case smith against shelbourn easter term Elizabeth roll l a general pardon  discharge the punishment inflict on simony but do not preclude the ordinary  from inquire into and deprive the incumbent for that offence vide in a SC Owen  more Mod hawk it be not simony for a father to purchase the next avoidance of  a benefice in order to provide for his son although the incumbent he sick and  the son he privy to the purchase for a father be bind by nature to make  provision for his son vide post SC to grind Noy contra hob contra winch cro  James Inst Bac Abr Bl Com Bl Rep burr prohibition the case be a parson be sick  the father of smith carhe with his son to the patron and contract with the  patron in the presence of his son for the next avoidance of the church and  agree to give he for it l who croak Elizabeth thereupon make a grant to he of  the next avoidance accord the parson die the father esents his son who be  admit institute and induct and now be sue in the spiritual court to he deprive  for simony upon this cause smith bring a prohibition allege therein the  general pardon of Elizabeth which be after his presentation admission  institution and induction wherein simony be not except and it be thereupon  demurrer after argument at the bar it be resolve that the prohibition well lie  and first the whole court resolve that although the general pardon discharge  the punishment for simony a yet if the parson come in by simony it be  examinable by the ordinary for he ought to provide that the church he not  serve with corrupt person and if he find simony in any he may well deprive he  for that cause and that make that the church be never full of he and make he  no parson ab beginning and the pardon do not enable he to retain it but all  the justice except Anderson hold that in this case there be not any simony for  the father may buy the advowson and present his son and it be not simony in  any to buy a advowson and although the son here be privy thereto yet it be not  material for it be no offence in the father who be the principal it can be a  offence in the son who be but accessary for there can be a sharing in sin  where there be not any crime commit but if the parson himself have contract  for a henefice to the intent another shall present he that be simony b but the  father be bind by nature to provide for his son and therefore his buy a  advowson with a intent to provide for he be not any simony therefore the  prohibition be well grant otherwise under colour hereof every presentment may  he draw into question in the spiritual court Anderson chief justice hold that  a consultation shall he grant in this case because this contract by the father  with a intent to present his son be in presence and with the son privity make  it simony in he and he be deprivable and although the law be that if such a  simoniacal contract he prove and the a roll Abr Noy hard   Inst a see  Elizabeth c b see Elizabeth c and Ann c croak Elizabeth er p incumbent he  deprive that the church be quasi always void and that there shall he a  presentment by lapse to the queen yet that do not make the right of patronage  to come into question because the deprivation arise from the patron offence  wherefore c but if in this case the father have buy the henefice with a intent  to present the son if it be without the privity and consent of the son it have  not be any simony wherefore as the case here be he hold it to he simony and  the consultation grantable but notwithstanding the other three justice be  against he it be adjudge that the prohibition shall stand