case crouch against fryer the copyholder of spiritual person may prescribe in  non decimand ante post more SC yely roll ab Noy Danv ab pale yellow ten see  the case of Stephenson v hill burr in point prohibition for sue for tithe c  wherein be surmise that the bishop of Winton be seize in fee of the manor of  BishopsWalton whereof the plaintiff be a copyholder in fee and that he and his  predecessor from time whereof c have be patron of the church of e whereof the  defendant be parson and that he and his predecessor from time whereof c and  all his farmors and copyholder of the say manor have be discharge of tithe c  and show that this land be ancient copyhold of the manor demisable from time  whereof c and because the parson sue for tithe and the court Christian will  not allow of that plea in discharge he bring the prohibition and upon this  surmise the defendant demurrer Tanfield for the defendant move that the  surmise be not sufficient to ground this prohibition for although the bishop  himself be a spiritual person may prescrihe to he discharge c because by  intendment they may he so before the Council of lateran b reason whereofftheir  farmors for year or tenant at will may be so discharge because thev be the  possession of the bishop himself as it have be adjudge in wright case yet it  be not so for copyhold which be also ground by custom before time of memory so  it can by intendment be the croak Elizabeth er p possession of the bishop at  the time of the say council but have continue in croak Elizabeth the hand of  the copyholder a long time before for otherwise it can not he copy hold and in  Elizabeth t be rule by advice of all the justice ul on a case depend in the  exchequer that although the queen shall not pay tithe for her own possession  because she ispersona to mix and so may well retain they yet if she grant they  by patent in fee or her copyholder of inheritance they shall pay tithe for  they do not participate of the queen prerogative therein and this copyholder  who be before time c can prescrihe for then there will he two time of memory  which be repugnant in itself coke contra for although a lie person at the  commonlaw can not prescrihe to he discharge of tithe because he be not capable  of such spiritual thing yet as be tenant to a spiritual corporation he may  prescrihe in they but not in himself for all those copyhold be derive out of  the manor which be the possession of the bishop and the freehold yet abide in  the bishop a for this resorption be for the bishop benefit for thereby he  shall have the great fine from his copyholder especial the lord of the manor  who have the advowson may so prescrihe because it may be it be so at the  foundation that he and his copyholder shall he so discharge which be the  reason in cotton case b that the lord of a manor in respect of a recompense  give to the parson shall have the tithe of his tenant and so pi horned owl v  Hern c be rule but Popham and Fenner hold that this prescription be ill  because the copyholder be intend to he before the Council of lateran at which  time every one may give his tithe where he will and spiritual person may  prescrihe to retain they to themselves but they ought to prescrihe in  themselves and their predecessor and not in a and estate of the manor and then  a copyholder can prescrihe to retain they himself and so by consequence he can  prescrihe to he discharge but a bishop may prescrihe to have the tithe of his  copyholder which shall be good against the parson and upon the erection of the  patronage it can not he allow that copyholder shall retain their land  discharge which always shall he out of the lord possession and they ought to  be appoint how they shall go by he who have then the possession before the  council make and that be intend to he the copyholder himself but of lessee for  year it be otherwise for they shall he intend to he the possession of the  bishop himself at the time of the council gawdy and Clench doubt thereof  wherefore adjournatur Edward pl note that in easter term Elizabeth this case  be argue again and then gawdy Fenner and Yelverton resolve that this  prescription wall good for all copyhold be derive out of the manor and ib  shall he intend that this prescription have its commencement at such time when  all be in the lord hand and the one prescription be not contrarient to the  other although both be from time whereof c for the one shall give place to the  other and this objection may he where a copyholder prescrihes for common or  the like which be usual but Popham hold his former opinion yet notwithstanding  it be adjudge for the plaintiff