coke case OF forfeiture by treason mich James king before the statute of use  tenant in tail make a feoff in fee to the use of himself and his wife in tail  and after the statute be attaint of high treason and die the issue in tail be  bar by stat h for by that statute the tenant in tail do not forfeit only the  new estate but the right of the ancient estate be bar for ever hawk c sect see  cotton record c hill Elizabeth a case be move to all the justice tenant in  tail before the statute of h make a feoff in fee to the use of himself and his  wife in tail and after the statute of h be make the husband be attaint of high  treason h and die the wife continue in possession and die their issue enter  and die and this descend to his issue and all this especial matter be find by  a office the question be if the issue in tail or the king shall have the land  and it be object that the right of the ancient estate tail can be forfeit for  diverse cause videlicet for this that the ancient estate be discontinue and  such right of action can be forfeit as it be agree in the marquis of  Winchester case the feoff himself as this case be have not any right to the  ancient estate tail for by his feoff his right be utter go when he be attaint  and he can forfeit what he have not the issue in tail be remit to that ancient  right which can be forfeit and the new estatetail which be derive under the  discontinuance and which may be forfeit by the statute of the Henry cap be  continue and by act in law videlicet the descent and remitter avoid and the  estate of the king may be divest out of the king by remitter which be a act in  law as if discontinuee of tenant in tail grant the land to the king his heir  and successor and the king grant the land to tenant in tail for life the  remainder to his son and heir apparent for life tenant for life die the issue  by act in law be remit and by this law the estate of the king which he have  under the discontinuance be divest out of he and with this accord b for these  last two hundred year it have be consider as clear law that grant letter  patent and record may be presume from length of time it be so lie down in Lord  coke time Rep as undoubted law at that time and in modern time it have be  adopt in its full extent per buller I read v Brookman TR in Gibson v clark I  James and walk a grant from the crown of a advowson except in a former grant  under general word be presume after a possession evidence by title deed for  year and three presentation Vid Hillary v Waller Ves mead v Norbury price  sawbridge v Benton Anstr coke report er p blow Com in nicols case so in the  case at bar the new estate under the continuance which be forfeitable be now  purge by the remitter of the ancient right and the title which the king have  be by that defeat and avoid resolve that in this case the issue in tail be bar  and that which have be say answer confess and avoid for truth it be that right  of action can be give to the king by the statute of the h but when tenant in  tail discontinue his estate to the use of himself in tail and after be attaint  of treason now by the statute of h he do not forfeit only the new estate in  tail but by this the right of the ancient estate be bar for ever for the word  of the statute be that every offender be lawful convict of high treason c  shall forfeit to the king his heir and successor all such land tenement and  hereditament which any such offender shall have of estate of inheritance by  which word if there be not any save the right of the ancient estate tail be  bind then the save be save to cc every person c other than the offender their  heir and successor and such person as claim to any of their use all such right  so that the offender and his heir be exclude out of the save for heir include  all manner of heir and for this they be bind by the body of the Act and so  note a diversity between a naked right of action which be not forfeitable and  a estate of inheritance which be forfeitable couple with a ancient right for  which the forfeiture of the possession be bar coke by the say Act and when all  this appear by office then be the issue in tail notwithstanding the remitter  bar by force of the say Act of parliament to which all be party or privy and  it be not like to the case in blow command of remitter for this be no bar of a  ancient right