bear against hodge bear be plaintiff against Hodge for take of his cattle the  defendant be know as bailiff to Thomas wise who be seize of twenty acre c  whereof the land in question be parcel in fee and that it be lease to Harris  for year if he and his two son shall so long live and render a rend at the  four usual term in the year and the best beast at the death of every one of  the three in the name of a heriot or at the election of the lessor and now for  rend hetley arrear at Michaelmas and for a heriot after the death of Harris he  avow c the plaintiff confess the lease and reservation and as to the heriot he  demurrer but for the rend he say that he tender the rend upon the land towards  the latter time of Michaelmas day and that none be there to receive it and  that afterward he tender it to the lessor himself out of the land and he  refuse it and that after that time no demand be make but that he after the  tender always be and yet be tenent c and bring the money into court and upon  that he demurrer henden say the avowant may distrain without any new demand  and that case have be adjudge in this court before for although that the rend  be tender yet it remain due notwithstanding and then he be able to distrain  throw in this court rot Crowley bring a replevin against Kingsmill who avow  for that the plaintiff hold of he by fealty and S rend and for the rend be  distreyned the plaintiff and that at the day be tender the rend upon the land  none be there to receive it as it be say c and upon debate it be adjudge that  he may distrain without demand Rep mands case you may see that a rentseck  shall not be distrain after tender without demand for if by his demand he be  entitle to his action then there ought to be a new demand e e h cite in  pilkington case if you will be excuse of the distress there ought to be a  tender of the arrearage at the time of the distress Richardson Hutton and  Harvey all agree that the distress be good to have the rend but not to recover  hetley er p damage because he do not all he may do and Richardson say that h h  e e and the case in the assize and the whole current of book be to the same  purpose Harvey justice say that if a tender be upon a obligation at the day be  save the penalty but if another demand be afterward and he refuse to pay he  can plead unquen priest and justice crook cite a case in the king bench  Elizabeth between crop and Hambleton where a rend upon a lease be reserve to  be pay at Michaelmas and if by forty day after c and in the mean time after  the first and before the last the lessee tender to the lessor himself and  adjudge that it save the forfeiture for it be for his ease that he ought to  tender upon the land and by the same reason also when he have tender it to the  person himself and say that it be uncore priest and will demurrer upon that  and not take advantage of his nontender at the distress the damage be save but  Yelverton be against that for it be agree that a distress be local so then we  can sever damage when the law have couple they and make incident to the  distress say adjournatur c tithe one libel for tithe of fish which be due mere  by customer and the defendant plead that time out of mind c they have pay no  tithe of that and henden sergeant move for a prohibition and Richardson reply  and say it be mere a customary tithe as rabbit c whereof no tithe be due by  the law of the land and a prohibition shall not be grant but all the other  justice affirm that there shall be a prohibition grant because that the custom  ought to be try by the commonlaw and they make a difference between modus kill  which be also customary and where there be a tithe precedent due and that  modus convert it into another duty there no prohibition shall be grant but it  shall be try in the spiritual court whether there be such a modus kill or not  and that case in the custom make the duty it self but he allege the modus to  be for two penny and the parson for three penny shall be try by the come  hetley mon law and they say that so be the opinion in the grand case of lead  over and Hutton say that so it be determine in the case of one berry for tithe  of limekills which be as mineral and be not tithable by the commonlaw but when  the custom be try then they in the ecclesiastical court may proceed upon it