case SYDOWNE against holme in prohibition to a suit for tithe of abbey land if  it appear that the abbot be exempt from the payment of they at the time of the  dissolution it shall be intend a exemption by reason of personal privilege and  not on account of any composition real S C Jones SC roll ab     Inst hob cro  Elizabeth cro James hard Com dig Bac ab will land appurtenant to religious  house or to abbey give to the king on the dissolution of the lesser abbey  under l ayear by the Henry c be not exempt from the payment of tithe for the  privilege be not revive by Henry c prohibition surmise that the prior of  Bristol be seize in fee of such land parcel of his priory and that he and all  his predecessor time whereof c until the dissolution hold the say land be  parcel of the demesne of the say priory discharge and acquit from the payment  of tithe for his fermors and tenant for life or year of the say land c and  that the say priory be dissolve by the Henry c and that the say king be seize  in fee of the say land c and show the statute of Henry c that none shall be  sue for tithe who be discharge by the law and statute of the realm and the  statute of Edward c and that king Henry the eight die seize of the say land  and so convey it by mean conveyance to Edward battle and to the plaintiff as  his tenant for year and that the parson of Bristol sue he for tithe upon that  prohibition the defendant demurrer in law and after argument at the bar it be  argue at the bench the first question be upon this discharge be show to be  time whereof c in a spiritual person videlicet the prior whether this  privilege thereof be determine by the dissolution of the priory or still  remain and may be in the king and his patentee without the aid of the Henry c  and Henry S c and I argue that in regard it be discharge time whereof c in a  spiritual person videlicet the prior and convent who be capable to have or to  be discharge of tithe it be a privilege vest in they before the council of  lateran which be before any parochial right it may by intendment be by  composition real and then it shall go with the laud as Edward pl and f n b g  that croak car any layperson may have a composition and thereupon may have a  prohibition much more croak car er p a spiritual person may have it by this  mean c and it shall go with the land vide Edward pl Henry pl that a spiritual  person may make such a prescription and then be a prescription fix in a  spiritual person by the dissolution it come to the king be mask to mix and  from he to his patentee as bp Winchester case a and priddle v napper b but  Brampston Jones and Berkley argue to the contrary yet they agree that it shall  be intend that such discharge be by composition real and shall go with the  land as the case put of a common person which be that a layperson shall have  advantage of a real composition if he can show it but because a spiritual  person may have diverse cause of privilege by grant as well as by composition  and that in diverse manner it shall be intend the most general course which be  a personal discharge which determine with their corporation as in Edward pl  and in favour of the church it shall be intend that it be rather by grant of  privilege than by any real composition and that the tithe be due to the parson  and shall not be take from he unless that the discharge continue which be not  here show the second main question be admit that this discharge be by  privilege grant to the priory which be one of the inferior abbey come to the  king by the Henry c be out of the value of l per annum whether this privilege  be not mere determine or whether it be not revive by the Henry c and Henry c  and in this point I argue that it be aid by the Henry c because that give the  possession of the abbey to the king in as ample and large manner as the abbot  have they at the time of the dissolution and it be discharge at the time of  the dissolution and if it be not aid by the Henry c yet it be to be aid by the  Henry c by the general clause which be that the king and his patentee of any  monastery c shall have and enjoy the same discharge of the payment of tithe c  as the late abbot c have hold and enjoy c and whereas it have be object that  this statute extend only to abbey which come to the king after the four of  February Henry c but this abbey come to the king the four of February Henry c  and so exclude out of this statute I answer thereto that this statute extend  to abbey surrender relinquish renounce or give up to the king after the four  of Februry Henry c and that be intend to extend to all abbey which be give by  the Henry c for although it have not relation to the four of February Henry c  yet this be but a foreign surmise by such relation to prejudice the king as it  be   a relation be but fiction which shall not prejudice the king by such  construction and in rei in point of fact all the say abbey be surrender or  relinquish after the four of February Henry c or during that parliament and  the exposition have always be that this clause extend as well to abbey croak  car which come after the statute of Henry c as to the superior abbey and never  any question make in these time or in sixty year after the make of the say  statute and therefore the case of v Hayant a Cogall v Fairfax b and smith v  Patenson c be cite where prohibition be grant upon surmise that the land come  to the king by the Henry c and that in berly v Walter d a prohibition upon the  surmise for this land be grant where it be in question whether where continual  usage have be that as well for inferior abbey give to the king by the Henry c  as to abbey which come after and hold their land discharge such prohibition  shall be grant I hold it to be a equal mischief as well for the one as for the  other and that the statute extend equal remedy and so the exposition have be  always take by the practice but Brampston chief justice Jones and Berkley  argue to the contrary that a   b   a Elizabeth roll in b r b easter term  Elizabeth roll in b r c easter term Elizabeth d Elizabeth roll croak car er p  the Henry c do not preserve or revive this privilege because there be not any  word that it shall be discharge as the abbot hold it but that the king shall  have it in as ample manner and form as the abbot hold it and general word will  never preserve the privilege and immunity which be determine unless by special  statute they be revive and the statute of Henry c do not extend to they for  all the scope of the say statute be only to extend to abbey which come to the  king after the four of February Henry and all abbey which come to the king by  the statute of Henry c come to he the four of February Henry and to those the  statute of Henry S c do not intend to extend for in every branch be mention  only the abbey c which come to the king after Henry and although this clause  to be discharge of tithe in the body of the say clause be any monastery c yet  it be after the say late abbot c and abbot be not mention before in that  clause and therefore it ought to be expound and couple with the clause before  which mention and intend only what come to the king after the four of February  Henry and do not extend to abbey which come to the king the four of February  Henry and Jones say although it be no statute until the end of the session  when the king assent yet when there have be a session it shall have such  relation to the first day of the session that they vest actual in the king the  say four day of February Henry that the king shall have the rend incur after  the first day and before the last day and if they be pay in the interim to the  abbot they shall be pay again to the king Jones and Brampston rely upon the  judgement in Gerrard v wright e where it be hold upon solemn argument by  Hobart winch and Hutton justice that the Henry c do not extend to abbey which  come to the king by the Henry c and the case of Whitton v Weston f for the  possession of the abbey of saint John of Jerusalem where the question be croak  car whether the say abbey come to the king by the special Act of Henry c all  the four justice agree that the case of Gerrard v wright be good law that the  abbey which come to the king by the Henry c be not within the privilege of  Henry c nor to have the benefit of that statute and Berkley justice insist  much that this privilege to be discharge of tithe be a mere personal privilege  be determine by the dissolution of the abbey and tie only to their body and  person nor can be revive without special word which be not in the Henry c and  that although the Henry c extend to the say abbey suppress by the Henry c yet  there be a save in the say Henry c of all right and interest beside to the  donor abbot c wherefore for the reason before but principal for that the abbey  dissolve appear to be suppress by the statute of Henry c by the opinion of the  say three justice it be adjudge for the defendant and consultation award