bedinfield against the archbishop or Canterbury and PICKERING Clerk though the  presenter to a church be a mere layman still if admit institute and induct  there must be a sentence of nullity before any other presentation and the  ordinary must give notice to the patron of such sentence before any lapse can  incur a Laypatron present to a church vacant by death a man as if a clerk but  in truth a mere layman who by the ecclesiastical law be not capanc beneicH and  yet he be present admit and institute by the ordinary of the place and after a  year from the time of the death of the last incumbent no sentence of  deprivation be bring forward the metropolitan collate his clerk to the church  devolve to he by lapse without any notice of the incapacity aforesaid or of  the ecclesiastical law in this case previous give to the patron whether this  clerk shall continue to enjoy that benefice or not and this case appear in  quare hinder bring by bedinfield Esq against the archbishop of c and Pickering  in which the patron count for title to present on a vacancy of the church by  the deprivaton of his say presenter canonical deprive which be not deny by the  answer of Pickering the incumbent but the case be as above set forth and in  the case abovesaid the definite sentence be pronounce in the court of audience  of the archbishop aforesaid by dr yule auditor of the cause in Canterbury for  Pickering as the true and lawful rector and possessor of the church aforesaid  and that townsend the layman have no lawful right title or dyer interest in  the same nor can he by any mean have but therein costard against one Wyndett  lcro Elizabeth more a layman be present c and make a lease for year which be  confirm by the patron and ordinary and afterward be deprive by entence  declaratory yet the lease be not void but good for when he make the lease he  be parson de facto and the deprivation shall not have such relation as to make  he no parson ab beginning although it be but declaratory for the successor  shall not have mesne profit this case be Trin Elizabeth b r and enter e  Elizabeth rot see Bac ab east e manwood think contrary to dyer in this case  that the house will pass well enough notwithstanding this incorrect call of  the parish for there be a sufficient certainty in the commencement dyer b er p  impose perpetual silence upon he and this sentence be afterward confirm by  argument in the bench this term by three doctor S dale ford and Berkeley  thither convene by the decree and order of the judge there and that townsend  on account of his inidoniety and incapacity aforesaid never be rector neither  de j?bre nor de facto and that the bishop be not bind to notify a defect of  this nature to the patron because it be notorious and ignorance law eminern  ecusat but other doctor afterward deny this and allege that the opinion of  Lindwood who be jurisperit and skill in the ecclesiastical law of this kingdom  be that the patron ought to have notice of this sort of incapacity and see m h  rot that a mere spurious or bastard who be incompetent and incapable of a  benefice with cure by the ecclesiastical law without a apostolic dispensation  be present admit and induct and as parson iparsonee continue in the church of  Hengham in the county of Norfolk for thirty year and upward and one as cousin  and heir of the patron who present he bring a stare hinder against the bastard  himself who as incumbent plead to a issue of the country which be whether the  patron who present and the bishop who admit he know the whole matter above at  the time of the presentation and admission as he the bastard have in plead  allege or not because if they have know c then the incumbent shall not be  remove at the suit of the heir of the patron by quare hinder as it seem by  that plea and by the opinion of dr Lewis judge of the admiralty declare in  write townsend be incumbent de facto though not de jure through a error of the  bishop and therefore he must be deprive by sentence declaratory before the  church can be adjudge void and thereof the laypatron must have notice and  afterward in Hilary that it be argue at the bar and exception take to the  count for that it do not show where or before what ecclesiastical judge the  deprivation be et non allocatur but if it be deny the plaintiff as to that  afterward may well nevertheless show it by have a writ to the bishop to try  the deprivation c but there be three objection to the bar saint because the  defendant say action q?on before he enable himself to plead in bar S by strew  how he be incumbent and possessor accord to statute e which ought to be first  strew and then he shall say action non because he say c also when he have  strew the avoidance of the church before the presentment of t who be a mere  laic by the death of one ikyn he acknowledge the presentation by the plaintiff  of townsend to the bishop and his admission and institution by the bishop per  quod church that reqnansit vacuan de jib e c which be repugnant and absurd c  also no answer be make by the traverse or confession and avoidance of the say  canonical deprivation c which ought to be but he ought to have plead the  sentence of nullity which be give in the court of the archbishop against t and  have conclude his plea with a which be the same deprivation dyer whereof the  plaintiff cotnteth c and then the matter in law S whether the metropolitan or  ordinary ought to give notice to the laypatron of the incapacity of t and of  his deprivation for that he be a mere lie c may have well come in question and  e a the bishop refuse the presenter of the earl of Arundel because he be  perjure by his own confession before the same bishop in a cause between the  bishop and his chapter but thereof there be no conviction and send notice  thereof by the same presentee to the patron and issue be take upon the  confession c lie idonietate personce presentatce ad kindness ecclesiasticurn  pertirzet exa?ninatio ad udice?n Church rites dyer a er p articuli allotment  of land e saint c Fitzherb distinction quare hinder in naturan narrow places  for say where the bishop refuse the patron clerk for nonability or for crime  he ought to give notice thereof to the patron or otherwise he shall not have  advantage of the lapse and afterward Harper Welsh and dyer argue at the bench  and all agree that the plea be not good for the cause aforesaid also it do not  show express the title that the metropolitan have to collate by lapse e and  for the matter in law they all argue that by the admission and institution of  t the church be full of a incumbent to all intent by all law and in the  intendment of the law of the realm and then if it be a plenarty until sentence  of deprivation or nullity or declaratory sentence be give against this  incumbent he remain incumbent in our law then by the sentence there commence a  new avoidance and consequent a new title to the patron to present and of this  avoidance to which the metropolitan be privy by his officer or commissary who  give sentence of this nullity by the authority of the metropolitan he ought to  give notice to the patron or otherwise he shall not have benefit of the lapse  c and so of resignation or such like case where the bishop be privy or party  to the cause of the avoidance c and so they all conclude against the defendant  and that the plaintiff ought to have a writ to the bishop c to which Weston  also afterward agree and so it be adjudge and the plaintiff remit the damage