Judgment requires long Study and Experience With which his Majesty was greatly Offended and said Then he should be under the Law which was Treason to be said To which I said that Bracton saith Quod Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo et Iege Mich. 8 Jacob. Regis Robert's Case In this Term in the Case of one Roberts a Prohibition had been granted in a Case upon Substraction of Tythes upon surmise that the Plaintiff being Defendant in the Spiritual Court had but one Witness there to prove his Demise to which the Court said That singugaris Testis is not allowable And upon sight of a Prohibition in the same Case in Hill 3 Eliz. in Banâ—o Regis It was Resolved by Coke chief Justice Et totam Curiam in Communi Banco that Consultation should be granted for divers Reasons 1. It appears by the Register fol. 5. that it is put for a Rule Quod non est consonum rationi quod cognitio accessorii in Curia Christianitatis impediatur ubi cognitio causae principalis ad forum Ecclesiasticum â—â—scitur pertinere and with this agrâ—es 1 R. 3. 4. 2. If such a surmise shall be allowed then in every Case for meer delay such a surmise may be made And when the spiritual Court hath Jurisdiction of the principal Cause they determine the accessory But it was objected That if A. claiming a Lease by B. of a Rectory Libels for substraction of Tythes and the Defendant pleads a former Lease made by B. and C. and the Defendant hath but one Witness in the Case to prove the former Lease if no Prohibition shall be granted the Defendant shall be charged And if C. sue him upon the Statute 2 Ed. 6. the testimony of one only shall be then sufficient and so he shall he twice charged To which it was answered That first the fault was the Defendants that he would not set forth his Tythes and then he shall be charged whosoever takes them But in such the Ecclesiastical Court will upon one good Witness and any concurrent vâ—hement presumption allow of such a proof But if a question arise upon construction of a Statute and the Ecclesiastical Court will Judge of it against the Rule of Law there upon special surmise of it a Prohibition lies And Coke chief Justice cited a notable Judgment Pasch 35 Eliz. in Banke le Roy. Fuller brought a Prohibition against Clements and Wiskard and Fuller counted that himself was Owner of the Rectory of Longham in the County of Norfolk and libelled against Clements before the Bishop of Norwiches Official for substraction of Tythes scil Wheat pendent which Suit Wiskard intervening pro intercesse suo made there allegations against Fuller 1. That the said Rectory was impropriate to the Monastery of Windling and by dissolution thereof came to H. 8. and conveyed it by mean Discent to Queen Elizab. who by Letters Patents granted it to Min and Hall who enfeofâ—ed Bozome who let it to Wiskard for four years and upon proof of his allegations in fine Sentence was given against Fullâ—r and several Costs given to Clements and Wiskard Fuller appeals to the Court of the Arches and there Claims the said Rectory from Halls being seized of it who by his Deed granted the same to Sir Edward Clere before Bozomes Feoffment and that Sir Edward did enfeoff Fuller and offered to prove the Deed made to Sir Edward by one sole Witness which the Ecclesiastical Court would not allow of And Fuller further said That though he had alledged these matters were determinable at Common Law yet they gave Sentence The Defendants to have a Consultation pleaded That Fuller proved the delivery of the Deed by Clere and Mouse but could not prove Livery and Seisin according to the Deed and that therefore Sentence was given without that that the Judges would not admit the proof without other Witnesses upon this Fuller demurred and his Council objected 1. That Wiskard pleads matter determinable meerly at Common Law viz Letters Patents c. and on the other part Fuller Claims an Estate in the Rectory by conveyance at Common Law And the Question in the Court Ecclesiastical being Who hath the best Estate in the Rectory this ought to be tryed by the Common Law for this is the Birth-right of the Subject 2. It was Objected That all matters in Law ought to be determined by the Judges of the Law And in this Case matters of Law arising as if a Rectory be granted by Deed with all Tythes c. and no Livery is made If the Tythes may pass with any Livery this is a question to be decided by the Judges of the Common Law Quod quisque novit in hoc se exerceat 3. It was objected That Wiskard was a meer stranger to the Suit and all his Allegation is Temporal and for that it is a stronger Case to maintain a Prohibition 4. It was Objected That Fuller had but one Witness to prove the delivery of the Deed and in the Ecclesiasticall Law Unus Testis et nullus Testis for which causes it was prayed the Prohibition might stand To which it was answered by Sir Christopher Wray chief Justice Et per totam Curiam to the first Objection That 1. Where the original belongs to the Ecclesiastical Court the determination of all that depends on it belongs to the same Court though the matter be tryable at Law but where the Original matter belongs to the Common Law and there commenced and issue taken upon matter tryable by the Ecclesiastical Law there the Judges of our Law shall write to the Judges of the Ecclesiastical Court to try it and to certify As in action Ancestral if Bastardy be pleaded in the Demandant and upon this Issue is joyned this shall be tryed by the Bishop and his Certificate shall bind So in a Quare Impedit But though such issues are in their nature Tryable by the Law Ecclesiastical yet if the Case was such that the Ecclesiastical Court could not try it then that Justice be not wantâ—ng such Ecclesiastical matter shall be tryed by the Common Law as 4 Ed. 3. 26. But against this was objected the Statute de Articulis Cleri cap. 13. Quod de Idoneitate personâ— persoâ—atae ad beneficium Ecclesiasticum pertineat examinatio ad Judicom Ecclesiasticum upon which it was concluded That the Tryall de idomeitate personae in all Cases belong to Court-Christian To which it was answered and resolved That the Tryal of ability belongs to them but this Tryal must be by examination of the Party 〈◊〉 39 Ed 3. 2. That Earl of Arundâ—ll'â— Case and 4 Ed. 3. 25. 16 Eliz. Dyer 327. So if Bastardy be alledgâ—d in one who is dead Vide 17 Ed. 3. 5. where Bastardy is alledged in the Tenant and one who is a stranger to the Writ who are Sâ—sters Vide 32 Ed. 3. Trial 59. where the Tenant doth alledge Bastardy in himself and the Demandant doth aver him
c. But if a man be convict in the Star-Chamber for Forgery upon the Stat. 5 Eliz. In that Case for the double Costs and Damages an English Writ shall be made directed to the Sheriff c. reciting the Conviction and Statute for levying the said Costs and Damages c. and to bring the money into Star-Chamber and the Writ shall be sealed with the Great Seal and the Teste of the King The like Resolution was in Langdale's Case in that Court Hill 7 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas Morse and Webb's Case In a Replevin brought by John Morse against Robert Webb of the taking of two Oxen the last day of Novemb. 3 Jac. regis nunc in a place called the Downfield in Luddington in the County of Worcester The Defendant as Bayliff to William Sherington Gent. made Conuzance because the place where is an Acre of Land which is the Freehold of the said William Sherrington and for Damage feasants c. In Bar of which Avowry the Plaintiff said That the said Acre of Land is parcel of Downfield and that he himself at the time and before the taking c. was and is yet seized of two Yard-Land with the Appurtenances in Luddington and that he and all those whose Estate he hath in the said 2 Yard-Land time out of mind c. have used to have Common of Pasture per totam contentam of the said Place called the Downfield whereof c. for 4 Beasts called Rother-Beasts and two Beâ—sts called Horse-Beasts and for 60 Sheep at certain times in the Year c. And that he put in the said two Oxen to use his Common c. And the Defendant maintained his Avowry and traversed the Prescription upon which the Parties were at Issue and the Jury found a special Verdict That before the taking one Richard Morse Father of the said John Morse now Plaintiff whose Heir he is was seized of the said two Yard-Land and had Common of Pasture c. as is before alleadged and so seized the said Richard Morse 20 Eliz. demised to William Thomas and John Fisher divers parcels of the said two Yard-Land to which c. viz. the four Butts of Arable with the Common and Inter-Common to the same belonging for 400 years By force whereof the said William Thomas and John Fisher entred c. so seized dyed whereby the Possession and Reversion of the said two Yard-Land descended to John Morse now Plaintiff And if upon the whole Matter John Morse now hath and at the time of the taking c. had Common of Pasture c. for c. as to the said two Acres of Land with the Appurtenances in Law or not the Jury pray the Advice of the Court. Note This Plea began Trin. 5 Jac. Rot. 1405. and upon Argument at the Bar and Bench 1. It was Resolved by the whole Court That it ought to be found against the Defendant who had traversed the Prescription For though all the two Yard-Lands had been demised for years yet the Prescription made by the Plaintiff is true But if he would take advantage of the matter in Law he ought confessing the Common to have pleaded the said Lease but when he traverseth the Prescription he cannot give the same in Evidence 2. Resolved That if the said Lease had been pleaded that the Common during the Lease for years is not suspended or discharged for each of them shâ—ll have Common rateable and in such manner that the Land in which c. shall not be surcharged 3. Resolved That Common appendant to Land is as much as to say for Cattel leuant and couchant upon the Land in which c. 4. There is no difference when the Prescription is for Cattel leuant and couchant and for a certain numbâ—r of Cattel leuant and couchant But when the Prescription is for Common appurtenant to Land there a certain number of the Cattel ought to be expressed which are intended by the Law to be leuant and couchant Hill 7 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas Hughes and Crowther's Case In a Replevin between Robert Hughes Plaintiff and Richard Crowther Defendant which began Trin. 6. Jac. Rot 2220. The Case was Charles Fox was seized of 6 Acres of Meadow in Bedston in the County of Salop in Fâ—â— and 10 Octob. 9 Eliz. leased the same to Charles Hibbens and Arthur Hibbens for 60 years if the said Charles and Arthur should so long live and afterwards Charles dyed and if the Lease determine by his death was the Question And it was adjudged That by his death the Lease was determined For the life of a man is meer collaterall unto the Estate for years otherwise if a Lease be made to for the Lives of J. S. and J. N. See Brudnel's Case in the 5th Part of my Reports which Case was affirmed for good Law by the whole Court Pasch 8 Jac. Regis In Communi Banco Heydon and Smith's Case Richard Heydon brought an Action of Trespass against Michael Smith and others of breaking his Close called the Moor in Ugley in the County of Essex the 25 day of June 5 Jac. Et quandam arborem suam ad valentiam 40 s. nuper crescen succiderunt The Defendants said that the Close and at the time of the Trespass was the Freehold of Siâ— John Leventhrop Knight c. and that the said Oak was a Timber-Tree of 30 years growth and more and justifies the cutting down of the Tree by his Command The Plaintiff replyes and saith That the said Close and a House and 28 Acres of Land in ugley are Copy-hold and parcel of the Mannor of Ugley c. Of which Mannor Edward Leventhrop Esq Father of Sir John Leventhrop was seized in Fee and granted the said House Lands and Close to the said Richard Heydon and his Heirs by the Rod at the Will of the Lord according to the Custome of the said Mannor and that within the Mannor there is such a Custome Quod quilibet teneres Customar ejusdem Manerii sibi haeredibus suis ad voluntat Dom. c. a toto tempore supradicto usus fuit ad ejus libitum amputare ramos â—mnimodum arborum called Pollingers or Husbords super terris tenement suis Customar crescen pro ligno combustibili c. and also to cut down and take all manner of Trees called Pollingers and Husbords and all other Timber Trees c. for reparation of their Houses and also for Plough-boot and Cart-boot and that all the Trees c. hitherto growing upon c. were not sufficient for the necessary uses aforesaid And that the said Richard Heydon from the time of the said Grant had preserved c. all Treas c. growiâ—g upon the said Lands to him granted and that after the said Edward Leventhrops death the Mannor descended to the said Sir John and that at the time of the Trespass the aforesaid Messuage of the said Richard Heydon was in decay c. upon which the Defendant demurred in
October 28. H. 8. there was an Insurrection of the Lord Hussey and 20000 Men in Lincolnshire about Religion which was appeased by the Duke of Suffolk This was no sooner over but 40000 Men under Sir Robert Aske made a Commotion in Yorkshire Soon after was a great Rebellion in Lancashire Westmerland Cumberland and Northumberland which the Earl of Derby quieted Then Musgrave Tilby and others assaulted Carlisle Castle and were overthrown by the Duke of Norfolk Soon after Sir Francis Pigot Rebelled at Setrington in Yorkshire Soon after the Lord Darcy c. began a Commotion about Hull appeased by the Duke of Norfolk And all these Rebellions were between the 28. of and 30. of H. 8. in which time many of the Rebels were Executed And the King having effected in the 31 year of his Reign the Suppression of the greater Houses of Religion he establisht a Councel there for the quiet of the Counties of Yorkshire Northumberland Westmerland Cumberland Durham the Counties of the City of York Kingston upon Hull and Newcastle upon Tyâ—e for preventions of Ryots c. And in this time of Necessity the King Armed the President and Councel with two Authorities in one Commission The one A Commission of Oyer and Terminer de quibuscunque Congregationibus conventiculis illicitis coadjutoribus Lolardiis c. per quae pax tranquilitas subditorum nostrorum Comitatibus c. praedict gravat c. secundum legem coâ—suetudinem regni nostri Angliae c. The other Authority was Nec non quascunque actionesreales seu de libero tenemento personales causasque de bitorum demandorum quorumcunque in Com. c. praed quando ambae partes vel altera pars sic gravata paupertate fuerit quod commode Jus suum secundum legem Regni nostri aliter prosequi non possit c. And this was the Authority that the President and Councel had at first without any private Instructions as appears by the Commission under the Great Seal 31 H. 8. 6 pars Roberto Landavensi Episcopo Presidenti Consilii aliis out of which these things were observed 1. That the intention of the Commission was Quod pax subditorum tranquilitas preserventur 2. That they hear and determine Riots Routs c. according to Law or their Discretions which without question was no otherwise intended but that they should proceed according to Law for that is summa discretio and not according to private Conceits for talis discretio discretionem confundit so the other Clause concerning reall and personal Actions in all the Counties and Places aforesaid was onely ad faciendum populum for it was utterly void in Law 1. Because no such general Authority granted may be made by the Commission of the King to hear and determine all reall Actions within such a County according to Law as he may be Charter in a particular County or place As it was Resolved in Scrogges Case An. 2 Eliz. so 175. in Dyer Vid. Dyer 236. But the King by Letters-Patents may grant to a Corporation in such a Town Tenere placita realia personalia mixta And none can by this be prejudiced for the proceeding ought to be according to Law and if they erre a Writ of Errour lies See Magna Charta cap. 12. and Westm 2. cap. 30. which Acts give Authority to Justices of Assize in their proper Counties whereby it appears that without an Act of Parliament the King by Letters Patents cannot authorize Justices De Assize capiend to take them in another County As a Justice of one Bench or other ought to be made by Commission not by Writ yet he may be discharged by Writ 5 Ed. 4. 32. But Justices in Eyre are by Writ Bracton lib. 3. cap. 11. Britton fo 1. Also Westm 2. cap. 30. and of York cap. 4. sic de ceteris Also it was observed that at first the Commission extended onely when one or both Parties were so poor as they were not able to prosecute at Law Also they had no power to grant Injunctions and lastly their Commission was a Patent under the Great Seal and enrolled in Chancery And thus much was said concerning the first Institution of the Court 2. That our Proceedings in granting Prohibitions is for matter justifiable by Law As to this whereas at first their Authority was Patent it is now private for the Letters-Patent refer to private Instructions which are no where of Record Et de non apparentibus non existentibus eadam est ratio besides the danger to the Subject is great for if they lose their Instructions which hath and may happen all is Coram non Judice The second Reason is drawn from the contumacy of the Party supposed to be grieved by the Prohibition and against whom it is granted for if the Authority of the Councel be never so good yet being a late Jurisdiction the Party must of necessity plead it so as it may appear judicially for as we are Judges of Record so must we be informed of Record And no party prohibited ever yet moved in Court to have a consultation by which might be set forth the Jurisdiction of that Court and Councel so as the granting of Prohibitions hath been just The third Reason is drawn from the great Injury offered to the Defendants for it is a true Rule Misera servitus ubi jus est vagum aut incertum The Defendants by Law may in all Courts plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court but how can they do so when no man can possibly know what Jurisdiction they have And the keeping of them in such Secrecy bewrayeth that the Councel are afraid that they would not be justified if they were known 3. That the manner of our Proceedings was respectful for a Jury of Officers and Attorneys of our Court being according to an antient Custome time out of mind used sworn to present among other things all Defaults of Officers and Ministers in not executing the Process of this Couâ—t and all Impediments of the due Proceedings thereof And finding upon their Oaths divers unjust Impediments of the said Proceedings by the said Councel in particular thereupon a motion being made in open Court in Michaelmas Term last by the King 's Serjeant Philips of many Grievances done thereby prayed the Court according to Law and Justice to grant several Prohibitions in all those several Causes which we could not deny Yet first we conferred with Sir Cuthbert Pepper Attorney of the Wards and one of that Councel to let him understand the partâ—cular Gâ—ievances who upon Motion came to us to Seâ—geants Inne with whom we conferred who would not take upon him to justifie the same in no sort but said he would acquaint the President and Councel therewith and return their Answer Which for that it was neglected upon further Motion in Court we granted Prohibition as in Justice we ought 4. Now to answer all Objections And first where it was objected
hath well observed Vide Dyer 298. vide le Stat. 27 Eliz. Pasch 9 Jacobi Regis Sir William Chancâ—ys Case In this Term Sir William Chancy having the priviledg of this Court and being a Prisoner in the Fleet was brought to â—he Bar by Habeas Corpus by the Guardian of the Fleet who returned That the said Sir William was committed to the Fleet by Warrant from the High-Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes which Warrant follows in these words viz. These are to Will and Require you in his Majesties Name by Vertue of his Hâ—gh-Commission c. to Us and others directed c. That herewithal you take and receive into your Custody the Body of Sir William Chancy Knight whom we will that you keep c. untill further Order c. letting you know the cause of his Committment to be for that being at the Suit of his Lady convented bâ—fore c. for Adultery and expelling her from his Company and Co-habiting with another Woman without allowing her any competent Maintenance and by his own Confession convict thereof he was thereupon enjoyned to allow his Wife a competent Maintenance c. and to perform such Submission and other order for his Adultery as by Law should be enjoyned him which he expresly refused to do in contempt c. Given at London 19 Martii 1611. subscribed Henry Mountague George Overall Thomas Morton Zach. Paâ—field And it was moved by Nicholas Serjeant a Councel with Sir William that this return was insufficient 1. Because Adultery ought to be punished by the Ordinary and not by the High-Commâ—ssioners on which the Offender is remediless and can have no appeal Quod fuit concessum per Coke Warberton and Foster but Walmesly doubted of Adultery 2. That by force of the Act of the 1. of Eliz. the High-Commissioners cannot imprison Sir William for Adultery nor for denying Alimony to his Wife And Doderidge the Kings Sâ—rjeant of Council on the other side did not defend the Imprisonment to be lawful And it was clearly agreed by Coke Walmesly Warberton and Foster That the Commissioners had not power to imprison in this Case And Walmâ—sly said That though they have used this Power for twenty years without any exception yet when it comes before them judicially they ought to Judge according to Law and upon this Sir William Chancy was Bailed And it was resolved per totam Curiam That when it appears upon the Return that the Imprisonment is not lawful the Court may discharge him of Imprisonment Also it was Resolved That the Return was insufficient in form 1. It is not shewn when the Adultery was committed 2. He was enjoyned to allow his Wife a competent Maintenance without any certainty and to perform such submission c. as by Law shall be enjoyned which is all infuturo and uncertain Vide in my Treatise at large the Reasons and Causes why the High-Commissioners may sue and imprison Vide Pasch 42 Eliz. Rot. 1209. Pasch 9 Jacobi Regis Empringham's Case In this Term a Case was moved in Star-Chamber upon a Bill exhibited by the Attorney-General against Robert Empringham Vice-Admiral in the County of York Marmaduke Ketthewell one of the Marshals of the Admiralty and Thomas Haâ—rison an Informer in the same Court for Oppression and Extortion in Fining and Imprisoning divers of the Kings Subjects in the said County which no Judge of the Admiralty can justifie because it is not a Court of Record but they proceed according to the Civil Law and upon their Sentence no Writ of Error lyeth but an Appeal Also the said Empringham hath caused divers to be cited to appear before him for things done in the Body of the County which were determinable by the Common Law and not before the Admiralty whose authority is limited to the High Sea And for these and other Oppressions they were fined and imprisoned and sentenced beside to make Restitution c. Trin. 9 Jacobi Regis Memorandum That upon the Thursday before this Term all the Justices of England by the Kings Command were assembled in the Council-Chamber at Whitehall where was Abbot Archbishop of Canterbury and with him two Bishops and divers Civillians the Archbishop complained of Prohibitions out of the Common-Pleas and delivery of Persons by Haheas Corpus but chiefly of Sir William Chancy I defended our proceedings according to my Treatise thereof which I delivered before the High-Commissioners And after great dispute between the Archbishop and Me at last he said He had a Point not yet touched upon in my Treatise which would give satisfaction to the Lords and Us also and upon which he would rely And that the Clause of Restitution and Annexation viz. And that all such Jurisdictions c. Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any power Spiritual hath heretofore or hereafter lawfully may be used c. for visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation Order and Correction of the same and of all Errors Heresies Schismes c. shâ—ll for ever by authority of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And it was said That H. 8. and Ed. 6. did give Power by their Commissions to divers to impose Mulcts c. in Ecclesiasticall Causes c. and upon this he concludes That this having been used before 1 Eliz. this is given to Queen Eliz. and her Successors Also inasmuch as by 2 H. 4. and 2 H. 7. the Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical may Fine and Imprison in particular Causes therefore Power to Fine and Imprison in all Ecclesiastical Causes is given to the King And this he said he uttered that it might be answered 1. To which I for a time gave this Answer That it was good for the Weal-publick that the Judges at the Common-Law should interpret the Statutes within this Realm 2. It was said by me That before the Statute of 1 Eliz. no Ecclesiastical Judge may impose a Fine or Imprison for any Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Offence unless there be Authority by Act of Parliament And this was so affirmed by all the Justices Vide my Book of Presidents the Commission at large to Cromwel to be Vicegerent Afterwards in this very Term the Privy-Council sent for the Justices of the Common-Pleas only and there the Reasons of the said Resolution were largely debated and strong Opposition made hy Egerton Lord Chancellor but the Justices of the Common-Pleas remained constant in their Resolution Afterward the Council sent for the chief Justice of the Kings Bench Justice Williams Justice Crook Chief Baron Taâ—field Snig Althan and Bromly who were not acquainted with the Reasons of the said Rule of the Common-Pleas nor knew why they came before the Council And hearing the Lord Chancellor affirm That the High-Commissioners have alwayes by the Act 1 Eliz. imposed Fines and Imprisonments for exorbitant Crimes without any Conference with us or among then selves or hearing the matter debated were of Opinion with us And after at another day this
Justices That forasmuch as no Corruption and Circumvention was proved in any of the Parties of which they may be Indicted at the Suit of the King or punished in this Court that the Fine shall stand And it was not apparent to the Commissioners he was within Age seeing he wanted but six Weeks but if they had known it it had been a Misdemeanour in them And for this in this Court Mich. 24. 25 Elliz. 15. Between William Cavendish and Anne his Wife one of the Co-Heirs of Henry Knightly against Robert Worsley and Katharine another Co-Heir and Trafford and others Defendants The Case was That Robert Worsely and Katharine his Wife being within Age acknowledged a Note of a Fine before Trafford and another of the Defendants by Dedimus Potestatem And by the Decree the Commissioners knew Katharine was within Age and therefore every one of them was Fined but the Fine stands Mich. 38 and 39 Eliz. In this Court one Alexander Gilderbrand seized of Lands in Windham in the County of Norfolk in Fee one Hubbard procured one Roger to take upon him the Name of Alexander Gilderbrand who was then beyond Sea to acknowledge a Fine to the said Hubbard of the said Lands and they were Fined in this Court and the Lands ordered to be re-assured to Alexander on pain of a greater Fine But the Fine was not drawn off the File nor Damages awarded to the party grieved Mich. 12 Jac. Regis Mansfield's Case 23 Eliz. In the Court of Wards the Case was this Henry Bushly seized in Fee of Lands in Northmims in the County of Hartford by his Will in writing demised the said Lands to Henry Bushly his Son in Tail the remainder to William Bushly And because his Son was within Age he demised the Education of him to Thomas Harrison whom he made his Executor Afterward it hapned that Henry the Son became a deformed Cripple and proved an Ideot a Nativitate which Ideot by the practice of Nichols and others was ravished from his Guardian and carryed upon mens shoulders to an unknown place and there kept in secret till he had acknowledged a Fine of his Lands to one Bothome before Justice Southcot 9 Eliz. and by Indenture the use of the Fine was declared to be to the use of the Cognizee and his Heirs which Bothome 12 Eliz. conveyd the said Land to one Henry Mansfield And 22 Eliz. the said Henry Bushly the Son was by Inquisition found an Ideot a Nativitate And upon this 33 Eliz. the Court of Wards took order for possession of the Lands And it was moved That though the Fine binds the Ideot yet the Indentures are not sufficient to direct the Uses But it war Resolved That forasmuch as he was enabled by the Fine as to the Principle he shall not be disabled to limit the Uses which are but as accessory The same is the Law of an Infant and a Feme-Court And the said Mansfield brought an Action of Trespass in the Common-Pleas against one Trott Farmer of the said Lands and the Issue was tryed at the Bar and the Deformed Ideot brought out of the Court of Wards to be shewn to the Judges of the Common-Pleas and to the Jurors And the Judges hearing that Mansfields Title was under the Fine levyed by that Ideot the Lord Dyâ—r and Court caused a Juror by consent to be withdrawn and the Lord Dyer said That the Judge who took the Fine was never worthy to take another yet notwithstanding all the Fine stood good Mich. 12 Jac. Regis Warcombe and Carrel's Case 20 Octob. 6 Eliz. In the Star Chamber the Case was Edward Carrel an Apprentice of the Laws for a great sum of money bought the Wardship of Joan the Daughter and Heir of Warcomb in the County of Hereford and marryed her to Edw. Carâ—el his youngest Son And after Hill 5 Eliz. the said Joan fell sick and being of the Age of 19 years and having no Issue Edward her Husband perswaded her to acknowledge a Fine of her Inheritance by which should be conveyed an Estate to the Husband and Wife in Tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Wife and Cognizance was taken by Ded. Potest directed to Sir Thomas Sanders and one Châ—snel of Grays-Inne before Easter divers Judges being here who might have examined her and on Friday in Easter Week she dyed but the Fine l'argent du Reigne was entred as of the last Term viz. Hâ—llary Term 4 days before the Wives death The Original Writ of Covenant bore Test 15 Jan. ret Crastin Pur. and the Ded. Potest 18 Jan. And James Warcombe Cosin and Heir of Joan complained by Bill against Edw. Carrel for getting the said Fine by indirect Practâ—ces and thereupon the Sentence of the Court was as followeth This day a right honourable Assembly being in this Court the matter depending in the same between James Warcombe Esque Plaintiff and Edw. Carrel of London Gent. Defendanâ— as well concerning the validity of a Fine levyed by the said Edward and Joan his wife which â—oan as the Plaintiff alleâ—dges was under age at the time of the Fâ—â—â— levyed and also for certain undue means committed by the said Edw. Carrel in the suing out and getting the said Fine and upon hearing all that could be alleadged on both parts the said Fine was by the Opinion of the whole Conrt adjudged good and effectual in Law And also no fault judged to be in the said Edward Carrel in suing out the said Fine but that the sâ—me was sued out in duâ— form and order of the Laws of this Realmâ— and this is within the Rule Facta tenent multa quae fieri prohibentur And as Carrel was not punished though he knew his Wife within Age so nor Hungate shall be punished though she knew her Son so and the rather by reason of that antient Verse Iâ—ges Communes sinescit Faemina iles M Clericus â—t Cultor Judix sibi parcet et ultor And by Sentence all were dismissed c. Among the Records in â—he Treasury Inter placita c. de Term. Sanct. Mich. 42 Ed. 3. Rot. 27. â— Cornubiâ— Helena filia Hugonis Alloâ— brought an Appeal of Robbery against I awâ—ence Boskosleak Rich. Câ—horta Jo. Gilmin and Joan his Wife and others and the Defendants plead not guilty and were found not guilty Nec unquamse subtraxerunte Iden praedictus Laurentius omnes alii c. cant inde quieti El praedicta Elena pro falso appello suo committitur c. et super hoc praed Laurentius alii petunt juxta forman Stat. quod Juâ—atores inquirant quae damna c. Et super hoc quaesitum est à praefatis Juratoribus c. Quidicunt quod praed Laurentius sustinuit ad valentiam 10 l. c. et sic singulatim de caeteris c. dicunt etiam quod Helena praed non est sufficient c. et quod Johannes Riddel sen Jo. Riddel jun. c. abettaverunt praed
Ayd Hill 6 Jacob. Regis Prohibitions Upon Ashwednesday in Feb. 1606. A great Complaint was made by the President of York to the King That the Judges of the Common-Law had in Contempt of the Kings Command last Term granted 50 or 60 Prohibitions out of the Common-Plâ—as to the President and Councel of York after the 6th of February and named 3 in particular 1. Between Bell and Thawptes 2. Another between Snell and Huâ—t 3. And another in an Information of a Riotous Rescue by English Bill by the Attorney-General against Christopher Dickenson one of the Sheriffs of York and others in rescuing one William Watson out of the Custody of the Deputy of one of the Purseyvants of the said Councel who had Arrested the said Watson by force of a Commission of Rebellion by the said President and Councel awarded Which Prohibition upon the Information was as was said denyed upon a Motion in the Kings-Bench the last Term but granted by Us. And the King sent for me to answer the Complaint and I onely all the rest of the Justices being absent waited upon the King who in the presence of Egerton Lord Chancellor and others of the Privy-Councel rehearsed to me the Complaint aforesaid And I perceived well that the King had thereupon conceived great displeasure against the Judges of the Common-Pleas but chiefly against Me To which I having the Copy of the Complaint sent me by the Lord Treasurer answered in this manner That I had made search in the Office of Prothonotaries of the Common-Pleas and as to the Cases between Bell and Thawpts and Snell and Huet no such could be found but I would not take advantage of a Misprisal And the truth was the 6th of February the Court of Common-Pleas had granted a Prohibition to the President and Councel of York between Lock Plaintiff and Bell and others Defendants and that was a Replevin in English was granted by the said President and Councel which I affirmed was utterly against Law for at Common-Law no Replevin ought to be made but by Original Writ directed to the Sheriff and the Statute of Marlbridge cap. 21. and West 1. cap. 17. authorize the Sheriff to make a Replevin So 29 Ed. 3. 21. 8 Eliz. Dyer 245. And the King by his Instructions neither had made the President and Councel Sheriffs nor could grant them Power to make a Replevin against Law which the Lord Chancellor affirmed for very good Law and it may well be we have granted others in the like Case Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between Sir Bethel Knight now Sheriff of the County of York as Executor to one Stephenson who made him and another his Executors and preferred an English Bill against Chambers and others in nature of an Action of the Case upon a Trover and Conversion of Goods and Chattels in the Testators Life to the value of 1000 l. And because the other Executor would not joyn with him he had no remedy at Common-Law but was forced to pray remedy there in Equity And I say the President and Councel have not any Authority to proceed in that Case for divers causes 1. Because there is an express Limitation in their Commission that they shall not hold Plea between Party and Party c. unless both or one of the Parties tanta paupertate sunt gravati that they cannot sue at Common-Law and in that Case the Plaintiff was a Knight Sheriff and man of great quality 2. Because by that Suit the King was deceived of his Fine which was 200 l. because the Damages amounted to 4000 l. And that was one of the Causes that the Sheriff began his Suit there and not at Common-Law Another Cause was that their Decrees which they take upon them are final and uncontroulable either by Errour or any other Remedy which is not so in the Kings Courts where there are five Judges for they can deny Justice to none who hath Right nor give any Judgment but what is controulable by Errouâ— c. And if we shall not grant Prohibitions in Cases where they hold Plea without Authority then the Subjects shall be wrongfully oppressed without Law and we denyed to do them Justice And their Ignorance in the Law appeared by allowing that Suit viz. That the one Executor had no Remedy at Common Law because the other would not joyn in Suit with him whereas every one Learnâ—d in the Law knows that Summons and Severance lyeth in any Suit brought as Executors And this was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Another Prohibition I confess we granted between the L. Wharton who by English Bill before the Councel sued Bank S. Buttermere and others for fishing in his several Fishings in Darwent in the County of C. in nature of an Action of Trespass at Common-Law to his Damages of 200 l. and for the Causes before recited and because the same was meerly determinable at Common-Law we granted a Prohibition And that also was allowed by the Lord Chancellor Then the King asked me the Case of Information upon the Riotous Rescous To which I answered That one exhibited a Bill there in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus against Watson who upon his Oath affirmed that he had satisfied the Plaintiff and owed him nothing yet because he did not deny the Debt the Councel Decreed the same against him And upon that Decree the Pursuyvant was sent to Arrest the said Watson who Arrested him upon which the Rescous was made And because the Action was in the nature of an Action of Dâ—bâ— upon a Mutuatus where the Defendant at Common Law might have waged his Law the Prohibition was granted and that was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Also I affirmed it was Rescous because the principal cause belonged not to them but it might be a Riot yet not punishable by them but by course of Law by a Commission of Oyer and Terminer Also I confess that we have granted divers Prohibitions to stay Suits there by English Bill upon penal Statutes for the manner of prosecution as well for the Action Process c. as for the Count is to be pursued and cannot be altered and therefore without question the Councel in such Cases cannot hold Plea which was affirmed also by the Lord Chancellor And I said no Court of Equity can be Erected at this day without Act of Parl as was Resolved in Q. Eliz. time in Parots Case and lately in the Case of the President and Councel of Wales And the King was well satisfied with these Reasons who gave me his Royal Hand and I departed from thence in his favour Pasch 7 Jac. Regis This Term a Question was moved at Sergeants Inne who by the Common-Law ought to repair the Bridges common Rivers and Sewers and the High-ways and by what means they shall be compelled to it and first of Bridges And as to them it is to be known that of common right all the Country shall be
their Consciences and Oaths they can 2. That all the said Cases are clear in the Judgment of those who are Learned in the Laws that Consultation ought by the Law to be granted 1. For as to the first President the Case upon their own shewing is Three Persons joyned in one Prohibition for three several parcels of Land each having a several sort of Tything and their Interests being several they could not joyn and therefore a Consultation was granted 2. To the second the manner of Tything was alleadged to be paid to the Parson or Vicar which is uncertain 3. To the third The Modus never came in Debate but whether the Tythes did belong to the Parson or Vicar which being between two Spiritual Persons the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Jurisdiction and therewith agrees 38 E. 3. 6. 4. To the last The same was upon the matter of a Custom of a Modus Decimandi for Wooll for to pay the Tythe of Corn or Hay in Kind in satisfaction of Corn Hay and Wooll cannot be a satisfaction for the Wooll for the other two were due of common right The Bishop of London answer'd That the words of the Consultation were Quod suggestio praedicta mattriaque in eadem cohtenta minus sufficiens in lege existit c. So as materia cannot be referâ—ed to Form and therefore it ought to extend to the Moâ—us Decimandi To which I answer'd That when the Matter is insufficiently or uncertainly alleadged the Matter it self faileth and though the Matter be in truth sufficient yet if it were insufficiently alleadged the Plea wanteth matter Then the Lord Treasurer saâ—d he wondered they would produce things that made more against them then any thing had been said And when the King relyed upon the Prohibition in the Register when Land is given in discharge of Tythes the Lord Chancellor said That was not like this Case For there by the Gift of the Land the Tythes were discharged but in the Case de modo Decimandi an Annual Sum is paid yet the Land remains charged and is to be discharged by Plea de modo Decimâ—ndi All which I utterly denied For the Land was as absolutely discharged of the Tythes in casu de modo Decimandi as where Lands are given All which the King heard with patience and the Chancellor answer'd no more After the King with all his Councel had for 3 dayes together heard the Allegations on both sides he said He would maintain the Laws of England and that his Judges should have as great respect from all his Subjects as their Predecessors And for the Matter he said for any thing had been said on the Clergies part he was not satisfied and advised Us the Judges to confer among our selves and that nothing be encroached in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdâ—ction and they to keep within their Jurisdiction And this was the end of these three dayes Consultation Note Dr. Bennet in his Discourse inveighed much against the Opinion 8 E. 4. 14. and in my Reports in Wrights Case That the Ecclesiastical Judge would not allow a Modus Decimandi and said that was the Mistery of Iniquiâ—y and they would allow it The King asked for what cause it was so said in the said Books To which I answer'd That it appears in Linwood who was Dean of the Arches and a Profound Canonist who wrote in Henry the Sixth's time in his Title De decimis cap Quoniam propter c. fol. 139. b. Quod decimae soluantur absque ulla diminutione And in the Gloss it is said Quod consuetudo de non Decimando aut de non bene decimando non valet And that being written by so great a Canonist was the cause of the said Saying in 8 E. 4. that they would not allow the said Plea de modo decimandi And it seemed to the King that that Book was a good cause for them in Edward the Fourth's time to say as they had said But I said I did not rely thereon but on the Grounds aforesaid Lastly The King said that the High Commission ought not to meddle with any thing but that which is enormous and which the Law cannot punish as Heresie Schism Incest and the like great Offences And the King thought that two High-Commissions for either Province one should be sufficient for all England and no more Mich. 39 40 Eliz. In the Kings-Bench Bedel and Sherman's Case Mich. 39 40 Eliz. Which is entred Mich. 40 Elizâ— in the Common-Pleas Rot. 699. Cantabr the Case was this Robert Bedel Gent. and Sarah his Wife Farmers of the Rectory of Litlington in the County of Cambridge brought an Action of Debt against John Sherman in custodia mariscalli c. and demanded 550 l. and declared that the Master and Fellows of Clare-Hall in Cambridge were ieized of the said Rectory in Fee in right of the said Colledge and the 10 Jun. 29 Eliz. by Indenture dâ—nised to Christopher Phesâ—nt the said Rectory for 21 years rendring 17 l. 15 s. 5 d. and reserving Rent-corn according to the Statute c. which Rent was the antient Rent who entred and was possessed and assigned all his Interest to one Matthew Bats who made his last Wâ—ll and made Sarah his Wife Executrix and dyed Sarah proved the Will and entred and was thereof possessed as Executrix and took to Husband the said Robert Beâ—el by force whereof hey in right of the said Sarah entred and were possessed and the Defendant was thâ—n Tenant and seized for his life of 300 Acres of Arable Lands in Litlington aforesaid which ought to pay Tythes to the Rector of Litlington and in 38 Eliz. the Defendant Sâ—minavit grano 200 Acres paâ—c â— c. the Tythes whereof amounted to 150 l. And the Defendant did not set forth the same from the Nine Parts but carryed them away contrary to the Statute 2 E 6 c. The Defendant pleaded Nihil debet And the Jury â—ound that the Defendant did owe 55 l. and to thâ— rest they found Nihil debet And in Arrest of Judgment divers Matters were moved 1. That Grano Seminata is too general and it ought to be expressed with what kind of Grain the same was sowed 2. It was moved If the Parson ought to have the treble value the Forfeiture being â—xoresly limited to none by the Act. or that the same beâ—ong to the Queen 3. If the same belong to the Parson if he ought to sue for it in the Ecclesiastical Court or in the King 's Temporal Court 4. If the Husband and Wife should joyn in the Action or the Husband alone and upon solemn Argument at the Barre and Bench Judgment was affirmed Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards John Bayley's Case It was found by Writ of Dien clausit extremum that the said John Bayley was seized of a Messuage and of and in the 4th part of one Acre of Land late parcel of the Demesne Lands of the Mâ—nnor of Newton in the
The words whereof are Saving c. to the King c. all his Right c. of primer seizin and relief c. for Tenure in Socage or of the nature of Tenure in Socage in chief as heretofore hath bin used But there was no Custom before the Act for the King to have primer seizin c. Another President was in Pasch 37 Eliz. in the Book of Orders fol. 444. where the Case was That William Allet was seized of certain Lands in Pitsey called Lundsey holden of the Queen in Socage Tenure in chief and by Deed covenanted to stand seized to the use of his wife for life and afterwards to the use of Richard his younger Son in Fee and dyed and all was found by Office and it was Resolved ut supra But the Doubt oâ— the Case at Bar was because Henry the Feoffor had a Reversion in Fee which descended to the said William his eldest Son Trin. 7 Jacobi Regis The Case of the Admiralty A Bâ—ll was preferred in the Star-Chamber against Sir Richard Hawkins Vice-Admiral of the County of Devon and was charged that one William Hull and others were notorious Pyrates upon the High Seas and shewed in certain what Pyracy they had committed That the said Sir Richard Hawkins knowing the same did receive them and abet comfort them and for Bribes suffered them to be discharged And what Offence that was the Court referred to the consideration of the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron who heard Councel of both sides divers days at Sergeants Inne And it was Resolved by them 1. That the Admirals by the Common-Law ought not to meddle with any thing done within the Realm but onely with things done upon the Sea and that appeareth fully by the 13 R. 2. cap. 5. and therewith agrees 2 H. 4. c. 11. and 15 H. 2. c. 3. So also 2 H. 5. c. 6. 5 Eliz. c. 5. and this agrees with Stamf. fol. 51. 8 Ed. 2. Coron 399. See Plo. Com. 37 b. 2 R. 3. 12. 30 H. 6. 6. by Prisoit 2. It was Resolved That the Statutes are to be intended of a Power to hold Plea not of a Power to award Execution for notwithstanding the said Statutes the Judge of the Admiralty may do Execution within the Body of the County And therefore 19 H. 6. 7. the Case was W. T. at Southwark affirmed a Plaint of Trespass in the Admiralty against J. B. of a Trespass done upon the High-Sea Whereupon J. B. was cited to appear at the common day next ensuing at which day the said J. B. made default And according to the usage of the Court the said J. B. was amerced to 20 Marks Whereupon Command was made to P. as Minister of the said Court to take the Goods of the said J. B. to make agreement with the aforesaid W. T. by force of which he for the said 20 Marks took 5 Cowes and 100 Sheep in Execution for the said Money in the County of Ieicester And there it is holden by Newton and the whole Court That the Statutes restrain the power of the Court of Admiralty to hold Plea of a thing done within the body of the County but they do not restrain the Execution of the same Court to be served upon the Lands In which Case these Points were Resolved 1. Though the Court of Admiralty is not a Court of Record see Brooks Error 77. acc yet by Custom of the Court they may amerce the Defendant for his default by their discretion 2. That they may make Execution for the same of the Goods of the Defendant in corpore Comitatus and if he have not Goods may arrest his Body But the great question between them was If a man commit Pyracy upon the Sea and one knowing thereof receive and comfort the Defendant in the Body of the County if the Admiral and other the Commissioners by the Act 28 H. 8. cap. 16. may proceed by Indictment and Conviction against the Receiver and Abetter the Offence of the Accessary having his beginning within the Body of the County And it was Resolved by them That such a Receiver and an Abetter by the Common-Law could not be indicted and convicted because the Common-Law cannot take Cognizance of the Original Offence being done out of the Jurisdiction of the Common-Law and where it cannot punish the Principal it cannot punish the Accessary And therefore Coke Chief Justice reported to them a Case which was in Suffolk 28 Eliz. where Butler and others upon the Sea next to the Town of Iaystoff robbed divers of the Queens Subjects of their Goods which they brought into Norfolk and there were apprehended and brought before Me then a Justice of Peace in the same County and upon Examination they confessed a cruel and barbarous Pyracy and that the Goods then in their Custody were part of the Goods which they had so robbed And I was of Opinion that in that Case it could not be Felony punishable by the Common-Law because the Original Act was not offence whereof the Common-Law taketh knowledge and then the bringing them into the County could not make the same Felony punishable by our Law Yet I committed them to the Gaol untill the coming of the Justices of the Assizes And at the next Assizes the Opinion of Wray Chief Justice and Perian Justices of Assize was agreeing with Me ut supra and thereupon they were committed to Sir Robert Southwel then Vice-Admiral for those Countieâ— and this in effect agrees with Lacies Case which see in my Reports cited in Bingham's Case 2 Rep. 93. and in Constables Case C. 5. Rep. 107. See Pyracy was Fâ—lony 40 Ass 25. by Schard where a Captain of a Ship with some English-men robb'd the Kings Subjects upon the High Seas and the saith 't was Felony in the Norman Captain and Treason in the English-men which is to be understood of Petit-Treason and therefore in that Case the Pyrates being taken the Norman Captain was hang'd and the English drawn c. hang'd as appears by the same Book See Stamford 10. Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas Pettus and Godsalve's Case In a Fine levyed Trinity Term Anno quinto of this King between John Pettus Esq Plaintiff and Richard Godsalve and others Deforceants of the Mannor of Castre c. in Norfolk where in the â—hird Proclamation upon the Foot of the Fine the said Proclamation is said to be made in the sixth year of the King that now is which ought to have been Anno quinto And the fourth Proclamation is altogether left out because upon view of the Proclamations upon Dorsis upon Record not Finis ejusdem Termini per Justiciarios remaining with the Chirographer c. it appeareth the said Proclamations were duly made therefore it was adjudged that the Errours aforesaid should be amended and made to agree as well with the Prâ—clamation upon Record of the Fine and Entry of the Book as with the other Proclamations in Dorsis c. And
Law The Case was often argued at Bar and now this Term it was argued at the Bench by the Justices and therein these Points were resolved 1. That the first part of the Custom was absurd and repugnant but it extends not to the Case for the last part of the Custom which concerns the cutting down of the Trees concerns the Point in question and so the first part of the Custom is not material And when it was objected that the pleading that the Messuage of the Plaintiff was in decay was too general as appears by the Book 10 Ed. 4. 3. To that it was answered by Cook Chief â—ustice That the said Book proved the pleading in the Case at Bar was certain enough and therewith agrees 7 H. 6. 38. 34 H. 6. 17. 2. It was Resolved That in this Case without question there needs not to alleadge more certainty for the Copyholder doth not here take it according to the Custom but the Lord of the Mannor cuts it down and preventeth the Copyholder of his benefit and therefore he needeth not to shew any decay at all but onely for increasing of Damages for the Lord does the wrong when he cuts down the Tree which should serve for Reparations 3. It was Resolved That of Common-Right as a thing incident to the Grant the Copyholder may take House-bote Hedge-bote and Plough-bote upon his Copy-hold Quia concesso uno conceduntur omnia sine quibus id consistere non potest And with this agrees 9 H. 4. Wast 59. But the same may be restrained by Custome 4. It was Resolved That the Lord cannot take all the Timber-Trees but he ought to have sufficient for Reparation of the Customary Houses and for Plough-bote c. for otherwise great Depopulation will follow And it is to be understood that Bote being on old Saxon Word hath two significations First compensatio criminis as Frithbote signifies to be discharged for giving amends for breach â—f the Peace Manhote to be discharged of amends for the death of a man And secondly for Reparation as Bridgebote Burghbote Castlebote Parkbote c. And it is to be known that Bote and Estovers are all one And Estover is derived of the French Word Estover i. e. fovere i. e. to keep warm cherish c. And there are four kinds of Estovers viz. First Arandi Secondly Ardendi Thirdly Construendi And fourthly Claudendi viz. Ploughbote Firebote Housebote and Hedgebote 5. It was Resolved That the Copyholder shall have a general Action of Trespass against his Lord Quare clausum fregit arborem suam succidit For Custome hath fixed it to his Estate against his Lord. And the Copy-holder in this Case hath as great an Interest in the Timber Trees as he hath in his Messuage which he holds by Copy And if the Lord break or destroy the House without question the Copyholder shall have an Action of Trespass against his Lord Quare domum fregit and by the same Reason for the Timber-Trees which are annexed to the Land and which he may for Reparation of his Messuage or else it cannot stand See Trin. 40 Eliz. Rot. 37. in B. R. between Stebbing and Grosenor See Taylor 's Case in the Fourth Part of my Reports and see 5 H. 4. 2. 2 H. 4. 12. 2 E. 4. 15. 1 H. 6. 4. 7 H. 4. 15. 19 H. 6. 34. 11 H. 4. 28. 11 H. 4. 23. 21 H. 7. 14. b. acc 35 H. 6. 24. 30 H. 6. Tresp 10. c. 21 H. 7. 15. 11 H. 4. 23. See Fitz. Trespass ultimo in the Abridgement And afterwards the same Term Judgment was given on the principal Case for the Plaintiff Pasch 8 Jacobi In Communi Ranco The Parishioners of St. Alphage in Canterbury by Custome ought to choose the Parish-Clerk whom they chose accordingly The Parson by colour of a new Canon made at the Convocation in the Year of the King that now is which is not of force to take away any Custome drew the Clark before Dr. Newman Officiall of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to deprive him upon the Point of right Election and for other Causes And upon that it was moved at the Bar to have a Prohibition And upon hearing of Dr. Newman and himself and his Councel a Prohibition was granted by the whole Court because the Party chosen is a meer Temporal Man And the means of choosing him viz. the Custome is also meerly Temporal So as the Official cannot deprive him but upon occasion the Parishioners may displace him And this Office is like that of a Church-Warden who though they be chosen for two years yet for cause they may displace them as is held in 26 H. 8. 5. And though the Execution of the Office concerneth Divine Service yet the Office it self is meer Temporal See 3 E. 3. Annuity 30. 18 E. 3. 27. And it is to be known that the deprivation of a man of a Temporal Office or Place is a Temporal Thing Upon which no Appeal lyes by the 25 H. 8. but an Assize as in 4 Eliz. Dyer 209. And therewith agrees the Book 8 Ass Sirases Case But if a Dean of a Cathedral Church be deprived before the Commissioners of the King he may appeal to the Delegates within the said Act 25 H. 8. For a Deanery is a Spiritual Promotion and not Temporal And before that Act in such Case the Appeal was to Rome immediately Mich. 5 Jacobi Regis In Banco Regis Prichard and Hawkin's Case John Prichard brought an Action upon the Case against Robert Hawkins for Slanderous Words publish'd the last Day of August 3. Jacob. Viz. That Prichard which serves Mistriss Shelley did murder John Adam's Child Quandam Isabellam Adams modo defunct filia cujusdam Johannis Adams de c. innuendo Upon which a Writ of Errour was brought in the Exchequer-Chamber upon a Judgment given for Prichard in the Kings-Bench and the Judgment was reversed in Easter Term 7 Jac. because it doth not appear that Isabel was dead at the time of speaking the words for tunc defunct ought to have bin in stead of modo defunct Pasch 8 Jac. In Banco Regis Dison and Bestney's Case Humphry Dyson said of Nicholas Bestney a Councellor at Law of Grays-Inne Thou a Barrester Thou art no Barrester Thou art a Barretor Thou wert put from the Bar and darest not shew thy self there Thou study the Law thou hast as much Wit as a Daw. Upon Not Guilty pleaded the Jury found for the Plaintiff and gave 23 l. Damages upon which Judgment was given and upon Writ of Errour in the Exchequer-Chamber the Judgment was affirmed Pasch 8 Jac. Regis In Banco Regis Smith and Hill's Case Noah Smith brought an Action of Assault and Battery against Walter Hill in the Kings-Bench which began Pasch 7 Jac. Rot. 175. Upon Not Guilty pleaded a Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff and 107 l. given for Damages and Costs In a Writ of Errour in the Exchequer Chamber the Errour was