case case OF university OF cambridge the university of Cambridge have a  charter grant to they by queen Elizabeth whereby getting to know to please  with exclusive word non alibi c be give to the modern report er p court of the  vicechancellor to proceed secundum law et experience of the university in all  case where any of the body be defendant which charter be confirm by parliament  resolve that after imparlance it be too late to make that claim S c stram S c  ld ray S c fort a action of assault and battery be bring against one of the  member of the university of Cambridge and a general imparlance give from one  term to another the chancellor of the university come and claim conusance of  the plead by virtue of a charter in queen Elizabeth time whereby getting to  know to please with exclusive word non alibi c be give to the court of the  vicechancellor to proceed secundum law et experience university in all case  where any of the body of that university shall be defendant which charter be  confirm by Act of parliament of which they produce a copy and whether this  claim shall be receive be the question Mr page Mr Lechmere and Mr Whitaker  argue thus that it shall not it be say and admit to be so by the court that  such a grant be not good of itself without the help of a Act of parliament for  though the crown may modern report grant conusance of plead to proceed  secundum law land it can to proceed that other law for that will be to make  new law which the crown as be but one branch of the legislative power can do a  copy of a Act of parliament be no evidence unless the Act have be before allow  of and so make a record of this court for otherwise nothing shall be allow of  as a sufficient evidence of the Act but the exemplification of it under the  great seal and the reason be because the court be party which can pray oyer as  the party may so that the court will be in a worse condition than a common  person if they be to receive for evidence a copy offer they Henry c and this  be allow to be so per cur in the case of castle v Litchfield a hard a  conusance of plead be say to be of three sort first rashly placita and this be  where the court be coordinate and have a concurrent jurisdiction in which case  priority of suit only give one court the preference to the other second  getting to know to please and this must be limit as to place three other  getting to know to please with exclusive word et non alibi and this may follow  the person and need not be confine to any place the difference between getting  to know to please without exclusive word and when with be not that the last  have a exclusive jurisdiction the former not for getting to know to please do  ex way termini exclude all other court and import the word et non alibi b palm  roll Abr term of law title conusance b but first the difference be that the  former must be local confine to some place the latter may follow the person  and be as to place universal modern report second in the former if the lord  waive his privilege there shall be resummons and proceed shall begin where  they leave off but in the latter in case of waiver or the like the proceed in  the court exclude by this jurisdiction must begin de to make new three the  former be for the advantage of the lord only and therefore the lord only can  claim it and not the party but where there be exclusive word the party may  claim it as well as the lord in more Henry foe these difference be full and  clear lie down here it be observe that the three sort of conusance of plead  which be with exclusive word let non alibi that even this do not go so far as  to make a nullity of proceed in court of law then it be say that this claim be  make after imparlance be too late and that the university have lapse their  time in Rastalls entry c rastal c all claim of getting to know to please be  enter before imparlance it be too late to claim conusance of plead after  essoin and by parity of reason after imparlance d the yearbooks Henry foe  Henry foe Henry foe Edward foe Henry foe and the case of the university of  Oxford show d though a imparl modern report er p once be only give to a day in  the same term it be doubt whether even upon such a imparlance it be not too  late to pray it a yearbook Henry a plea to the jurisdiction not to be receive  after a imparlance and this claim of conusance of the same nature with that  plea b the bishop of ely case side b this difference be lie down c yearbook  Henry c with respect to the time of claim conusance that where the matter be  local so that it appear upon the face of the record that there be ground for  such a claim it must be make primo die videlicet when the writ be return but  where the matter be transitory it must be make upon the day give to plead and  the reason of all these case be this that otherwise there will modern report  be a great delay of justice unless such claim be make as soon as possible in  the report of the case of castle v Litchfield d Hardres d it be say that upon  notice indefinite the court must surcease their plea from whence it be infer  that the time of notice be not material but Mr Lechmere produce a better  report of that case in manuscript whereby it appear that nothing say in that  case can warrant such a inference from this manuscript it be observe that the  quo minus a devise to entitle common person to sue in the court of exchequer  do not take away such privilege if demand before imparlance it be also observe  that the Lord chancellor be include under the word justice if it shall be  object that these authority be not to the purpose because it be not the same  kind of conusance that be claim in they as here it may be answer that there be  nothing in the nature of the conusance now claim that can give the least  shadow of reason why long time shall be allow for claim here than in those for  first though some of they shall be only conusance of plead without exclusive  word yet that can make no difference since ante show that getting to know to  please do ex way termini import a exclusive jurisdiction second the difference  between these two that the latter videlicet that now claim be for the  advantage of the party as well as the lord and may therefore be claim by the  party as well as the lord be rather a reason why less time shall be allow for  this claim than why more three this be a claim of a conusance where the  proceed be to be not secundum law terr but university ought rather to be  disfavour and have less time allow for that claim than where the proceed be to  be secundum law terr this reason modern report be give e yearbook Henry c e  for the resumption of many franchise that they be derogatory to the  prerogative and tend to the delay of justice it be argue on the side of the  university that though there be good reason why there shall be a time fix as  soon as possible for the party himself to make his claim yet there be no such  reason for the university who be a stranger to the whole proceed to be so bind  down it be say that this be a personal privilege and therefore the person may  be arrest out of the jurisdiction of the university so that it be almost not  possible at least not probable that the university shall have notice time  enough to make their claim before imparlance it be urge that this be a charter  of very extensive word and confirm by Act of parliament and be therefore to  have a advantageous interpretation after imparlance a plea of ancient demesne  a plea of the same nature be receive a cro car style a justice Windham use to  say it be very hard that a stranger shall be bind to claim before imparlance b  lev b and to the case quote by the other side this general answer be give that  they be little to the purpose all of they almost relate to conusances that  have no exclusive word the court be all of opinion that the claim be make  after imparlance be make be too late that the Act of parliament be out of the  case for that relate only to the matter of the conusance and be only necessary  to support a charter which the crown have no power to grant for though the  crown may grant conusances yet it can grant they with power to proceed by any  other law than the commonlaw but as modern report to the time and manner of  claim the Act be whole silent these therefore be to be govern by the rule of  law hence it be that it be necessary for this privilege to be plead c see  Paternoster v Graham stram foster v hexam ld ray c and there be no reason in  the world modern report er p why the rule of law shall not govern as well the  time of plead it as make it necessary for it to be plead at all there be no  difference in the reason of the thing between conusances with exclusive word  and conusances without as to this point and therefore all these be esteem good  authority d see Leasingby v smith will will v Trehern bar king v agar burr  Kendrick v Kynaston black Rep d