names come to his knowledge which formerly he had not knowledge of therefore ordered he may examine them before the examinor ad informanduÌ„ conscientiam Iudicis The plaintant comming to the defendant shewed him a Writ but did deliveâ— him neither note of the day of his appearance neither did the same appear unto him by the Schedâ—le labell or any other paper and the defendant appearing found no Bill It is ordered the defendant be allowed good costs and an Atâ—achment against the plaintant for such serving Brightman plaintant Powtrell defendant Anno 19. Eliz. The plaintant called the deâ—endant dwelling in the County Palatine of Châ—â—ter by processe to anâ—â—er a Bill for lands lyiâ—g in the said County Palatine contrary to a generall order lately certified into this Court by her Majesties appointment touching the said County Palatine according to the said generall order Willoughby plaintant Brearton defendant An. 19. Eliz. The plaintants Bill is that he leassed a house to the defendant and did covenant to build and repaire it before a day which being at hand and shewed that he had prepared Timber and workmen to performe the same but the defendant as well to have him breake his Covenant as to free himselfe from his Covenant to keep it in reparations did interrupt and threaten the workemen whereby they durst not proceed to repaire and so the houses are decayed and the plaintant hath no remedy to force the defendant to suffer him to repaire the defendant demurred upon the Bill alleadging the plaintant hath sufficient remedy by Law which kind of answer this Court alloweth not therefore a Subpoena is awarded against the defendant to answer Wood plaintant Tirrell defendant Anno 19. Eliz. Where it appeared by a Booke heretofore presented to the Queenes Highnesse under the hands of Sir Iames Dyer Knight Lord chiefe Justice of the commou Pleas Mr. Justice Weston late a Justice of the same Court Mr. Justice Harpar late another Justice of the same Court and Mr. Justice Carus late a Justice of her Majesties Bench and remaining by force of her Majesties Warrant of Record in the Court of Chancery touching the Jurisdiction of the County Palatine of Chester that before the raigne of King Henry the third all Pleas of Lands and Tenements and all other causes and contracts and matters residing and growing within the said County Palatine of Chester are pleadable and ought to be pleaded and heard and judicially determined within the said County Palatine of Chester and not elsewhere out of the said County Palatine and if any be heard pleaded or judicially determined out of the same County then the same is void and coram non Iudice except it be in case of error Foraign Plea or forraigne voucher and also that no inhabitant within the said County Palatine by the Lawes liberties and usages of the same be called or compelled by any Writ or processe to appear or answer any matter or cause out of the said County Palatine for any the causes aforesaid as by the said Book among other things more at large appeareth and where now of late the plaintant hath exhibited a Bill of complaint into this Honourable Court for and concerning certaine lands and tenements lying within the said County Palatine and hath taken processe against the said defendant in that behalfe who hath thereupon appeared and by his Councell made request to this Court that for the causes aforesaid the matter here exhibited against him might be from henceforth dismissed wherefore forasmuch as William Sayler hath made oath that the said lands doe lye within the said County Palatine and that the said defendant is inhabiting and dwelling within the said County therefore the said cause is from henceforth dismissed and remitted to the Chamberlaine of Chester and other her Majesties Ministers there according to the Tenour of the same Booke Wllloughby Miles plaintant Brearton defendant An. 19. Eliz. Iearvise Wheatly made oath for the serving of a Subpoena upon the defendant to testifie on the behalfe of the plaintant at the Guildhall in London who hath not thereupon appeared therefore an Attachment is awarded against him Batt plaintant Rookes defendant An. 19. Eliz. A Bill was exhibited by the plaintant against Roger Haule supervisor of the last will of Thomas Clifton and one Roger Haule was served with processe that was no supervisor of the said Cliftons will and alleadged that the said Roger Haule who was the supervisor was dead and ordered the defendant shall put in his allegation upon oath by way of Answer and then desire Judgement whether he shall be compelled to answer the said Bill or not and therein pay his costs for his wrongfull vexation which shall be thereupon allowed to him Harrison plaintant Haule defendant An. 19. Eliz. The plaintants are adjudged to pay to the defendants 20 s. costs comming upon processe of Subpoena to testifie on their behalfe and having no charges tendered unto them nor any interrogatories put in for them to be examined upon Pearce and uxor ejus plaintants Crawthorn and White defendants Anno 19. Eliz. Lawrence Hide gentleman being called upon by processe by the plaintant to testifie informed this Court that he was ready to depose so that he might first have his costs to him allowed which this Court thought reasonable Belgraâ—e plaintant Edward Earle of Hertford and William Drury deâ—endants An. 19. Eliz. Thomas Hawtry gent was served with a Subpoena to testifie his knowledge touching the cause in variance and made oath that he hath been and yet is a Sollicitor in this suite hath received severall Fees of the defend which being informed to the Master of the Rols it is ordered that the said Thomas Hawâ—ry shall not be compelled to be deposed touching the same and that he shall be in no danger of any contempt touching the not executing of the said processe Berd plaintant Lovelace defendant Anno 19. Eliz. The plaintant exhibited his Bill as well in his own as in his wives name concerning a promise made by the defendants to the plaintant and his wife to make them a Lease of the Mannor of Appescourt during their lives the defendants demurre for that the plaintant ought to have a Bill of Revivor against them for that his wife is dead since the Bill exhibited which cause of demurrer this Court alloweth not for that the promise was made during the Coverture and the plaintant claimeth not the same in right of his wife therefore the defendants are ordered to answer directly to the Bill Thorne plaintant Brend Wilkinson and Alice defendants Anno 19. Eliz. Austen plaintant Vesey defendant the defendant is served with a Subpoena to testifie and for that it appeared by Affidavit that he was Sollicitor in the same cause to one of the parties he was discharged and not admitted to be examined An. 19. and 20. Eliz. Hartford plaintant Lee and Alice defendants the
Egerton will give him on this Bill no reliefe but ordered that he should exhibit his Bill against the rest of the Tenants and Grantee both the one to shew cause why they should not contribute the other why he should not accept of the rent equally otherwise it was no reason to take away the benefit of distresse from the Grantee which the Law gave him 7. Iunii Iacobi 1603. A. In forma pauperis had a decree against C. for the Mannor of B. that the contents of the Mannor were doubtfull C. shewing Antient Deeds that proved divers parcels of the Lands claimed by force of the decree by A. to be of another Mannor which notwithstanding the Lord Chancellor Egerton ordered that it should be put to a Jury and they to find as the contents of the Manor had gone by usuall reputation 60. years last and not to have it paired and defalked by such Ancient Deeds A. Married a Feme Executrix subject to a devastavit if A. have nor sufficient to satisfie himself shall be imprisoned for the debt A. Plaintant in Chancery for a Lease upon a Bill that affirmed the Lease to end at our Lady day An. 1604. had the same decreed for him many yeers after comming to the Lease it selfe he finds that it is not to end till our Lady An. 1605. And then moves in Chancery that he may not be forced to leave the land till that time as the decree appointed him qui constitutus est cancelâ—arius 24. Iulii ad Coronam Regis for the first he must performe the decree and then exhibit a new Bill upon the speciall matter otherwise it were perilous to blow away decrees upon motions Hil. 1. Iacobi Gosset com Crowther fol. 122. Henry Earl of Darby conveyed certaine lands in trust to Doughty his servant for payment of his debts upon mediation of an end of controversies between the daughters of Fardinand eldest son of Henry and Will his younger son now Earl Articles were set down that Will should discharge all his fathers debts whereupon Doughty conveyed the Leases to Will the creditors sue Doughty in Chancery and ordered to pursue their remedy against Earl William Hill 1. Iacobi Hearle plaintant in Chancery against Botâ—lers moâ—ther and son whose husband had bought tayled lands of Hearles brother to which the plaintant was inheritable and some of the money due upon a bond unpaid and the bond lost And the opinion of the Lord Chancellor was to charge the son the mother in regard of the land in their possession with the payment thereof Hil. 1 Iac. Nota in le case Mynn and Cobb the trust was not so fully proved as the Lord Chancellor would make a full decree thereupon so as it should be a presedent for other causes and yet so farre forth proved as it satisfied him as a private man and therefore in this case he thought fit to write his letters to the defendant to conforme himselfe to reason and affirmed that if he should find the defendant obstinate then would he rule this cause specially against the defendant sans la tires consequence Hill 1. Iacobi Nota in the case of Manwood that there behoveth not a full surrender to be expressed in the Copy but the devise is chiefely to be regarded if the surrender be perfect in the Roll of the Lord though there be no mention at all of a surrender good enough Hill 1. Iacobi Inter Swain and Rogers the case was in effect an Assize of Nusans for Rogers disturning the trenches and plucking up of stakes of Swaynes Mill Leet and making a banck or dam beneath that made the water reflow so as the wheeles could not goe and exception taken that the Court should not hold Plea thereof sed contrarium adjudicatur many causes of the same manner ended here and this specially for Rogers a great man in the country Swayne a professor of the Law who sought hereby to avoyd multiplicity of suits per Warburton Justice but upon a second hearing at the Rolls referred to a Commission of Sewers Hill 1. Iacobi Nota per Egerton Chancellor where Tenant for life the remainder for life though there lye no action of waste in Chancery yet he shall be prohibited to do waste by the Chancellor for wrong to the inhabitants and hurt to the common-wealth Hill 1. Iacobi Bloomer having married the widdow of Nanfan who had forfeited a Recognizance to the Archbishop of Canterbury for not paying of her daughters Portion intreated the Bishop of Canterbury to take a new Recognizance and discharge the former Bloomer after finding that his wives lands was intailed used meanes to have her by Fine or recovery to put it into Fee that so it might be subject to the Recognizance and hoped to get it from his wife also One Bridges his wives kinsman withstood this now dyeth the woman the Portion unpaid Bloomer is sued for it in Chancery and the opinion of the Court against him the Bishop of Canterbury had certified against him and because his counsell was not ready that day the Chancellor declared he must take the Archbishops Certificate not as a Testimony but as a judiciall proceeding and therefore willed Bloomer to satisfie the Archbishop or else he must decree against him Hill 1. Iacobi Nota that witnesses ad informand conscientiam shall never be appointed to be taken but upon hearing ubi Iudex dubitat but yet witnesses examined after publication not fit to be published may be fit to be ad informandum conscientiam if it shall be thought meet upon the hearing Hill 1. l. Daniel Hill having put in for his Clyent a long insufficient demurrer to a Bill exhibited against his Clyent in which supposed demurrer were many matters of fact and other things frivolous and vaine The Lord Chancellor Egerton awarded five pound costs against the party And ordered that neither Bill Answer Demurrer nor any other Plea should from henceforth be received under the hand of the said Hill 27. April 1. Iacobi In the case of Tenant right between Musgrave and some of his Tenants on the borders The Lord Chancellor pronounced that neither in Tenant right nor in other Coppyholds would he make any order for all the Tenants in generality but for speciall men in speciall cases nor for any longer time then the present except it were by agreement between the Lord and the Tenants which then he would decree if it appeared reasonable 8. Iunii 1. Iacobi Item that he neither would help Leases paroll in Chancery and that it was good for the Common-wealth if no Lease paroll were allowed by the Law nor promises to be proved by witnesses considering the plenty of witnesses now a dayes which were testes diabolices qui magis fame quam fama moventur 8. Iunii 1. Iacobi Lands given ad divina Celebranda by Feoffement till an Estate should be
the defendant shewed no cause Thomas Hales plaintant Thomas Stanebridge defendant Anno 2. Eliz. fol. 244. The defendant exhibited his Bill into the Chancery for certaine Lands and afterwards sued the plaintant in the Common Pleas for the same Lands before the matter was determined in the Chancery therefore an Injunction was awarded against the said Body to stay his proceedings in the common Pleas Robert Bill and Thomas Gifford plaintants Iohn Body defendant Anno 2. Eliz. fol. 263. The undersheriffe of Middlesex brought into this Court the body of the plaintant by commandment of the Lord Keeper in execution upon a Writ of extent of 300 l. together with the said Writ at the suite of Sir Edmund Maliverer Knight and by order of Court he was taken from the Sheriffe of Middlesex and delivered in execution to the warden of the Fleet for the 300 l. and because the defendants shewed no good cause to the contrary upon a day given them therefore it was ordered that upon Recognizance by the plaintant and good sureties to stand to the order of the Court or else to yeeld his body prisoner to the Fleet in execution and there to remaine untill the defendant be satisfied he the plaintant shall have liberty to goe at large and that the defendant shall not sue for any manner of Execution by force of the said execution Robert Rosse plaintant Christopher Lassels and Alice defendants Anno 3. Eliz. fol. 90. The plaintant had Judgement in the Kings Bench against the defendant upon a Bond of 200 l. and another Judgement for 300 l upon an action of debt of arrerages of account in the Kings Bench and ordered they may proceed with execution upon the Bond of 200 l. and also to take execution of 100 l. parcell of the 300 l. provided alwayes and it is ordered the plaintant shall not in any wise proceed nor take execution of the 200 l. residue of the 300 l recovered upon the accompt without speciall license of the Court Iohn Brooke and Katherine his wife plaintants Thomas Apprice defendant Anno 3. Eliz. fol. 233. The plaintant sheweth by his Bill that the personage of Thekelye was holden by force whereby the plaintant could not be inducted whereupon a Writ of de vilaica removenda was awarded out of this Court and thereby the plaintant put in possession by the Sheriffe neverthelesse the defendant keepeth the possession of the said house appertaining to the personage and for that the plaintant is bound to pay his first fruits to the Queenes Majesty therefore an Injunction is granted against him Thomas Boult Clerk plaintant Sir George Blunt Miles and Alice defendants An. 3. Eliz. fol. 262. The plaintant made Title to the lands by a Lease paroll made by the defendant unto him whereupon he did sow the ground with Corne and the defendant entred upon him therefore the plaintant had an Injunction for the Corne Thomas Harrison plaintant Richard Chomeley Miles and Alice defendants An. 3. Eliz. for three hundred pound It is decreed the desendant and his Heires shall from time to time yearly pay to the plaintant and his heires Lords of the Mannor of Knebworth the rent of 3 s. 4 d. for the peece of ground called the Hawâ—e together with the arrerages thereof since the 6. of Ed. the 6 And shall from henceforth doe suite and service to the Court of the plaintant and his Heirs owners of the said Mannor and the plaintant and his Heires shall have and receive the fines and amercyaments presentable in the Court of the Mannor for any trespasse or lack of service done by the Tenants of the said Hawte Richard Litton plaintant Iohn Couper defendant An. 6. Eliz fol. 145. It is Ordered a Subpoena be awarded against the defendant to be examined upon interrogatories whether before his Answer he had knowledge that the plaintant was marryed and would take no advantage of the same marriage in his Answer then the matter to proceed without Bill of revivor Christian Fairefield plaintant Robert Greenfield defendant An. 6. Eliz. fol. 150. The question of the case drawn was whether the advowson in question did passe by the livery made in the view of the Church without deed or not the Church being full of an incumbent and resolved by the Lord chiefe Justice of the Kings Bench and Justice Manwood to whom the same was referred that the Advowson could not passe by that livery Pannell plaintant Hodgson alias Hodson defendant Anno 18. and 19. Eliz. A Subpoena Ducens tecum was awarded against the defendant to bring in certaine deeds and to shew cause why the same should not be delivered to the plaintant the defendant by his councell shewed that the Morgage was upon condition for payment of 40 l. at a day and before the day the Morgager sold the same over to the plaintant and delivered the Estate by livery and seizin whereby the condition was extinct and yet the defendant offered to give for the same 100 l. It is ordered that the evidences be delivered to the Usher of the Court but not to the plaintant without speciall order Wilford plaintant Denny defendant Anno 18. and 19. Eliz. The plaintant exhibited his Bill to be releived for a promise supposed to be made by the Lady Lutterell for a Lease of certaine lands and for stopping certaine wayes the defendant had a Commission to take her answer and demmurred for that the plaintant may have his remedy by Law which cause seemes insufficient and not to be allowed of and the rather for that the defendants having a Commission to take their answers in the Coâ—ntry did demurre therefore a Subpoena is awarded against them to make a better answer Stukly plaintant the Lady Lutterell Aliis defendants An. 18. and 19. Eliz. Stephen Smith made oath that he was present when one Iohn Maddock made these persons hereafter named privy to a Writ of execution upon a decree made for the plaintant viz. Iohn Ward Iohn Priddoâ—k Henry Pinly Lawrence Banks Iohn Kiddermaster and William Tuttle And the said Maddocks left the same Writ with one Thomas Smith from whom the defendant confesseth the receipt of the said Writ which said parties have not performed the said decree therefore an attachment is awarded against them Leake plaintant Marrow defendant An. 18. and 19. Eliz. The Bill is against the defendants as Executors to their Father who in his life time being Gardian in Soccage to the plaintant in right of the plaintants mother whom he married for and concerning profits by him taken of the lands of the plaintant during his minority for fines of Leases Woodsales and wilfull decay of houses and doth aâ—er assets sufficient to become to their hands the defendants demurre because not privy nor chargeable by Law but ordered to answer Burgh plaintant Wentworth defendant Anno 18. and 19 Eliz. Thomas Stapleâ—on made oath that he delivered
oath he saw a Subpoena served upon the defendant Dinnis plaintant Morgan defendant An. 21. and 22 Eliz. The plaintants Bill is to be relieved for Copyhold lands the defendant doth demurre for that the lands are Ancient demeasne lands of her Majesties Mannor of Woodstock and there onely pleadable it is ordered a Subpoena shall be awarded to the defendant to make a better answer Wilkins plaintant Gregory defend An. 21. and 22. Eliz. Upon a Subpoena in perpetuall memory the defend appearing assented to joyne in Commission so as the Lord Bacons orders touching examination of witnesses in perpetuall memory might be observed but upon motion it was ordered that the Commission should be made generall as in like cases where the parties joyne for that it seemed to the Court the Lord Bacons orders were intended to be observed where the plaintant hath a Commission alone Dominus Dacres uxor plaintants Southwell defend Anno 21. and 22. Eliz. The plaintant desired to be relieved for a Lease made by the defendant to him for yeares which the defendant endevoureth to impeach because in the premises of the Lease there is no Leassee named but onely in the Habendum and the cause being referred to the two Lord chiefe Justices and the Lord chiefe Baron they certified their opinion in Law that the Lease was good in Law notwithstanding the Leassee was not named in the premises of the Lease but in the Habendum and therefore decreed accordingly that the plaintant should hold the said Lease Butler plaintant Dodton defendant An. 21. and 22. Eliz. The case is that the Lord Wray and Sapcotes father were made executors to the use of Children Sapcotes father having gotten a great part of the testators estate into his hands deviseth divers Legacies to strangers maketh the defend his Son Executor and dyeth and the defend by answer confesseth his Father had divers goods of the first testators in his hands but said that the defendant had not goods sufficient more then would satisfie the Legacies given by his Father therefore ordered that the defend shâ—ll first pay to the plaintant the goods which were the first testators and so much of his Estate as came to his Fathers hands Wray chiefe Justice plaintant Sapcote defendant Anno 21. and 22. Eliz. The plaintant setteth forth in her Bill that she joyned with her husband in sale of part of her inheritance and after some discord growing betweene them they seperate themselves and one hundred pound of the money received upon sale of the Lands was allotted to the plaintant for her maintenance and put into the hands of Nicholas Mine Esquire and Bonds then given for the payment thereof unto Henry Golding deceased to the use of the plaintant which bonds are come to the defendant as administrator to the said Henry Golding deceased who refuseth to deliver the same to the plaintant and hereupon she prayeth reliefe the defendant doth demurre in Law because the plaintant sueth without her husband and it is ordered the defendant shall answer directly Mary Sanky alias Walgrave plaintant Goulding defendant An. 21. and 22. Eliz. The plaintant served the two defendants with one Subpoena but exhibited two Bills the defendants appeared and answered the one but not being served with any other Subpoena to answer the second departed whereupon an Attachment is awarded against them and ordered the defendants answering the second Bill be discharged of the Attachment Ap Rice plaintant Granoe Grannoe defendants An. 21. and 22. Eliz. The defendant demurred generally without shewing any manner of cause and therefore ordered that a Subpoena be awarded against him to make a perfect answer Duffield plaintant Greaves aliis defendants Anno 21. and 22. Eliz. The plaintant as sole Executor to Robert Maunder exâ—ibited a Bill against the defendants for the same matter for which the plaintant and David Gome as Executors to the same Maunder exhibited another Bill and ordered that both Bills should be referred and if both for one cause the defendants shall be dismissed from one of the Bils with costs Iohn Maunder plaintant Iohn Wright aliis defendants An. 21. and 22. Eliz. Christopher Askame hath made oath that Iohn Bleverhasset being a deponent in perpetuall Memory is dead and Iohn Harrison another of the deponents is and hath been of long time sick and not able to travell without danger of his life and that their depositions are very needful for the plaintant to be given in evidence in a matter now depending at the common Law Senhawes plaintant Senhawes aliis defendants An. 22. Eliz. The defend made oath the plaintant caused him to be served with a Subpoena the Saturday before the end of the Terme returnable the Thursday following being but two dayes before the end of the Terme he the defendant dwelling in Devonshire sevenscore miles distant from London wherefore the defend could not conveniently appear and make answer by the returne of the said Subpoena and yet neverthelesse the plaintant had procured out an Attachment against the defendant therefore and for that the plaintants Bill is but for evidences it is ordered the defend be discharged of the Attachment putting in his answer Smith plaint Weare defendant An. 21. and 22 Eliz. Upon certificate of Henry Vgheard and Thomas West two Commissioners that Thomas Marshall one of the defendants witnesses being warned by precept from them refused to appear before them and that Roger Taylor another witnesse appeared but refused to be examined because he sollicites the plaintants cause it is therefore ordered that the defendant shall examine before one of the examinors of this court before the end of this Terme as well the said Roger Taylor upon any Interrogatory which shall not be touching the secrecie of the title or of any other matter which he knoweth as sollicitor onely as also the said Marshall or any other necessary witnesse whereof the defendant shall first set down their names so that the plaintant may likewise examine them if he will Kelway plaintant Kelway defendant An. 22. Eliz. It is informed that the plaintant exhibited his Bill without a Councellors hand or retaining an Attorney and the same is for matter formerly decreed therefore ordered if cause be not shewed to the contrary and if the Bill be to bring the matter in question that was decreed then it is ta be dismissed Bingham plaintant Warren defendant Anno 22. Eliz. The defendant demurred upon the Bill for incertainty which was certaine enough And also for that all the parties are dwelling within the Jurisdiction of the Marches of Wales which is no cause of demurrer for title of Lands therefore ordered if cause be not shewed a Subpoena is awarded against the defendant to answer Keyes plaintant Hill uxor Defendants Anno 22. Eliz. The plaintant exhibits his Bill touching a practise and mis-behaviour supposed by the plaintant to be used by the
amongst the most high and scient Magistrates of the Kingdome And when also the practising of the same should lye under so heavy a paine as the Praemunire This is to us a principall and implicit satisfaction and those Statutes ought not to be construed to extend to this case and this of it selfe we know is of far more force to move your Majesty then any opinion of ours because Kings are fittest to informe Kings and Chancellors to teach Chancellors and Judges to teach Judges but further out of out own science and profession we have thought fit to adde those further reasons and proofes very briefely because in case of so ancient a possession of jurisdiction we hold it not fit to amplifie The Statutes upon which the question grows are principally two whereof one is a Statute of Praemunire and the other is a Statute of simple prohibition that of Praemunire is the Statute of 27. E. 3. cap. 1. And the Statute of the simple prohibition is the Statute of 4. H. 4. cap. 23. There are divers other Statutes of both kinds but the question will rest principally upon those two as we conceive it For the Statute of 27. E. 3. it cannot in our opinions extend unto the Chancery for these reasons 1. First out of the mischiefe which the Statute provides and recites viz. That such suites and pleas against which the Statute is provided were in prejudice and disinherison of the King and his Crowne which cannot be applyed to the Chancery for the King cannot be disinherited of jurisdiction but either by a forreigner or by his Subject but never by his own Court 2. Out of the remedy which the Statute points viz. That the offendors shall be warned within two moneths to be before the King and his Councell or in his Chancery or before the Kings Justices of the one Bench or of the other c. By which words it is opposite in it selfe that the Chancery should give both the offence and the remedy 3. Out of penalty which is not only severe but hastily namely that the offenders shall be put out of the Kings protection which penalty altogether savors of adhering to fâ—rreine Jurisdictions and would never have been inflicted upon an excesse onely of jurisdiction in any of the Kings Courts as the Court of Chancery is 4. Out of the Statutes precedent and subsequent 25. E. 3. cap. 1. and 16. R. 2. cap. 5. which are of the same nature and cannot be applyed but to forraigne Courts for the word alibi or elsewhere is never used but where Rome is named specially before 5. The disjunctive in this Statute which onely gives the colour viz. That they which draw any out of the Realme in plea whereof the Cognizance pertaineth to the Kings Court or of things whereof Judgements be given in the Kings Court or which doe sue in any other Court to defeat or impeach the Judgements given to the Kings Court this last disjunction wee said which must go farther then Courts out of the Realme which are fully provided for by the former branch hath sufficient matter and effect to work upon in respect of such Courts which though they were totally within the Realme yet in jurisdiction were subordinate to the foâ—reigner such as were the Legates court the delegates court and in generall all the Ecclesiasticall courts within the Realme at that time as it is expressely construed in the Judges 50. E. 4. fol. 6. 6. In this the sight of the Record of the Petition doth cleare the doubt where the Subjects supplicate to the King to ordaine remedy against those which pursue in other courts then his own against Judgements given in his court which explaines the word other to be other then the Kings courts 7. With this agreeth notably the book of entries which translates the word in other court not in alia Curia but in aliena Curia 8. This Statute of vicesimo septimo E. 3. being in corroboration of the common Law as it selfe recites we doe not find in the Register any presidents of the Writs of adjura regia which are framed upon chiefe cases that were afterwards made penall by the Praemunire but onely against the Ecclesiasticall courts 9. Lastly we have not found any president at all of any conviction upon the Satutes of Praemunire of this nature for suits in Chancery but onely two or three Bills of Indictment preferred sed nihilinde venit for ought appears to us For the Statute of H. 4. that we doubt was made against proceeding within the Realme and not against forraigne and therefore hath no penalty annexed neverthelesse we conceive that it extends not to the Chancery in the case delivered for these reasons 1. First this Statute recites where the parties are made to come upon grievous paine sometimes before the King himselfe sometimes before the Kings Councell and sometimes in the Parliament to answer thereof anew c. Where it appeareth that the Chancery is not named which could not have been forgotten but was left out upon great reason because the Chancery is a court of ordinary Justice for matter of equity and the Statute meant onely to restraine extraordinary Commissions and such like proceedings 2. This appeares fully by view and comparing the two Petitions which were made the same Parliament of 4. H. 4. placed immediately the one before the other The first which was rejected by the King and the second whereupon this Statute was made whereof the first was to restraine the ordinary proceedings of Justice that is to say in the Chancery by name in the Exchequer and before the Kings Councell by processe of privy Seal unto which the King makes a Royall and prudent answer in these words The King will charge his Officers to be more sparing to send for his Subjects by such processe then heretofore they have beene but notwithstanding it is not his mind that the Officers shall so far obtaine but that they may call his Subjects before them in matters and causes necessary as it hath beene done in the time of his good Progenitors and then immediatly followes the Petition whereupon the Act now in question was made unto which the King gave his assent and wherein no mention is made at all of the Chancery or Exchequer 3. If the Chancery should be understood to be within the Statute yet the Statute extends not to this case for the words are that the Kings Subjects are driven to answer thereof anew which must be understood when the same matter formerly judged is put in issue or question againe but when the cause is called into the Chancery only upon point of equity there as the point of equity was never in question in the common Law Court so the point of Law or of fact as it concernes the Law is never in question in the Chancery so the same thing is not twice in question or as answered anew for the Chancery doth supply the Law and not crosse it 4. It appeareth