case the case OF the dean OF TRINITYCHAPEL in dublin against the archbishop OF  dublin where the ordinary be visitor of a royal foundation upon a writ of  error bring in the king bench in Ireland on a judgement give in the common  plea there the case be thus the archbishop of Dublin libel in the spiritual  court there against the dean and chapter of TrinityChapel there for deny to  admit he to visit they the defendant suggest for a prohibition that the say  chapel be of royal foundation be first a monastery of royal foundation and  afterward translate into a deanery and chapter and be a donative be exempt  from the visitation of the ordinary and thereupon a prohibition be grant and  that the plaintiff shall declare upon it which he do set forth that this  chapel be of royal foundation and that the ordinary have no visitatorial power  there but what he have by virtue of the letter patent of creation make by  Henry the eight in the thirtythird year of his reign by which it be express  provide that the archbishop shall have no power or control over the deanery  but such as he have over the prior and convent of the holy Trinity time out of  mind which priory be of royal foundation and have time out of mind be visit by  the king or his chancellor the defendant the archbishop have crave oyer of the  letter patent of Henry the eight plead that the king do far order and declare  therein that the church of the holy Trinity modern report shall be the  archiepiscopal seat of Dublin as it be before and as it use to be and that the  archbishop shall exercise no jurisdiction there but such as he use when it be  a priory and that time out of mind the say archbishop and his predecessor  archbishop of Dublin keep there cathedral in this church and that the prior  and convent before and the dean and chapter since the translation be the  chapter of the say archbishop and time out of mind have be visit by they as  occasion require and traverse that the priory be of royal foundation modern  report er p the plaintiff demurrer special and after argument the archbishop  the defendant have judgement for a consultation which judgement be affirm upon  a writ of error in the king bench in Ireland and that judgement be about to be  confirm likewise in the king bench here some objection be make as follow first  this writ of error be a judgement in person justice our men de common banc  Ireland whereas the action be commence in that court in the queen reign and  thereupon this court be of opinion that the record be not well remove so that  writ of error be abate and a new writ be afterward bring in this court second  it be object that the writ of error in Ireland by which the cause be remove  from the common plea to the king bench there be not good because it be direct  John foster arm omit of to head justiciario de common banc and this be  apprehend to be a fault and not to be maintain the defendant in error upon  diminution allege get a certiorari to the chief justice of the king bench in  Ireland to certify the record as it stand before he in that court but he  certify the record to be right so that this appear to be the mistake of the  clerk only it be now move that it may be amend and accord it be amend three it  be object that this writ of error be of a error in reddition judgment loquel  queen to be in curian Ann Regin when the judgement be give in the common plea  in Ireland in the first year of the reign of king George the first to which it  be answer that the speech begin in the reign of the queen and the word queen  be a relative shall refer to that court of the queen fourthly the next  objection be that the writ of error to remove the record into the king bench  in England be returnable on such a day and that the archbishop do not modern  report appear within five term afterward so that the cause be discontinue to  which it be answer that the defendant in error may come in at any time nay he  need not come in at all until the plaintiff assign error it be true he may  come in if he please and bring a to know facias to compel the plaintiff to  assign error but this be at his election which the court agree the court  afterward affirm the judgement of the king bench in Ireland a writ of error be  thereupon bring in the house of peer and there this cause be argue upon the  merit the case as it stand upon the plead be thus the archbishop of Dublin  propose a visitation of this deanery as he be ordinary of the place and the  plaintiff in the prohibition not attend he be prosecute by the archbishop in  the spiritual court there and thereupon the plaintiff move for a prohibition  and have it upon a suggestion that this chapel be of royal foundation and  therefore exempt from any visitatorial power of the ordinary it be argue for  the dean that it be to be visit only by the king or his chancellor but not by  the ordinary because it be a royal foundation that when this be create a  deanery by the letter patent of the thirtythird year of Henry the eight it be  provide by the letter patent of creation that the archbishop shall have no  power over the deanery other than what he have before over the priory  therefore if he have any right he ought to have plead it and to have set forth  what power he have over the priory otherwise his plea be immaterial on the  other side it be argue that this be a ecclesiastical corporation be by common  intendment subject to the visitation of the ordinary of the place unless by  the letter patent of creation there have be a visitor appoint by the founder  for all such corporation be prima fancy subject to the jurisdiction of the  ordinary though they be find by the crown and so be Corbetts case in dyer the  only material point be whether this be a royal foundation or not which be not  the point in the case of this archbishop and dr Harrison some year pass who be  a prebend of this church for if the priory be not of royal foundation the  deanery into which it be translate by letter patent can be so but if it be of  royal foundation then the translation into dean and chapter modern report be  no prejudice to the founder for he remain founder still for nothing be alter  but the monastic modern report er p rule and habit and so it be hold in the  Rep a dean and chapter of norwich case in the thirty year of Henry the eight  in which year and by that king the priory and convent of the cathedral church  of the holy Trinity of Norwich be translate into the dean and chapter  therefore if nothing be alter by the translation then by consequence the  founder be not deprive of his right of patronage neither be the visitor  deprive of his right of visitation because it be still the same body corporate  though by another name the judgement be affirm