being sued in the Ecclesiastical Court they prayed a Prohibition and for cause alledged That they themselves have used time out of mind c. to repair the Chappel at their own proper cost without having any Contribution at all from them of the Mother-Church and that they have been exempted from all charges and reparations of the Mother-Church and yet for their refusal to pay this Tax they were libelled against in the Ecclesiastical Court and a Sentence there passed against them they therefore prayed a Prohibition By the opinion of the whole Court a Prohibition lieth not in this case in regard that this Prescription is meerly Spiritual and therefore a Prohibition denied per Curiam 40. One was presented ex Officio in the Ecclesiastical Court for the not frequenting of his Parish-Church he there pleads That this was not his Parish-Church but that he had used to frequent another Parish Church and to resort unto that And because they in the Ecclesiastical Court would not receive his plea the Court was moved for a Prohibition for that by the Law in the
this H. procured a Prohibition against H. and declared that the Defendant had sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Way or Passage he was Proprietor of Tithes in the Parish of M. and that the Common way to carry the Tithes out of the Plaintiffs Land was by a Close called S. and that the Plaintiff had stopt it up when in very truth the Way was by Prescription by a Close called W. and that he had pleaded it in the Ecclesiastical Court and the said Court would not allow thereof and for that the Cognizance of a Prescription for a Way ought to be tried at the Common Law and not in the said Court c. Whereupon the Defendant demurred and by the Opinion of the whole Court a Consultation was granted for that the Cognizance of Waies for the carrying of Tithes belongs to the Court Christian as appears by the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. and Fitzh N. B. in Consultation and Lindwood de Decim When Tithes of Corn are severed from the Nine parts an Action of Trespass lieth against any that shall take them away whether he be the Owner of the Land or a Stranger Also an Action of Debt lieth for Predial Tithes as of Corn Wood Grass Fruit Hay c. and treble Dammages recoverable upon the said Statute of 2 Ed. 6. 13. But not so for lesser Tithes as of Wool Lamb c. nor for money given to the Parson in lieu thereof but for each of these Suit may be commenced according to the Statutes of 27 H. 8. and 2 Ed. 6. 13. 32 H. 8. 7. So that if the Owner of the Corn set out his Tithes and after take it away the Parson may sue him in the Ecclesiastical Court or bring an Action of Trespass against him But the Parson may not sue a Stranger in the Ecclesiastical Court for taking away the Tithes which were set out In Hele's Case against Frettenden the Resolution of the Court upon Two Cases upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes was this viz. A man possessed of Corn sells it and before Two Witnesses sets out his Tithes and afterwards privily takes away the Tithes and the Parson sues him upon the Statute for Treble dammages for not setting forth of Tithes And the Defendant proves by Witnesses that he set forth his Tithes yet the Fraud is provided against by the Statute for the words are without fraud or deceipt In the second Case One secretly fells his Corn to one who was not known and afterwards the Vendee commands the Vendor to cut the Corn which he doth and takes away the whole Corn without setting forth his Tithes the Question was who should be sued for the Tithes and the Court held that the first Vendor should be sued for it was Fraudulent And where a Woman being Proprietor of a Parsonage took A. to Husband a Parishioner within the Parish set forth his Tithes and divided them and then immediately took them back again A. the Husband alone sued for the Treble value according to the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. Two points were moved 1 Whether that were a setting forth within the Statute And by the Court that it was not and so hath been Adjudged in 43 44 Eliz. and 1 Jac. 2 Whether the Husband may sue for the Treble value without naming his Wife And to that the Court would be Advised for though the Husband may sue alone where a thing is Personal for which he sueth as the Books of 4 Ed. 4. 31. 7 Ed 4. 6. 15 Ed. 4. 5 11. are yet where the Statute saith That the Proprietor shall have Suit for the not setting forth c. the Husband is not intended Proprietor as the Statute intends but the Wife and for that the Wife ought to joyn For the due manner of Tithing Corn the Parishioner ought of Common right to cut the same and to prepare it for the Parson and to separate it from the Nine parts he ought also of Common right to make up the Corn into Sheaves but is not obliged to gather and set it up into Hillocks or Heaps for the manner of Tithing is good if the Corn be thrown out in Shocks and being so set out they become Lay-Chattels In Guin and Merryweather's Case it was said by Doderidge Justice That if one defame and scandalize the Parson's Title to the Tithes although he be not punishable for this in the Temporal Courts yet he is punishable in the Ecclesiastical Court he said also that when Tithes are set out they are then Lay-Chattels and if a Stranger carry them away the Action lies not in the Ecclesiastical but Temporal Court otherwise it is if it were not severed from the Nine parts Ley Chief Justice Agreed it and said That if a Stranger take the Corn before Severance of the Tithes the Parson shall sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes against the Trespasser and not against the Terre-Tenant And where the Right of Tithes comes in question Prohibition shall not be granted Nor shall Fraud or Covin prevent the payment of Tithes for in a Case of Tithe-Corn where the Custome of L. in the County of B. was alledged That the Parson ought to have the Tenth Land of Corn beginning at the such Land which was next to the Church the Occupiers of the Land to defraud the Parson by Covin did not sow the Tenth-Land nor manure it yet the Parson sued for Tithe in kind to have the Tenth-Cock for Tithe of the Corn sowed and a Prohibition awarded notwithstanding the Covin because he had Remedy at the Common Law for the Fraud Cows that yield Milk no Tithe is to be paid for the Pasture thereof and if a man hath but one Cow and no Cheese made of the Milk thereof the Custome of the place must be observed so that something be paid for the Tithe thereof otherwise no Custome will bind Curtelages or places adjoyning to Mansion-houses and applied to Seeds Herbs c. are Tithable in kind if the Parson make not an Agreement for the same otherwise it must be Tithed in kind by setting forth the Tenth-part for the Parson when the Owner receives his Nine parts Custome is where a Right to many is procured in Common and Publick as Prescription is privately to one If the Custome be of translating of Tithes Predial as in Composition then it holdeth Otherwise if it be of Tithes Personal But if it be of not yielding Tithes at all it doth not hold for a Custome of paying nothing at all is not good but if it be only of yielding less than the Tenth it holdeth both in Personal and Predial Tithes It holdeth also as to the Place where Tithes ought to be left of the Time when to be yielded as also of the manner and form of yielding them So that although Custome which chiefly refers to a Place as Prescription doth to a Person cannot totally take the Tithes
that Case it was said If Willowes grow within the Site of a House it is Waste to fell them yet if they be felled that Tithes shall be paid of them Woad yields a Predial Tithe and regularly to be computed inter Minutas Decimas yet in some Cases may be Great Tithes in places where it is much sowed as in Vdall and Tindall's Case The Case was That in Trespass for taking of two Loads of Woad the Jury found That if they were Minutae Decimae then the Jury found the Defendant guilty if they were not Minutae Decimae then for the Plaintiff It was said for the Plaintiff That without more Circumstances it shall not be intended Minutae Decimae for it may be That a great quantity of Woad may be sown and the greatest part of the Commodity in the Parish may consist in it for Minutae Decimae are but of small consideration in a Parish as Herbs in a Garden and such like and therefore Woad sown in a Field is not Minutae Decimae It was Resolved by the Court That Woad growing in the nature of an Herb the Tithe thereof ought to be accounted Minutae Decimae and belong to the Vicar And the Dean and Chapter of Norwich Case was vouched to prove it That the Tithe of 40 acres of Land sowed with Saffron did belong unto the Vicar and not to the Parson because they were Minutae Decimae Hill 1 Car. C. B. Sir Rich. Vdal and the Vicar of Altons Case Cro. 3. par 20. vid. Hutton 77. the same Case Wood is computed among the Predial Tithes as also among the Great Tithes yet it hath been Resolved That if a Vicar be only endowed with the Small Tithes and hath by reason thereof alwaies had the Tithe Wood that in such case it shall be accounted a Small Tithe otherwise it is to be accounted among the Great Tithes Wood or a great Wood consisting for the most part of Underwoods only some Great Trees here and there sparsim therein the whole Wood is Tithable unless they be specially exempted But if the Wood for the most part consist of Timber-Trees only some small parcel of Underwoods or Bushes in the same no Tithe shall be paid for such Wood the Timber-Trees do in that case priviledge the rest of the Wood Wood converted into Arable shall not be discharged of Tithes as Barren Land within the Statute of 7 E. 6. Trin. 12 Jac. B. R. Case Maschal Price Roll. Rep. The Tenth acre of Wood in a Coppice is a good payment of the Tithe specially if such be the Custome of Tithing Wood in that Countrey otherwise Wood in a Coppice or the like cut and sold the Tithe thereof is to be answered not by the Buyer but the Seller as some conceive which by others is opposed who hold That the Buyer not the Seller of Woods selled to be sold shall answer the Tithe the Reason is because Tithes do follow the Fruits yet the Parson for his Right hath his Remedy against either But Wood of Coppices or Trees that one cuts and spends in his own House-keeping though he spend much is not Tithable unless the Parson can alledge and prove a special Custome to the contrary for generally Wood used for Fewel in House-keeping is not Tithable sed Qu. the Custome it being not so per Legem terrae Nor is there any Tithe to be paid for such Wood as is cut for Hop-poles where Tithe is paid of the Hops But where Wood is grubbed up the Land that thereby is made fit for the Plough shall pay Tithe presently And if the Tithes of Wood after the Inheritance thereof sold be subtracted the Parson may by the Canon Law implead either the Buyer or the Seller at his choice though he can recover but of one but now by the Statute the Seller only unto Treble dammages If there be Parson and Vicar in one Church and the Vicar hath the Tithe of Woods and the Parson the Tithe of the Pasture and Wood be felled for Fencing and enclosing the Pasture the Vicar shall not have Tithe of the Wood Woodlands converted into Arable or Tillage is not discharged of Tithes as Heath Waste or other Barren Grounds within the Statute of 7 Ed. 6. Trin. 12 Jac. B. R. Case Maschall vers Price in fin Roll. Rep. A Prohibition in another Case was granted to stay a Suit for Tithe Wood upon a Surmize That the Wood was spent in his House for Firing and shews that the Custome in the same Parish is That the Owners of any House and Land in the said Parish who pay Tithes to the Parson ought not to pay Tithe of Wood spent for Fewel in their Houses And Issue being upon this Custome it was found for the Defendant It was moved in Arrest of Judgment That although it be found there is no such Custome that yet he ought not to pay Tithe for Wood spent in his house nor for Fencing-stuff for Hedges but per Legem terrae ought to be discharged of them But it was Resolved by the Court That it is not de jure per Legem terrae that any be discharged of them for it is usual in Prohibitions to alledge Customes or by reason of other Lands whereof he pays Tithes that he is discharged of that Tithe but not to alledge that per Legem terrae he is discharged And in this Case the Plaintiff in the Prohibition having alledged a Custome and it being found against him it was Adjndged for the Defendant that a Consultation should be awarded By Custome Tithes may be paid for Wood spent in a mans own House Mich. 14 Jac. B. Watley and Hanberry Agreed And albeit there are some Trees of what age or bigness soever they be are regularly to pay Tithes as Willows Hasels Hollies Maples Birch Alders Thorns c. yet if they are cut for Fencing of Grounds or for Fewel to be spent in the Houses of the Owner within the same Parish no Tithes shall be paid thereof unless it hath been otherwise by Custome Also Wood cut for Burning of Bricks to be used for repair of the Owners Buildings in the same Parish pay no Tithes otherwise if used for Bricks to sell or for making Houses not of necessary habitation so as the Wood in its own nature be Tithable Likewise Tithe shall not be paid of the Roots of such Coppice-Wood as paid Tithe at the cutting thereof if such Roots were soon after the cutting such Wood grubbed up to cleanse the Ground If Woodlands be mixt with Woods partly Tithable partly not Tithable it hath been held That if the Major part be not Tithable it shall priviledge the rest but if the greater part be Tithable then all that is Tithable shall pay Tithes Touching the manner of Tithing of Wood and Trees and how the Tithes thereof are to be paid and delivered the Reader for his better satisfaction
17. is to that purpose 11. In former times many Bishops had their Suffragans who were also Consecrated as other Bishops were These in the absence of the Bishops upon Embassies or in multiplicity of business did supply their places in matter of Orders but not in Jurisdiction These were chiefly for the ease of the Bishops in the multiplicity of their Affairs ordained in the Primitive times called Chorepiscopi Suffragan or Subsidiary Bishops or Bishops Suffragans and were Titular Bishops Consecrated by the Archbishop of the Province and to execute such Power and Authority and receive such profits as were limited in their Commissions by the Bishops or Diocosans whose Suffragans they were What Towns or Places to be the Sees of Bishops Suffragans and how many to a Diocess and in what Diocesses appears by an Act of Parliament made in the Reign of King H. 8. Such Suffragan Bishops are made in case the Archbishop or some other Bishop desire the same In which case the Bishop presents Two able persons for any place allowed by the said Act of Parliament whereof his Majesty doth chuse one but at present there are no Suffragan Bishops in England They were no other than the Chorepiscopi of the Primitive Times Subsidiary Bishops ordained for easing the Diocesan of some part of his burthen as aforesaid by means whereof they were enabled to perform such Offices belonging to that Sacred Function not limited to time and place by the ancient Canons by which a Bishop was restrained in some certain Acts of Jurisdiction to his proper Diocess Of these there were twenty six in the Realm of England distinguished by the Names of such Principal Towns as were appointed for their Title and Denomination The Names and Number whereof together with the Jurisdiction and preheminences proportioned to them the Reader may peruse in the Act of Parliament made An. 26 H. 8. 12. According to the Temporal Laws of this Land if a Bishop grant Letters of Institution under any other Seal than his Seal of Office and albeit it be out of his Diocess yet it is good For in Cort's Case against the Bishop of St. Davids and others where the Plaintiff offered in evidence Letters of Institution which appeared to be sealed with the Seal of the Bishop of London because the Bishop of St. Davids had not his Seal of Office there and which Letters were made also out of the Diocess It was held That they were good enough albeit they were sealed with another Seal and made out of the Diocess for that the Seal is not material it being an Act made of the Institution And the writing and sealing is but a Testimonial thereof which may be under any Seal or in any place But of that point they would advise 13. A Bishop if he celebrate Divine Service in any Church of his Diocess may require the Offerings of that day He may sequester if the King present not and 12 H. 8. 8. by Pollard he must see the Cure served if the person fail at his own Costs He may commit Administration where Executors being called refuse to prove the Will He hath power of distribution and disposing of Seats and charges of Repairs of the Churches within his Diocess He may award his Jure Patronatus where a Church is Litigious between an Usurper and the other but if he will chuse the Clerk of either at his peril he ought at his peril to receive him that hath Right by the Statute He may License Physicians Chirurgions Schoolmasters and Midwives He may Collate by Lapse He may take competent time to examine the sufficiency and fitness of a Clerk He may give convenient time to persons interested to take notice of Avoidances He is discharged against the true Patron and quit of Disturbance to whom it cannot be imputed if he receive that Clerk that is in pursuance of a Verdict after Inquest in a Jure Patronatus He may have Six Chaplains and every Archbishop may have Eight Chaplains He may unite and consolidate small Parishes and assist the Civil Magistrate in execution of some Statutes concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs And by the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 2. any Bishop may at his pleasure joyn and associate himself to the Justices of Oyer and Terminer or to the Justices of Assize at the open and general Sessions to be holden at any place within his Diocess in Causes of the Church And the Statute made 17 Car. 1. c. 27. for the disinabling of persons in Holy Orders to exercise Temporal Jurisdiction or Authority is Repealed by the Statute of 13 Car. 2. cap. 2. whereby they are now enabled to exercise such Temporal Jurisdiction as formerly and is commonly styled the Ordinary of that Diocess where he doth exercise his Episcopal Authority and Jurisdiction In Parliament Bishops as Barons may be present and Vote at the Trial and Arraignment of a Peer only before Sentence of death or loss of Member be pronounced that they may have no hand in blood in any kind they have by Canon Law the Priviledge and Injunction to absent themselves and by Common Law to make Proxies to vote for them 14. ORDINARY according to the acceptation of the Common Law with us is usually taken for him that hath Ordinary Jurisdiction in Causes Ecclesiastical immediate to the King He is in Common understanding the Bishop of the Diocess who is the Supervisor and for the most part Visitor of all his Churches within his Diocess and hath Ordinary Jurisdiction in all the Causes aforesaid for the doing of Justice within his Diocess in jure proprio non per deputationem and therefore it is his care to see that the Church be provided of an able Curate Habet enim Curam Curarum and may execute the Laws of the Church by Ecclesiastical Censures and to him alone are made all Presentations to Churches vacant within his Diocess Ordinarius habet locum principaliter in Episcopo aliis Superioribus qui soli sunt Vniversales in suis Jurisdictionibus sed sunt sub eo alii Ordinarii hi videlicet quibus Competit Jurisdictio Ordinaria de jure privilegio vel consuetudine Lindw cap. Exterior tit de Constitutionib 15. The Jurisdiction of the Ordinary or Bishop as to the Examination of the Clerk or as to the Admission or Institution of him into a Benefice is not Local but it follows the person of the Ordinary or Bishop wheresoever he is And therefore if a Clerk be presented to the Bishop of Norwich to a Church which is void within the Diocess of Norwich who is then in London or if it be to a Bishop of Ireland who is then in England and in London the Ordinary may examine the Clerk or give him Admission or Institution in London And so it was adjudged 16. The Ordinary is not obliged upon a Vacancy to receive the Clerk of him that comes first for as he
Faggots be mistaken yet if it appears that he made his Suggestion according to the Copy of the Libel given him by his Proctor no Consultation shall be brought for by the Statute of 2 H. 5. he ought to have a true Copy of the Libel 30. The Case was where A. sued B. for Tithes within the Parish of C. B. said they were within the Parish of D. and the Parson of D. came pro interesse suo and they proceed there to Sentence Question if in such a Parish or such a Parish shall be tried by the Law of the Land or of the Church Wray said It was Triable by the Common Law Fenner said the Pope hath not distinguished of Parishes but Ordained that Tithes shall be paid within the Parish 31. K. â—arson of S. sued C. in the Spiritual Court for Tithes of certain Lands in the Parish of S. D. Plaintiff in the Prohibition came pro interesse suo and said there was a Custome within the Parish of S. that the Parson of H. shall have Tithes 13 Cheeses of the Lands in S. and in recompence thereof the Parson of S. had 13 Cheeses for the Tithes of H. It was said the Right of Tithes were in question and not the Bounds of the Parish and therefore no Prohibition and of that Opinion was the Court and a Consultation awarded 32. If an Administration be granted to A. where it ought not to be granted to him and after the Administration be Repealed and granted to B. for that he is the next of Kin In this case B. may sue A. in the Ecclesiastical Court to Account for the profits of the Goods and Chattels of the Deceased during his time and no Prohibition to be granted for B. cannot have an Action of Trespass against A. nor hath he any remedy for them at the Common Law 33. A Parson may sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Modus Decimandi and no Prohibition shall be granted for it is in the nature of Tithes But a Prescription cannot be tried in the Ecclesiastical Court for that it ought to be tried by a Jury which cannot be there Yet if a Parson Prescribe to have Tithes of things not Tithable as of Rents of Houses he may sue for that in the Ecclesiastical Court and no Prohibition lies yet no Tithes de jure ought to be paid of them So he may sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of great Trees which he claims by Prescription and no Prohibition lies yet de jure they are not Tithable Quaere 9 H. 6. 46. 34. If there be a Custome that after the Grass is cut and set into Grass-cocks the Tenth Cock be assigned to the Parson and that by the Custome it shall be lawful for him to make the same into Hay upon the Land and the Owner of the Land disturb him from making the same he may sue for that in the Ecclesiastical Court and no Prohibition shall be granted for that is incident to the Custome to come there to make the same into Hay Also the proper place to sue for a Legacy is the Ecclesiastical Court for that it is not any Debt but only due by the Will If A. do owe to B. five Marks and he Devise by his Will that whereas he doth owe five Marks to B. his Executor shall make it 10 l. The Suit for that 10 l. may be in the Ecclesiastical Court for that is not any Addition to the five Marks but a new Sum given in satisfaction of the five Marks and so no part of the 10 l. any Debt but only a Legacy Also if a man devise a Rent out of his Stock and House which he hath for years the Devisee may sue for that Rent in the Ecclesiastical Court for that it issues out of a Chattel and no remedy for it at the Common Law If a man possessed of a Lease for years Devise that his Executor shall out of the profits thereof pay 20 l. to each of his Daughters at their full Age the Executor may be sued in the Ecclesiastical Court to put in Sureties to pay the Legacies and no Prohibition shall be granted for that is to issue out of a Chattel 35. If there be a Question between two persons touching several Grants which of them shall be Register of the Bishop's Court that shall not be tried in the Bishop's Court but at Common Law for although the Subjectum circa quod be Spiritual yet the Office it self is Temporal Also if a man set forth his Tithes by severance of Nine parts from the Tenth and after carry away the Tenth part the Parson cannot sue for that in the Ecclesiastical Court for that by the severance of the Nine parts it did become a Chattel for which he might have his Action of Trespass 36. It is Reported That if a Suit be in the Ecclesiastical Court against a Woman for exercising the Trade of a Midwife without License of the Ordinary contrary to the Canons a Prohibition lies for that is not any Spiritual Function whereof they have cognizance And in this case Prohibition was granted to the Court of Audience 37. The Ecclesiastical Court may not try the Bounds of a Parish and therefore if Suit be there on that matter a Prohibition lies So if the Question there be whether such a Church be a Parochial Church or but a Chappel of Ease a Prohibition also lies In the Case between Elie vicar of Alderburne in the Country of Wilts and Cooke Prohibition was granted and thereupon Issue joyned whether several Parishes and tried by Verdict to be one Parish 38. Where a man sued for a Legacy in the Ecclesiastical Court against an Executor and he there pleaded that he had not Assets save only to pay the Debts and the said Court disallow'd of that plea a Prohibition was granted 39. If a man sues in the Ecclesiastical Court to have an Account for the profits of a Benefice a Prohibition lies for that it belongs to the Common Law But if the Suit be for the profits taken during the time of Sequestration no Prohibition lies 40. In Worts and Clyston's Case where the Plaintiff sued for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court by virtue of a Lease made by the Vicar of T. for three years The Defendant prayed to be discharged of Tithes by a former Lease The Plaintiff in the Ecclesiastical Court prayed a Prohibition to stay his own Suit there It was granted by the Court because they are not to meddle with the trial of Leases or real Contracts there although they have Jurisdiction of the Original cause viz. the Tithes 41. In Collier's Case upon the endowment of a Vicarage upon an Appropriation it was Ordained by the Bishop That the Vicar should pay yearly 20 l. to the Precentor in the Cathedral Church of S. to the use of the Vicars Chorals of the said Church It was held
time of King H. 3. Ed. 3. and Ed. 4. they in the Ecclesiastical Court have not any power to intermeddle with the Precinct of Parish-Churches neither are they there to Judge what shall be said to be a mans Parish-Church And so was the Opinion of the whole Court and therefore by the Rule of the Court a Prohibition was granted 41. Touching the Reparations of a Church and who were liable thereunto this being a question coming in debate before the Judges It was Resolved by the whole Court That for and towards the Reparation of a Church the Land of all as well of Foreigners there not inhabiting as of all others is liable thereunto and this is so by the general custome of the place and this is to be raised by a Rate imposed according to the value of the Land and that in the nature of a Fifteen and this is not meerly in the Realty Williams and Yelverton Justices and Flemming Chief Justice Not the Land but the person of him who occupieth the Land is to be charged Yelverton Justice A man is chargeable for Reparations of a Church by reason of the Land and for the Ornaments in the Church by reason of his coming to Church Williams Justice and Flemming Chief Justice If the person have Land there he is chargeable for both whether he come to Church or not for that he may come to Church if he please 42. In a Prohibition the Case was this The Defendant did Libel before the Bishop of London in the Consistory Court for a Seat in the Church Sentence there passed against the Defendant whereupon he Appealed to the Arches The Court was moved for a Prohibition in regard the Title to the Seat or Pew was grounded upon a Prescription The Court answered c. As for the Title we are not here to meddle with it this being for a Seat in the Church Haughton Justice This Disposition of Pews in the Church belongs of right to the order and discretion of the Ordinary and to this purpose is the case of 8 H. 7. fo 12 and Sir William Hall's case against Ellis Doderidge Justice I moved this case in the Court of C. B. and it was for a Seat in the Church An Action there brought for Disturbance and I there cited Hall's case and 9 E. 4. fo 14. The Case of the Grave-Stone and Coat-Armor for the taking of which an Action of Trespass lies at the Common Law and therefore by the same reason an Action of Trespass should lie for such a Disturbance in a Seat of a Church but there the Judges did all of them say That they would not meddle with the deciding of such Controversies for Seats in the Church but would leave the same to them to whom more properly it belonged Croke Justice Hall's case was this where a man did build an entire Isle in the Church and was at continual charge to repair it if he be disturbed in the use of this he shall for this Disturbance have his remedy at the Common Law and so it hath been adjudged But the Judges all said We are not here to meddle with Seats in the Church Doderidge Justice This Appeal here is like unto a Writ of Error at the Common Law but it doth differ in this By the Appeal the first Judgment or Sentence is suspended but after a Writ of Error brought the first Judgment still remains until it be reversed Coke Chief Justice It was Pym's Case in the Common Bench and 8 H. 7. fo 12. that the Ecclesiastical Court hath Jurisdiction and power to dispose of Pews and Seats in the Church But if there be an Isle built by a Gentleman or by a Nobleman and he hath used to Bury there and there hath his Ensigns of Honour as a Grave-stone Coat-Armor or the like which belongs not unto the Parson if he take them the Heir may well have an Action of Trespass Otherwise it is where the same is repaired at the Common charge of the Parish there they have the disposing of them Ellis and Hall's Case remembred a Kentish Case there the Seat was repaired by him and was belonging to his Capital Messuage by Prescription and so triable at the Common Law And so where the Case is Special that the party doth wholly and solely repair the same in such a case if a Suit be there concerning such a Seat a Prohibition well lieth but not otherwise But if a Nobleman comes to dwell in the Countrey he is now within the sole order and dispose of the Ordinary for his Pew and Seat in the Church and upon the former difference was Pym's case adjudged in the C. B. in this principal Case a Prohibition was denied by the whole Court CHAP. XIII Of Churchwardens Questmen and Sidemen 1. What such are in construction of Law how the choice of them is to be made and wherein the Office doth consist 2. What Actions at Law may lie for or against them 3. Whether Actions lie for the New Churchwardens in Trespas done in time of their Predecessors 4. Certain things appertaining to the Church within the charge and office of Churchwardens to provide and preserve 5. Cases in Law touching the Election of Churchwardens 6. What Sidemen or Questmen are and their duty 7. Action at Law against Churchwardens touching Distress taken by them for money for relief of the Poor 8. A Churchwarden refusing to take the Oath of Enquiry on the 39 Articles Action thereon 9. What remedy in case the Archdeacon refuses to Swear the Church-wardens Elect. 10. The Injunctions of King Ed. 6. touching all Marriages Baptisms and Burials to be Registred in the presence of the Churchwardens 11. Whether the Release of one Churchwarden shall be a Bar to his Companion in an Ecclesiastical Suit commenced by them both 12. Prohibition where Churchwardens have pretended a Custome to chuse the Parish-Clerk 13. The like upon a Presentment by Churchwardens against one in matter more proper for a Leet than the Ecclesiastical Court to take cognizance of 14. The prevalency of Custome against a Canon in choice of a Churchwarden in reference to a Vicar and the Parishioners 15. If question be whether Lands next adjoyning unto a Church-yard shall be charged with the repairs of the Fences thereof and Custome pleaded for it in what Court cognizable 16. In Action of Account by Parishioners against Churchwardens by whom a Release of Câ—sts is pleaded but disallowed in the Ecclesiastical Court whether Prohibition lies in that case 17. Whether Churchwardens are a Corporation qualified for Lands as well as Goods to the use of the Church 18. The Churchwardens disposal of Goods belonging to the Church without the assent of the Sidemen or Vestry void 19. Churchwardens not Ecclesiastical Officers but Temporal employed in Ecclesiastical Affairs Before whom are they to Account 20. Whether Churchwardens may have Action for Trespass done to the Church in their Predecessors time 21. Whether the Parishioners by force of a
not averr that that Hay was growing upon Greenskips c. And an Exception was taken by Henden 1. That the Exception is double the Custome and the Common Law And by Yelverton That is not material for you may have twenty Suggestions to maintain the Suggestion of the Court but Richardson was against that that a Suggestion might be double here for the Suggestion of the Common Law is a Surplusage As in Farmer and Norwich's Case here lately One Prescribes to be discharged of Tithes where the Law discharged him and so was discharged by the Common Law Second Exception is That he doth not apply the Custome to himself in the Suggestion for he that lays the Custome does not shew that the Hay grew upon the Skips upon which a Plough might turn it self and for this cause by the whole Court the Suggestion is naught And here Richardson moved how that Two should joyn in a Prohibition Yelverton If they are joyned in the Libel they may joyn in the Prohibition and that is the common practice of the Kings Bench. Richardson The wrong to one in the Ecclesiastical Court by the Suit cannot be a wrong to the other Hutton They may joyn in the Writ but they ought to sever in the Declaration to which Harvey agreed Yelverton The Prohibition is the Suit of the King and he joyns tant as in a Writ Richardson But it is as the Suit of the party is and if any joyn here I think good cause of a Consultation It is against the profit of the Court to suffer many to joyn And it is usual in the Case of Customes of a Parish in debate to order Proceedings in the two Prohibitions and that to bind all the Parish and Parson And it was said by them all That the Consideration of making Hay is a good Discharge because it is more than they are bound to do 53. F. sued V. for Tithes of Hay which was upon Land that was Heath-ground and for Tithes of Pidgeons And by Richardson If it was meer Waste-ground and yield nothing it is excused by the Statute of payment of Tithes for seven years But if Sheep were kept upon it or if it yield any Profit which yield Tithes then Tithe ought to be paid As the Case in Dyer And for the Pidgeons which were consumed in the House of the Owner he said and for Fish in a Pond Conies Deer it is clear that no Tithes of them ought to be paid of Right wherefore then of Pidgeons quod nemo dedixit And a day was given to shew cause wherefore a Prohibition should not be granted And the Court agreed That it was Felony to take Pidgeons out of a Dove-house And afterwards a Prohibition was granted but principally That the Pidgeons were spent by the Owner But by Henden They shall be Tithable if they be sold 54. P. the Vicar of Eaton in the County of Oxon Sues C. the Parson Impropriate in the Ecclesiastical Court in Oxford pro Minutis Decimis C. sues a Prohibition against the Vicar upon a Surmize of a Prescription P. comes and pleads the first Endowment made An. Dom. 1310. by which the Minute Tithes were allotted to the Vicar C. demurrs and Adjudged for the Plaintiff for the Parson cannot Prescribe against the first Endowment 55. In Debt upon the Stat. of 2 E. 6. for not setting out of Tithes the Plaintiff declares That the Defendant was seized of the Lands in question within that Parish and that the Tithes did belong to the Parson and Vicar viz. Two parts to the Parson and the Third part to the Vicar or their Farmers payable in specie for 40 years last past that the Plaintiff was Farmer proprietary of the Tithes to the Parson and Vicar spectant and shews the value of the Tithes due and demands the treble value the â—â—â—ndant pleads Niâ—il debet per patr and it was found for the 〈◊〉 It was now moved in Arrest of Judgment because the Plaintiff ought to have brought two Actions as the Parson and the Vicar ought for their several parts But Resolved that the Action is well brought for it is a Personal and one entire Debt for one wrong 56. Bott sues a Prohibition against Sir Edward B. and suggests That the Defendant is Parson Impropriate of W. and that time out of mind there hath been a Curate of an Incumbent by the appointment of the said Rector who administred the Sacraments c. And that the Custome of that Parish time out of c. was that the Curate should have 〈◊〉 Tenths renewing within that Parish except Decimas graâ—â—â—â—m which were paid to the Parson and that every Parishioner who had so paid the Tenths to the Curate was discharged against the Parson And that notwithstanding that c. Sir Edward B. had sued him c. And now he prays a Prohibition and had it but after that Surmize was adjudged insufficient without Argument by the Court and a Consultation granted for such Curate cannot Prescribe against his Master that may remove him at his pleasure And for that reason it was not a good Prescription for the Parishioners 57. Goodwin being Vicar sues in the Ecclesiastical Court the Dean and Chapter of Wells bâ—ing Parson of a Church for a Pension and they pray a Prohibitionâ— and it was denied For that Pension is a Spiritual thing for which the Vicar may Sue in the Spiritual Court Note that they entitle themselves to that Parsonage by a Grant of H. 8. who had it by 31 H. 8. of Dissolutions 58. It was said by Hutton in Spencer's Case That by the Civil Law the Parishioner ought to give notice to the Parson when the Tithes are set forth But it was adjudged That the Common Law doth not so oblige a man 59. B. by his Deed Compounds for Tithes and after Sues for them in the Ecclesiastical Court by Popham and Gawdy That an Action upon the Case lies Vid. E. 4. 13 Mich. 4 Jac. The Lady Waterhouse was sued for the Tithes of Trees whereof none were due c. there an Action upon the Case does not lie for the Parson or person may well be ignorant of what things are due otherwise he Sues against his own knowledge 60. To have a Prohibition the Surmize was That the Inhabitants of D. of which he is an Inhabitant have paid un mod decimand c. And they were at Issue and he proved only that he himself had paid it and yet well And no Consultation for every particular is included in the general and proved by it And it appears sufficient matter for a Prohibition and to oust a Spiritual Court of their Cognizance 2 Agreed that where the Statute appoints Proof of the Surmize to be by Two it is sufficient if Two affirm that they have known it to be so or that the Common Fame is so 61. Upon a Surmize by a Parishioner That he had Compounded
away yet it may limit and moderate the payment thereof Notwithstanding in some places and cases a Custome applied to a Countrey to pay no Tithe as in 40 Parishes for the Wild in Sussex is good but generally such a Custome is not good Likewise a Custome tending to the impoverishment of the Parson or Vicar is no good Custome Mich. 11 Jac. C. B. inter Jux and Sir Charles Candish Likewise a Custome to pay Tithes truly without view of the Parson is not good Also a Custome alledged to pay the Tenth Sheaf of Wheat for the Tithe of all manner of Corn and Grain is not a good Custome dict Cas Jux 38 Eliz. C. B. Adjudg But a Custome to pay Tithe-Wool at Lammas-day though due at Shearing is good But such is the strength of a Custome that it cannot be discharged by a verbal Agreement for Money Custome may make that Tithable which of it self is not Tithable and may alter Tithes in any other thing which will be a Modus Decimandi sufficient to bind the Parson and his Successors Custome is properly Triable at the Common Law upon a Prohibition but a Consultation may be granted on a Prohibition granted on a Surmize not proved within Six months as was Adjudged Hill 6 Jac. C. B. in Cas inter Sharp and Sharp Noâ— Rep. Custome and Prescription both ought to be without interruption Constant and beyond the memory of man Perpetual that is no man in being remembers to the contrary for it seems if any man or any Authentick Record or other sufficient Evidence can prove it was otherwise at any time since the first of R. 1. viz. 1189. the Custome or Prescription at Common Law would not hold Albeit by the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. c. 13. Tithes are to be yielded and paid as of right they had been within 40 years next before which time somewhat agrees with the Ecclesiastical Computation And by the Statute of 27 H. 8. c. 20. they are to be paid according to the Ecclesiastical Laws and Ordinances after the laudable Usages and Customes of the Parish which was also after confirmed as to the lawful Usage and Custome by the Stat. of 32 H. 8. 7. D DEcimae Majores such as Corn Hay c. belong to the Parson Decimae Minores or Minutae as Saffron Herbs c do belong to the Vicar Pasch 38 Eliz. B. R. Beding and Feak's Case Mich. 1 Car. C. B. Sir Rich. Vdal and the Vicar of Alton's Case Deer though they are Ferae naturae yet they may be given for Tithes and although they are not Tithable of themselves yet they may be given for a Modus Decimandi Hill 6 Jac. C. B. the Vicar of Clare's Case Sharp and Sharp's Case Noy 148. acc Deprivation A Parson may after his Deprivation sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for subtraction of Tithes which were due to him before his Deprivation and a Prohibition will not lie in the Case Adjudged Hill 13 Jac. Cole's Case Discharge of Tithes may be either by Custome Prescription Composition Statute Unity of Possession or by Priviledge as to Religious Orders now not of use There may be also a Discharge of Tithes as against the Vicar by the payment thereof unto the Parson And it may be by a Real Composition but it cannot be by a Verbal Agreement for money And if there be a Discharge not of the Tithes themselves but from the exact payment thereof by a Modus Decimandi or Annual recompence in satisfaction thereof it must be by Custome or Prescription By the Common Law a Lay-man although he were capable of a Discharge of Tithes by Grant of the Parson Patron and Ordinary or by Composition yet at that Law none had a capacity to take or receive them save only Ecclesiastical persons or a Mixt person as the King And by the same Law if a Bishop were absolutely Discharged of Tithes by Prescription whilst the Lands were in his hands his Demising thereof to a Lay-man could not make the same chargeable therewith For in Wright's Case where the Bishop of W. was seized of a Mannor in right of his Bishoprick Prescribed that he and all his Predecessors had held the said Mannor and the Demesns thereof time out of mind for him his Farmers Tenants for years or at will Discharged and acquitted from payment of Tithes for these Lands the Bishop made a Lease for years of parcel of the Demesns The Farmer of the Rectory Libelled in the Ecclesiast Court against the Lessee for Tithes all which matter he pleaded in the Ecclesiastical Court and the Judge there refused to allow of the Allegation in Discharge of the Tithes It was held in this case 1 That if the Lands of the Bishop were absolutely Discharged in his hands by Prescription the Demising of it to a Lay-man could not make it chargeable with Tithes 2 That a Spiritual person may Prescribe in non Decimando 3 That the Refusal by the Ecclesiastical Judge to allow the Allegation in Discharge of Tithes is not Traversable In like manner the King being seised of Lands parcel of the Forest of B. in Fee in right of the Crown Discharged of the payment of Tithes granted the Lands to the Earl of Hertford in Fee and it was held that the Patentee should be Discharged of payment of Tithes and a Prohibition was granted in that Case Yet in another Case where it was surmized for a Prohibition that the Prior of B. was seised of Lands parcel of his Priory and held them till the dissolution Discharged of Tithes for his Farmers and Tenents for life or years that the Priory was dissolved 27 H. 8. that the King was seised of the Lands and shews the Statutes of 32 H. 8. and 2 Ed. 6. and that the King died seised of the Lands that by mean Conveyances it was conveyed to J. S. and that the Plaintiff being his Tenant for years was sued by the Parson of B. for the Tithes of these Lands It was Resolved by the Court That the Lands which came to the Crown by the Statute of 27 H. 8. should not be Discharged from the payment of Tithes but should pay the same although the Lands in the hands of the said Religious Persons or Houses were Discharged from the payment thereof for that the Priviledges were Personal Priviledges which were extinguish'd by the said Statute of Dissolutions and there are not any words in the said Statute of 27 H. 8. to save the Priviledges and the Statute of 31 H. 8. being a subsequent Law had not respect to these Priviledges Likewise where a Parson by Deed Indented leased his Glebe cum omnibus proficuis Commoditatibus It was notwithstanding Adjudged that the Lessee should be charged with the payment of Tithes And in Branches Case it was Resolved That an Union of Copyhold Lands and of the Parsonage in the hands of the Parson as Parson Imparsonee
the Bishop were Discharged in his hands absolutely by Prescription the Demising it to a Lay-man cannot make it chargeable and the Bishop might reserve the greater Rent A Parson by Deed Indented leaseth his Glebe cum omnibus proficuis commoditatibus It was notwithstanding Adjudged that the Lessee shall be charged with the payment of Tithes And in an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes the Case was The Lands were a parcel of the possession of the Templers whose Lands were annexed to the Priory of St. Johns The Templers had a Special Priviledge to be Discharged of Tithes of those Lands which propriis manibus excolunt By a Special Act of 32 H. 8. the Possessions of the Priory of St Johns were given to the King by general words of all Lands in tam amplis modo c. as the Abbots held them Resolved That the Defendant should not be Discharged nor have the Priviledge for by the Common Law a Lay-person was not capable of such a Priviledge and the King should not have the benefit of the Priviledge until the Stat. of 31 H. 8. But the Statute extends only to such Possessions as came to the King by Surrender and should be vested in him by that Act and doth not extend to Possessions which are vested in him by another Act. and these Lands were given to the King by a Special Act of Parliament and therefore not Discharged of Tithes Dotards or the Branches of Trees of twenty years growth or upward are not Tithable Doves in a Dove-house do pay Personal not Predial Tithes but if stolâ— out of a Dove-house no Tithe is to be paid of such Tithes shall be paid de jure of young Pidgeons Mich. 14 Jac. B. between Whatley and Hambury Resolved Hill 15 Jac. B. R. Resolved and a Prohibition denied in Gastrell's Case By Custome Tithes may be paid of Pigeons spent in a mans own house but not so of Common right Case ibid. But if sold they shall pay Tithe dict Cas Whatly E EGgs are Tithed in kind or according to the Custome of the place which serves for the Tithe of the Tame and Domestick Fowl where their young are not paid in kind and where Tithe of Eggs is paid there is no Tithe of the young And so vice versa where the Tithe of the Young is paid there no Tithes of Eggs may be demanded F FAllow-Grounds pay no Tithe for these years wherein they lie Fallow nor is the Pasture thereof Tithable unless it be kept Lay beyond the course of Husbandry for if Land lie Fallow every two or three years the same is a charge unto the Owner and Tenant for that time and an advantage to the Parson in the bettering of his Crop the year following when the same is sowed with Corn or Grain and therefore although the Grass and feeding of the Fallow-ground for that year be some small profit to the Owner of the Soil yet he shall not pay Tithe for the same as hath been Adjudged Yet it was afterward Adjudged That if Lands be Tithable and the Tenant or Occupier of the Land will not Plough it or Manure it especially thereby to prejudice the Parson that in such case the Parson may Sue the Tenant in the Ecclesiastical Court to have Tithe of that Land Ferae naturae Beasts and Birds that are such are not Tithable till they become tame and profitable to the Owner that is till they are reduced to a Tameness and Property yet it hath been held that Tithes are not payable for tame Turkies Pheasants or Partridges nor for their Eggs Although Beasts Ferae naturae as Bucks Does Pheasants c. are not Tithable of themselves yet they may be given for Tithes or for a Modus Decimandi as a great Tree may be given for Tithe of Trees tithable And as things which are Ferae naturae whereof a man hath not an absolute property are not Tithable so likewise of things which are meerly for Pleasure Tithes shall not be paid Fenny-Lands drained and made Arable do pay Tithes notwithstanding the Statute of Barren Land Fish taken in the Sea are by the Custome of the Realm Tithable not by the Tenth Fish but some small Sum of Money in consideration of a Tithe But if taken in a Pond or in a several Piscary then they are Tithable by the Owner thereof as a Predial Tithe and as such ought to be set forth according to the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. Trin. 8 Jac. C. B. the Earl of Desmond's Case Mich. 15 Car. B. R. Adjudg acc vid. Trin. 9 Car. B. R. Yet it is said that Fishers Fowlers and Hunters not for pleasure but by way of Trade for profit pay some Tithe by usage in nature of a personal Tithe to the Parson or Vicar where they inhabit though they take their Fish Fowl c. in another Parish but if they paid Money to another in that other Parish for this liberty of Fishing c. then he that takes that Money must pay as a Predial Tithe to the Parson of that other Parish where he inhabits Fish taken in the Sea being Ferae naturae are not understood to be Regularly but Customarily only Tithable as in Cornwall Wales Yarmouth c. And so it hath been Resolved albeit in the said Case of the E. of Desmond it was held that they were Tithable by the Custome of the Realm In which case it is more probable that the Fishers pay a Personal than the Fish a Predial Tithe to the Parson or Vicar of that Parish where they inhabit To this purpose there is a Case extant wherein a Prohibition was granted against the same Parson of W. in the County of L. for suing in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithe of Trouts taken in a River because being Ferae naturae they are not Tithable and a President was shewed 5 Car. where a Prohibition was granted against the same Parson for suing for Tithe-Eeles taken in the River because they were Ferae naturae And it was said that in Yarmouth was a Suit for Tithe-Herrings taken in the Sea but they could not prevail in it Jones Justice said That in Wales they used to pay Tithes for Herrings and in Ireland it is a common course to pay Tithe for Salmons taken in Rivers whereunto it was replyed That that might peradventure be by Custome for otherwise Tithes are not due for Fish taken in Rivers For no Tithes de jure are to be paid for Fish taken in a Common River Pasch 5 Car. B. R. a Prohibition granted to stay a Suit for Tithes of Eeles taken in a Common River in the Parish of Barton in Westmerland and Hill 9 Car. Prohibition granted to stay a Suit for Tithes of Trouts in the same River But the Court seemed to be divided whether Tithes of them were due or not But they granted a
leased all his Glebe-Lands with all Profits and Commodities rendring 13 s. 4. d. pro omnibus exactionibus demandis and afterwards Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court against his Lessee for the Tithes thereof It was the Opinion of the Court That Tithes are not things issuing out of Lands nor any Rent or duty but Spiritual and if the Parson doth Release to his Parishioner all demands in his Lands his Tithes are not thereby extinct and therefore a Consultation was granted And so it was Adjudged 32 Eliz. in Babington's Case That such Lessee should pay Tithes to the Parson for that they are due jure divino and cannot be included in Rent As long as the Vicar occupies his Glebe-Lands in his own hands he shall pay no Tithes but if he Demise it unto another the Lessee shall pay Tithes to the Parson that is Impropriate If the Vicar sow the Land and die and his Executor take away the Corn. and doth not set forth his Tithe and the Parson bring his Action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. In this case the Court seemed to incline that it would lie The glebe-Glebe-Lands and Spiritual Revenues of Clergy-men being held in pura perpetus Eleemosyna h. e. in Frankalmoign are exempted from Arraying and Mustering of Men or Horses for the War as appears in a Stat. of 8. H. 4. nu 12. in the unprinted Rolls of that Parliament An Abbot was Parson Imparsonee of the Church where the Abbey and Tithes were the Abbey was Dissolved the King granted the Monastery to one and the Parsonage and Rectory to another It was the opinion of the Justices That if the Land of the Abbey was the Glebe of the Parsonage before the Impropriation that then the Land was discharged of Tithes for it remains Glebe notwithstanding the Appropriation and the Glebe cannot be gained by Prescription nor was ever chargeable to pay Tithes And if the Parson doth make a Lease of his Glebe the Lessee as was there said contrary to what was before said shall not pay Tithes but the Demesns of the Abbey not parcel of the Glebe should be chargeable to pay Tithes if they were not discharged in right of a Composition or perpetual Unity Grass pays a Predial Tithe but if a man cut Grass and before it be made into Hay being only put into Swathes he carry it thence and give it to his Plowing Cattel for their necessary sustenance not having otherwise Food sufficient for them in this case no Tithes shall be paid for the same and Prohibition was granted Mich. 9. Car. B. R. Crawley Wells per Curiam The Case was where J. Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of the Profits which came of the Grass and herbage of Pasture-Land and upon a Prohibition granted P. suggests That he did feed on that Grass and Pasture with his own Plough-Cattel and with the Plough-Cattle of other man in the same Village Noy Consultation shall be granted for though a mrn shall not pay Tithes for the Cattel of his Cart yet he shall pay Tithes for the Land whereon they do feed Doderidge Justice Where I do agist Cattel and take the Cattel of other men to eat up my Grass and Pasture there I shall pay Tithes for the Grass otherwise it is where the Grass is only such as I do depasture with my own working Cattel Crook cited Sherington and Fleetwood's Case where a man Agists other mens Cattel on his Meadowgrouâ—d whereof he paid Tithe-Hay afore time and it was Resolved in this Case That he shall not pay Tithes for that Meadow-ground now fed with other mens Cattel after Harvest and no more than if he had depastured the Land with his own Cattel Gravel is not Tithable Mich. 19. Eliz. B. R. Pasch 34. Eliz. C. B. Liff and Watt ' s Case Grain is computed among the Predial Tithes which is to be set out according to the Statutes and the usage of the place Brownl 1. 14. which holds true of all sorts of Grain in all grounds within the Parish The Law is the same touching Hay in Meadows Grounds lett to Strangers out of the Parish the Tenth-peny of the Rent is commonly payable to the Parson if no Custome against it Or Ground within the Parish lett to a Stranger without the Parish is Tithable by the Ower of the Cattel unless the Custome there be osherwise Or if the Ground be fed with Cattel that bring no profit to the Parson the Owner thereof must pay Tithes for them Or Ground fed with the Cattel of a Stranger within the Parish which brings no profit to the Parson or Vicar he is to pay Tithes for it the Case therefore seems the same if both the Ground and the Cattel be his own that is the Stranger in case he work them in another Parish But the Studs of Ground or the Meers thereof at the Ends of Land and adjoyning to the Arable-ground are not Tithable where the Land it self pays Tithe unless where being mowed for Hay it hath used to pay Tithes H HAy pays a Predial Tithe and is to be Tithes in Swathes Windrows or Cocks as the Custome of the place is Or if the Custome be to measure out the Tenth part as the Grass grows on the Land for Hay the Custome is good and the Tithe of Hay may be set forth in Grass-Cocks where the Custome doth not oblige to make it into Hay-Cocks And if Hay be put into Ricks on the ground and after sold the Buyer cannot be sued for the Tithe the Seller may in case the Tithe thereof were not paid before Hill 16. Jac. by three Justices in Ashfield's Case And where two Crops of Hay are had from the same ground in the same year Tithe shall be paid as well of the latter as of the former Also Tithe shall be paid of the Hay made of Grass growing in Orchards Co. 2. Instit 652. But no Tithe Hay shall be paid for the Grass growing upon Headlands which are only large enough for the turning of the Plough but not for Grass cut in Meadows to feed the Beasts of the Plough and not made into Hay Trin. 1. Car. B. R. Wells vers Crawly Yet on some Headlands Tithe may be payable of Hay for suppose that in an Arable Field there be much Grass on the Headlands thereof and there be a Prescription to pay the Tenth Shock of Corn there for all the Hay on the Headlands and Rakings of the Corn and for Tying of Horses on the Headlands such Prescription was held good to discharge the Tithe of the Hay upon such Headlands And although a Second Crop of Hay from the same ground the same year is Tithable as aforesaid yet regularly the Hay of the Aftermath pays no Tithe except there be a Special Custome for it the Rule being That Tithes shall be paid Ex annuatis renovantibus simul semel And where the
setting forth of Tithes which Action is to be sued in the Temporal Courts Trees of all sorts regularly and generally except Timber-Trees as aforesaid Root and Branch Body Bark and Fruit used or sold by the Owner are Tithable Tithes shall be paid of Hasel Willows Holley Alder and Maple although above twenty years growth Mich. 5. Jac. B. Resolved and Consultation granted accordingly So that Trees of all kinds not apt for Timber though exceeding 20 years growth nor ever cut before may be Tithable And all Trees under the notion of Sylva Caedua aforesaid Underwoods and Coppices felled and preserved to grow again are Tithable to the Parson when the Owner takes his Nine parts But Trees cut only for Mounds Plow-gear Hedging Fencing Fewel for maintenance of the Plough or Pail be it Underwoods of Coppices Parings of Fruit-Trees or the like are not Tithable but Trees bearing Fruit of all sorts are Tithable in their Annual increase And therefore as to Fruit-Trees as Apples Pears c. the Tenth of the Fruit shall be set out and delivered when they are newly gathered for the omission whereof if loss come to the Parson the Owner is chargeable to him in the Treble Dammages If a man pay Tithes for the Fruit of Trees and after cut down the same Trees and make them into Billets and Faggots and sell them he shall not pay Tithes for the Billets or Faggots for that it is not any new Increase Coke Magna Charta 652. 621. If Trees be Fell'd no Tithes shall be paid of the Roots Coke Pasch 29 Eliz. B. R. nor of the young Sprouts that grow of such ancient Stock M. 12 Jac. B. R. Stampe Clinton Roll. Rep. And as Fruit-Trees pay Tithes in their Fruit so also may young Trees which as yet bear no Fruit pay Tithes in another kind for where a Parson Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of young Trees planted in a Nursery upon purpose to be rooted up and sold to be planted in other Parishes The Question was Whether Tithes should be paid for them It was said they were of the nature of the Land and Tithes should not be paid of them no more than of the Mines of Coles or Stones digged or for Trees spent in Fewel in the House But it was the Opinion of the whole Court That forasmuch as he made a profit of such young Trees Tithes thereof should be paid when they are digged up and sold into another Parish as well as of Corn and Carret or other things of like nature Note by the Justices If one cut Trees which are or may be Timber although they be under the age of 20 years no Tithes are due and so it is of new Germins growing under that age And where in a Prohibition for that it was Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes of Timber Trees the Defendant said the Trees were long since aridae mortuae putridae It was the Opinion of the Justices That no Tithes should be paid of those Trees for being above the growth of 20 years they were discharged of Tithes Also in Brook and Rogers Case where a Parson sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of the Boughs of Trees above the age of 20 years growth and the Defendant prayed a Prohibition and shewed that the Trees were aridae siccae in culminibus putridae It was held by the better Opinion that Tithes should not be paid of them In an Action upon the Case Declared whereas by the Statute of 45 Ed. 3. cap. 3. Tithes ought not to be paid for Gross Trees That she had cut down such Timber Trees being above the growth of twenty years and that the Defendant as Parson sued her for Tithes of them against the Statute upon which it was Demurred Resolved by the whole Court That the Action did not lie for none shall be punished for Suing in the Ecclesiastical Court for any matter which is properly demandable there although perhaps he hath no cause of Action But if he Sues in the Ecclesiastical Court for matter which appears by his Libel is not Suable there nor the Court hath Jurisdiction thereof there an Action upon the Case lieth Turkeys Tithes shall not be paid of them nor their Eggs quia Ferae naturae Turves used for Fewel or Firing do pay Tithe and are Tithable as Predial Tithes yet held that Tithes shall not be paid thereof Hill 14 Jac. B. R. per Houghton Hill 11 Jac. B. R. per Cur. Tile-Stones or Brick Tile are not Tithable Tythes or Tithes are a Tenth or otherwise a certain part or portion of the Fruit or lawful Increase of the Earth Beasts or Mens Labour and Industry and are payable by every person having things Tithable that cannot shew a Special Exemption either by Composition Custome Prescription Priviledge or some Act of Parliament And they are to be paid without any Diminution for which reason the Owners of things Tithable ought not to have the Nine parts till the Tenth be first severed there-from And on the other side the Tithe is in no case to be taken by the Parson or Vicar before the same be severed from the Nine parts The Parson de mero Jure is to have all the Tithes if there be no Endowment of the Vicarage and a Vicar cannot have Tithes but by Gift Composition or Prescription for that all Tithes de jure do belong to the Parson In Suit for Tithes it is not necessary to demand the very value for the Duty is uncertain Mich. 16 Jac. B. R. Case Pemberton Shelton Roll. Rep. If Tithes be payable by one who dies before he pays it it must be paid by his Executor if he hath Assets But if the Parishioner setteth forth his Tithes and they stand upon the Land two or three daies and afterwards he taketh or carrieth them away this is not a setting forth of his Tithes within the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. But if the Parson or Vicar shall suffer his Tithes being severed to lie long upon the Land to the prejudice of the Owner of the Ground he may have his Action of the Case And whoever taketh away the Tithes not having Right thereto is a Trespasser Also an Action lieth against a Disseisor for the Tithes or if one cut them and another carrieth them away an Action lieth against either of them And although in the Ecclesiastical Courts no Plea is allowed in Discharge of Tithes yet Lands in the hands of Ecclesiastical persons may be Discharged of Tithes and now since the Statute of 31 H. 8. in the hands of the Kings Patentees also by Suspension Priviledge or Unity And since in the Ecclesiastical Courts no Plea as aforesaid is allowed in Discharge it is nothing strange that the Common Law holds that the Court Spiritual hath not Jurisdiction in matters of Tithes where the Prescription is de non Decimando otherwise where it is de
interdum vicesima aut tricesima And in Heâ—sloe's Case Co. 9. par it is said That Tithes Quatenus Tithes were Spiritual things and due ex jure Divino and were not accounted as Temporal Inheritances Hence it is That where a Parson leased all his Glebe Lands with all Profits and Commodities rendring 13 s. 4 d. pro omnibus exactionibus demandis and afterwards Libelled in the Spiritual Court against his Lessees for the Tithes thereof It was the Opinion of the Court That Tithes are not things issuing out of Lands nor any Rent or duty but Spiritual and if the Parson doth Release to his Parishioners all Demands in his Lands his Tithes thereby are not extinct and therefore a Consultation was granted And in the like case it hath been Adjudged That the Lessee should pay Tithes to the Parson for that they are jure Divino due and cannot be included in Rent If a Parishioner sets forth his Tithes and sever the Tenth part from the Nine parts justly and truly although he doth not give Personal notice to the Parson nor general notice in the Church of the time of setting forth his Tithes whereby the Parson might be present at the setting of them forth and to see that it be justly done yet it is a good setting forth of the Tithes as in the Case between Chase and Ware in a Writ of Error upon a Judgment in an Action upon the Case against the Parson for leaving his Tithe of Hay upon the Parishioners ground after notice of setting them forth whereby the Parishioner lost his Grass there But it was not alledged that the Parson had notice of the time of setting them forth and yet the Court affirmed the Judgment against the Parson A. Parson in Consideration of 20 s. yearly promised to B. that B. should pay no Tithe for a certain Wood per parol and in Consideration thereof B. promised to pay the 20 s. yearly and this Agreement was during their Lives B. made a Lease at Will of the Wood the Lessee had a Prohibition against him for the Agreement was good and Jermyn demanded what Remedy against the Lesse for the 20 s. Doderidge None but he shall have Action on the Case against B. or his Executors but the Lessee for years may have Action against the Parson if he Sue him in the Ecclesiastical Court. For the Case was There was an Agreement per parol made between S. Parson and B. the Parishioner B. promised to S. for himself his Executors and Assigns to pay him Ten load of Wood and 10 s. for the Tithe of a Wood during the life of S. And S. promised not to Sue him c. for any other Tithe B. dies his Executor made a Lease at Will of the Wood the Question is whether the Tenant at Will may take his Action against the Parson who sued him for other Tithes c. In a Prohibition against a Parson who sued for Tithes it was Surmized That the Clerk of the Parish and his Predecessors Assistants to the Minister had used to have five shillings for the Tithe of the Lands where c. It was the Opinion of the Court That if this Special matter be shewed in the Surmize it might perhaps be good by reason of long continuance But they held that by Common intendment Tithes are not payable to a Parish-Clerk and he is no party in whom a Prescription can be alledged wherefore a Consultation was awarded The Parson of T. sued for Tithe-Wood of the Park of T. for a Prohibition it was surmized That he and all those c. time out of mind c. had used to pay to the Vicar of T. ten shillings yearly for all Tithes of Wood growing in the place and the proof was That he paid ten shillings for discharge of Tithe-Wood in the Park and two other places The Prohibition was denied and a Consultation awarded because the right of Tithes between the Parson and the Vicar came in question and because the party failed in the proof of his Prescription In a Prohibition to stay Suit for Tithes surmizing that he set forth his Tithes and for some reasonable cause he detained part of them And the Parson sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court upon which it was Demurred because by the fetting forth they were Lay-Chattels But the Court held That the Prohibition did not lie for against the party himself who setteth forth his Tithes a Suit is maintainable in the Ecclesiastical Court if he detains them although he might have his Remedy for them at the Common Law Otherwise if they were taken away by a Stranger after they were set forth For a Prohibition it was Surmized That he had used to pay the Tenth sheaf of Corn the Tenth Cock of Hay the Tenth Fleece of Wool and so the like in satisfaction of all Hay Corn Cattel c. And it was held That it was no sufficient Surmize for a Prohibition because that which he used to pay is but the Tenth in kind In Sands and Pruries Case the question was whether Tithes were grantable by Copy It was Objected they could not because it is against the nature of Tithes whereof none could have property before the Council of Lateran and it was impossible there should be any Custome to demise them by Copy when none had interest in them and they cannot be parcel of a Mannor for they are of several natures though united in one mans hands But by the Court Resolved they might be granted by Copy so it had been time so out of mind A Parishioner severed his Tithes but being in a Close the Gate was locked so as the Parson could not come at them The question was whether the Gate were locked or open and thereupon a Prohibition brought The Court was of Opinion that although the Tithes were severed yet they remain Suable in the Ecclesiastical Court and then the other is but a consequent thereof and Triable there and the Prohibition denied In Sharington and Fleetwood's Case it was Resolved That if a Parson Libels for Tithes and a Prohibition is granted and after he Libelleth for the Tithes of another year the first Suit not being determined an Attachment upon the Prohibition lieth against him And in the Case between Talentire and Denton where the Bishop of Carlisle being seized in Fee of Tithes in right of his Bishoprick made a Lease of them for Three Lives rendring the ancient Rent the Tithes having been usually demised for the same Rent It was Resolved That the Lease was not good against his Successor because he had not remedy for the Rent by Distress or Action of Debt Otherwise it had been if only a Lease for years for there Debt lieth for the Rent In Leigh and Wood's Case it was Resolved That if the Owner sets forth his Tithe and a Stranger takes them no Suit shall be for the same in the Ecclesiastical Court
the different conditions of the persons of whom they were begotten As when they were begotten by persons of a single and unmarried Estate and of such as were kept as Concubines the Civil Law called them Filii Naturales if begotten of single Women not design'd for Concubines for satisfaction of present Lust then they were called Spurii if begotten of such as the Law styles Scorta or common Harlots by publick profession than they were called Manzeres if begotten of Married Women then they were called Nothi if begotten between Ascendents and Descendents or between Collaterals contrary to the Divine prohibition then they are called Incestuosi 6. Bastardy so stains the Blood that the Bastard can challenge neither Honour nor Arms and so disables him that he cannot pretend to any succession to inheritance The Temporal and the Ecclesiastical Laws with us do not differ as to matter of Bastardy but something as to the prosecution thereof The Ecclesiastical Law brings it two ways to Judgment Incidently and Principally the Common Law makes two sorts thereof General and Special Incidently at the Ecclesiastical Law when it is pleaded in Bar to a claim of something in right of Nativity Principally when by reason of some slanderous and reproachful speeches it is brought before the Court as the principal matter in Judgment to be alledged and proved that thereupon Sentence may be pronounced accordingly by the Ecclesiastical Judge Ad Curiam enim Regiam non pertinet agnoscere de Bastardia General Bastardy at Common Law is so called because it is in gross objected in Barr against a Man to disappoint him in the Principal matter of his Suit Which because it is of Ecclesiastical Cognizance is sent by the Kings Writ to the Ordinary to enquire whether the Party charged with Bastardy were born in or out of Lawful Matrimony And as the Ordinary finds the truth of the matter upon due examination so he pronounceth accordingly in his Consistory whereof he returns Certificate to the Temporal Courts Special Bastardy at the Common Law seems to be only that where the Matrimony is confest but the Priority or Posteriority of the Nativity of him whose Birth is in question is controverted General Bastardy ought to be Tryed by the Bishop and not by the Country But Bastardy in this sense cannot be tryed by the Ordinary otherwise than by vertue of the Kings Writ on some Suit depending in the Temporal Court When Issue is joyn'd on Bastardy before it be awarded to the Ordinary to Try it Proclamation thereof is made in the same Court and after Issue it is certified into Chancery where Proclamation is made once a Month for three Months and then the Lord Chancellour certifies it to the Court where the Plea is depending and after it is Proclaimed again in the same Court that all such whom the said Plea concerns may appear and make their Allegations before the Ordinary whose Certificate of Bastardy is nothing to the purpose unless it come in by Process at the Suit of the Parties And this Bastardy ought to be certified under the Seal of the Ordinary for it is not sufficient to certifie it under the Seal of the Commissary And although the Defendant be certified a Bastard by the Ordinary yet the Certificate shall lose its force if the Plaintiff be afterwards Nonsuit for then the Certificate is not of Record In the Case of Elborough against Allen it was said by Crook that for calling one Bastard generally there is not any sufficient Ground of Action at the Common Law but if there be any special Loss thereby it shall be a good ground of Action at the Comon Law as if a Man be upon Marriage or in treaty for the sale of Land whereby his Title is disparaged Doderidge Justice said That the word Bastard is generally of another Jurisdiction and belongs to the Ecclesiastical Court to determine what shall be Bastardy and their Judgement is given for the damage which the party had in his birth and for that their Entry is quia laesis est natalitiis And in this Case the Chief Justice said that generally to say J. S. is a Bastard J. S. hath not cause of Action given him thereby but if there be a Temporal cause averr'd the Common Law may proceed therein for though Originally Bastardy be of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction not Triable at the Common Law and therefore as in its general nature it is of the Spiritual Jurisdiction so being by its generality no ground of Action at the Common Law yet if one be to sue for a Childs part or sue for the Administration of his Fathers Goods and this be set forth in the Declaration it will maintain an Action at Common Law Doderidge Justice said That to say generally that one called him Bastard is not ground of Action if he doth not shew some special Loss thereby as when a Woman brings her Action and says that she was in Treaty of Marriage and that the Defendant called her Whore this will not maintain an Action unless she say withall that by reason of these words she lost her preferment but Chamberlain Justice said to call a Woman Whore is at this day a sufficient cause of Action for her for that it is punishable by the Statute he also further said that if a Man Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court that he hath Lands by descent and that J. S. call'd him Bastard they may not proceed there or if they do a Prohibition lies He further said that for calling a Man Bastard generally without special Loss alledged Action shall be maintained and Cited a Case in 6 Eliz. Dyer Where a Man recovered red great Dammages for that the Defendant had said that his Father was a Bastard And cited also one Nelson and Stokes Case in 5 Jac. where the Plaintiff did not alledge any special cause of Action and yet recovered 7. By the Civil Law such as were born in the beginning of the eleventh Month next after the decease of their Mothers Husband were to be accounted legitimate but such as were born in the end thereof were to be accounted Bastards Auth. Col. 4. yet the Gloss there relates a matter of Fact contrary to this Law and gives us an instance of a Widow in Paris who was delivered of a Child the fourteenth Month after her Husbands death yet the good repute of this Womans continency prevailed so much against the Letter of the Law that the Court Judg'd the causes of Child-birth to be sometimes extraordinary the Woman to be chast and the Child Legitimate Hoc tamen in exemplum trahi facile non oportet as the Gloss there concludes 8. By the Common Law if a Child be born but an hour after the solemnization of Marriage it shall be the Husbands though it were begotten by another Man who was not the Mothers Husband and may be the Heir of him who Married the Mother but a Day
Custome or the Parson by virtue of a Canon shall chuse the Churchwarden and whether Prohibition lies in that case 22. Whether Churchwardens as a Corporation may prescribe to take Lands to them and their Successors to the use of the Church 1. CHurchwardens or Guardiani Ecclesiae are certain Officers Parochial annually elected or chosen by and with the consent of the Minister and a select number of the chief Parishioners according to the Custome of the place to look to the Church and Church-yard and to take care of the concernments thereof and of such things as appertain thereto as also to observe and have an inspection into the Behaviour Lives and Conversation of their Parishioners touching such faults and disorders as are within the cognizance and censure of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction These Officers are a kind of Corporation enabled to sue and be sued for any matters or things belonging to the Church or Poor of their Parish and have as their Assistants certain Side-men or Questmen who according to the custome of the Parish are yearly likewise chosen to assist the Churchwardens in the Enquiry and presenting such offenders to the Ordinary as are within the Ecclesiastical cognizance and censure aforesaid for which they are not to be sued or troubled at the Law by any such Offenders so presented as aforesaid nor are they obliged to Present oftner than twice a year except it be at the Bishop's Visitation yet they may present as oft as they shall think meet if good occasion shall so require but they may not on pain of being proceeded against by their Ordinaries as in cases of wilful Perjury in Courts Ecclesiastical willingly and wittingly omit to present such publick Crimes as they knew to have been committed or could not be ignorant that there was then a publick same thereof Moreover the Old Churchwardens are to make their Presentments before the New be Sworn till which time the Office of the old continues the usual time for the New Churchwardens to enter upon their Office is the first week after Easter or some week following according to the direction of the Ordinary before which the old Churchwardens shall exhibit the Presentments of such enormities as happened in their Parish since their last Presentments and shall not be suffered to transmit or pass over the same to those that are newly chosen By the Ninetieth Canon the choice of Churchwardens Questmen Sidemen or Assistants is to be yearly made in Easter-week and that by the Joynt-consent of the Minister and the Parishioners if it may be otherwise the Minister to chuse one and the Parishioners another who at their years end or within a month next after shall in the presence of the Minister and the Parishioners make a just Account of what they have received and disbursed for the use of the Church and shall deliver over what remains in their hands belonging to the Church unto the next Churchwardens by Bill Indented 2. One brought Action on the Case against Churchwardens for a false and malicious Presentment of him in the Spiritual Court and found for the Defendants They prayed double Costs on the Statute of 1 Jac. But Jones Crook and Berkley Justices denied it for that the Statute doth not extend to Churchwardens for things of their office in Ecclesiastical Causes They have their Action of Trespass at the Common Law for such things taken away out of the Church as belonged to the Parishioners in reference to the Church And the Release of one of the Churchwardens is no Bar in Law to the other If one take away the Chalice or Surplice out of the Church Action of Trespass lieth against him at Common Law and not in the Ecclesiastical Court So if one lay violent hands on an Ecclesiastical person an Action lies in the Ecclesiastical Court but he shall not there sue for dammages If the Organs or Parish-Bible or the like be taken away out of the Church the Action lies at the Common Law and not in the Spiritual Court for the same for the Churchwardens may have their Action at Common Law in that case But if the Parson take away out of the Church the Scutcheon or Banner of some person deceased his Widow if she did put it there and it be taken away in her life time may have her Action of Trespass at Common Law or after her decease the Heir may have the same Action 3. Trespass brought by the Churchwaâ—dens of F. and declared That the Defendant took a Bell out of the said Church and that the Trespass was done 20 Eliz. It was found for the Plaintiffs It was moved in Arrest of Judgment that it appears by the Declaration That the Trespass was done in the time of their Predecessors of which the Successor cannot have Action and Actio personalis moritur cum persona Vid. 19 H. 6. 66. But the old Churchwardens shall have the Action Coke contrary and that the present Church-wardens shall have the Action and that in respect of their Office which the Court granted And by Gawdy Churchwardens are a Corporation by the Common Law Vid. 12 H. 7. 28. by Frowick That the New Churchwardens shall not have an Action upon such a Trespass done to their Predecessors Contrary by Yaxley Vid. by Newton and Paston That the Executors of the Guardian in whose time the Trespass was done shall have Trespass 4. It is the duty of Churchwardens not only to take care of the Concernments of the Church and to present Disorders as aforesaid but also to provide Bread and Wine against the Communion the Bible of the largest Volume the Book of Common Prayer a decent Pulpit a Chest for Alms Materials for repairing the Church and fencing the Church-yard and the like all at the Parish-charge and shall what in them lies prevent the prophanation of Churches by any usage thereof contrary to the Canons It was agreed by the Court in Robert's case That a Tax for the Church cannot be made by the Churchwardens only Hetley's Rep. 5. In Butt's Case Moore Serjeant moved at Court for a Prohibition because where the custome of the Parish or Village was that the Parishioners have used to elect two Churchwardens and at the end of the year to discharge one and elect another in his room and so alternis vicibus c. By the New Canon now the Parson hath the Election of one and the Parish of the other and that he that was elected by the Parishioners was discharged by the Ordinary at his Visitation and for that he prayed a Prohibition Et allocat as a thing usual and of course For otherwise by Hubbard the Parson might have all the Authority of his Church and Parish The like Case to this we have elsewhere reported viz. The Parson and Church-wardens in London by the Custome are a Corporation and the Parishioners time out of mind c. have used at a