prohibition upon Wednesday be ashwednesday the day of February a great  complaint be make by the precedent of York unto the king that the judge of the  commonlaw have in contempt of the command of the king the last term grant  sixty or fifty prohibition at the least out of the common plea to the  precedent and Council of York after the six day of February and nam three in  particular sure between bell and Thawptes another between Snell and Huet and  another in a information of a riotous rescue prefer by English bill by the  attorney general against Christopher Dickenson one of the sheriff of York and  diverse other in rescue of one William Watson out of the custody of the deputy  of one of the pursuivant of the same Council who have arrest the say Watson by  force of a Commission of rebellion award by the precedent and Council which  prohibition in the say information be as be affirm deny upon a motion make in  the king bench the last term and yet grant by we and the king send for I to  answer to that complaint and I only all the rest of the justice be absent wait  upon the king in the Chamber near the gallery who in the presence of Egerton  lord chancellor the earl of Salisbury lord treasurer the lord of Northampton  lord privy seal the earl of Suffolk lord chamberlain the earl of Worcester the  archbishop of Canterbury the lord Wotton and other of his Council rehearse to  I the complaint aforesaid and I perceive well that upon the say information he  have conceive great displeasure against the judge of the common plea and chief  against I to which I have the Copy of the complaint send tome by the lord  treasurer the sabbath day before answer in this manner that I have with as  much brevity as the time will permit make search in the office of the  Preignothories of the common plea and as to the say case between bell and  Thawptes and Snell and Huet no such can be find but my intent be not to take  advantage of a misprisal and the truth be that the six day of February the  court of common plea have grant a prohibition to the precedent and Council of  York between lock plaintiff and bell and other defendant and that be a  replevin in English be grant by the say precedent and Council which I affirm  be utter against law for at the commonlaw no replevin ought to be make but by  original Writ direct to the sheriff and the statute of Marlbridg cap and west  cap have authorize the sheriff upon plaint make to he to make a replevin and  all that appear by the say statute and by the book of Edward Elizabeth dyer  and the king neither by his instruction have make the precedent and Council  sheriff nor can grant to they power to make a replevin against the law nor  against the say act of parliament but the same ought to be make by the sheriff  and all that be affirm by the lord chancellor for very good law and I say that  it may well be that we have grant other prohibition in other case of English  replevins another prohibition I confess we have grant between sir Bethel  knight now sheriff of the county of York as executor to one Stephenson who  have make he and another his executor and prefer a English bill against  chamber and diverse other in the nature of a action upon the case upon a  trover and conversion in the life of the testator of good and chattel to the  valve of l and because the other executor will not join with he although he be  nam in the bill he have not any remedy at the commonlaw he pray remedy there  in equity and I say that the precedent and Council have not any authority to  proceed in that case for diverse cause because there be a express limitation  in their Commission that they shall not hold plea between party and party c  unless both party or one of they of such size poverty are heavy that they can  sue at the commonlaw and in that case the plaintiff be a knight and sheriff  and a man of great ability by that suit the king be deceive of his fine for he  ought to have have l fine because that the damage amount to l and that be one  of the cause that the sheriff begin his suit there and not at the commonlaw  another cause be that their decree which they take upon they be final and  uncontrollable either by error or any other remedy and yet the precedent be a  nobleman but not learned in the law and those which be of the Council there  although that they have the countenance of law yet they be not learned in the  law and nevertheless they take upon they final and uncontrollable decree in  matter of great importance for if they may deny relief to any at their  pleasure without controlment so they may do it by their final decree without  error appeal or other remedy which be not so in the king court where there be  five judge for they can deny justice to none who have right nor give any  judgement but the same be controulable by a Writ of error c and if we shall  not grant prohibition in case where they hold plea without authority then the  subject shall be wrongful oppress without law and we deny to do they justice  and their ignorance in the law appear by their allowance of that suit sure  that the one executor have no remedy by the commonlaw because the other will  not join in suit with he at the commonlaw whereas every one learned in the law  know that summons and severance lie in any suit bring as executor and this  also in that particular case be affirm by the lord chancellor and he much  inveigh against action bring there upon trover and conversion and say that  they can not be find in our ancient book another prohibition I confess we have  grant between the l wharton who by English bill sue before the Council bank  Buttermere and other for fish in his several fish in Darwent in the county of  c in the nature of a action of trespass at the commonlaw to his damage of l  and for the cause next before recite and because the same be mere determinable  at the commonlaw we grant a prohibition and that also be allow by the lord  chancellor and as to the case of information upon the riotous rescous I have  forget to speak to that the king himself ask what the case be to who I answer  that the case be that one exhibit a bill there in the nature of a action of  debt upon a P. of mutuor against Watson who upon his oath affirm that he have  satisfy the plaintiff and that he owe he nothing and yet because the defendant  do not deny the debt the Council decree the same against he and upon that  decree the pursuivant be send to arrest the say Watson who arrest he upon  which the rescous be make and because that the suit be in the nature of a  action of debt upon a P. of mutuor at the commonlaw and the defendant at the  commonlaw may have wage his law of which the defendant ought not to be bar by  that English bill because kindness law no one be to take away the prohibition  be grant and that be affirm also by the lord chancellor whereupon I conclude  that if the principal cause do not belong unto they all their proceed be  in person non judge and then no rescous can be do but the lord chancellor say  that though the same can be a rescous yet it be a riot which may be punish  there which I deny unless it be by course of law by force of a Commission of  oyer and terminer and not by a English bill but to give the king full  satisfaction in that point the truth be the say case be debate in court and  the court incline to grant a prohibition in the say case but the same be stay  to be better advice upon so as no prohibition be ever under seal in the say  case also I confess that we have grant diverse prohibition to stay suit there  by English bill upon penal statute for the manner of prosecution as well for  the action wooer c as for the count be to be pursue and can be alter and  therefore without question the Council in such case can hold plea which be  also affirm by the lord chancellor and I say that it be resolve in the reign  of queen Elizabeth in parrot case and now late in the case of the precedent  and Council of Wales that no court of equity can be erect at this day without  Act of parliament for the reason and cause in the report of the say case of  parot and the king be well satisfy with these reason and cause of our proceed  who of his grace give I his royal hand and I depart from thence in his favour  and the surmise of the number and that the prohibition in the say case in the  information be deny in the king bench be utter deny for the same be move when  two judge be in court who give not any opinion therein but require sergeant  Hutton who move it to move the same again when the court be full c