coke a SPECOTS case hill Elizabeth in the king bench on a Writ of error see  Heywood v bishop of Manchester QBD in quare hinder by one claim for life under  a will a presentment by the devizee for life himself be sufficient and a  presentment need not be allege in the devisor schismatic make old be too  general to be allege as the cause of the refusal of a clerk so non be fit  general or guilty man general be not sufficient the cause of refusal ought to  be allege in particular that the party may answer it all such cause as be  sufficient to deprive a incumbent be sufficient to refuse a presentee the king  may remove a coroner by writ direct to he for a cause which shall not be  traverse the plaintiff in a quare hinder may take his judgement at the  commonlaw and relinquish the benefit of the statute S C Anders Goldsb Leon  jenk cent Carth skin c salk Humphrey Specot Esq and Elizabeth his wife pasch  Elizabeth bring a quare hinder against the bishop of Exeter and declare that  John Arscot be seize of the manor of Tedcote in the county of Devon to which  the advowson of the church of Tedcote be appendant in fee and hold it in  socage and be so seize I Jan Ph m by his will in write devise the say manor  with the appurt to which c to the say Elizabeth for term of her life and die  by which the say Elizabeth enter into the say manor and be thereof seize for  term of her life and take to husband the say Humphrey and they presented to  the say church then be void David Walter who be admit institute and induct in  time of a Doct pl a peace c and afterward the church become void by the death  of the say David Walter and yet be void and so it do appertain to the  plaintiff to present and that the bishop do disturb they c the bishop plead  that the say church to be infra diocese svan whoever it be ipse nothing to  have nec to have proclaim in church that c nisi admission institution  induction a mask c and that the say church kindness cum spear air c and that  the say David Walter Nov die quod church prdida vacavi Self bishop adtunc the  same church regular existen et beyond idem bishop dait quod predict Humrid  infra sex menses neighbor post death coke report b er p predict David a put  civil Exonice in come the same civil prsentavit eiden bishop lunc ordinary  eccles prd a certain Johan Holmes ut clergyman suum ad church predictam such  vacaniem the same bishop re uirens quod ipse the same Johan Holmes admitlere  ipsumque in ead ecclesid instiluere to lead in to make to deem worthy super  quo idem episc ut eccles prd of order at c prd johan Holmes such prosentat de  ability idoneitale svan in here part second law ecclesiast weigh ut de jure to  withhold et sup what examinationem coke b svan idem episc adtunc ibidem come  upon r fat Johann Holmes before schismatic make old ac the same Johann Holmes  ed occasion per law sacrosanct eccles before mask inhabit too little fit ad  acceptand some kindness cum spear air per quod idem bishop ut eccles that  ordinary adtunc ibidem recusavil admillere pace Johann Holmes ad church  predictam and plead that be of the cause of refusal aforesaid give notice to  the say Humphrey c upon which the plea do demurrer in law and it be adjudge in  the common plea that the bishop plea be insufficient because be show general  that he be a Doct pl roll Rep Bulst Leon and Cr Elizabeth hob a schismatic  inveterate and on this judgement a writ of error be bring in the king bench by  the say bishop and two error be assign in the record because no presentment be  allege in the devisor but only in the devisees for life but non allocatur for  the b Doct pl postea b   b roll Cr Elizabeth more and f n b livre Leon b  presentment of the devisee a lessee be in the original edition but it seem to  be a misprint for devisee a be a sufficient title for himself without question  c h b Fitzherbert quare hinder c h error be assign that the court err in law  in give judgement against the bishop for the insufficiency of his plea where  his plea be sufficient and it be object by the bishop counsel that the bishop  need not show any particular schism for if he show it the court can either  decide or examine it because it be a spiritual thing which lie not in their  conusance as it be hold h a b that for call a man d Inst   a a hob Br action  sur Le case d heretic no action on the case lie in our law for those of the  commonlaw can determine what be heresy and in h a it be agree by all the  justice that the bishop in examination be judge and not a minister and  therefore the law give faith and credit to his judgement and it be say that it  be a good cause Mod to remove a e   b f n b n postea b e coroner from his  office general because he be minus fit ad duty mock exequend as appear by the  register and f n b b that the court of chancery have power to remove a coroner  for misconduct or for live out of the county Vid atk ex part Parnell James  walk b but it be answer and resolve that the plea of the bishop be  insufficient first it be declare by the stat de a Goldsb dyer pl Inst de point  of time allotment of land cap     a Bulstr roll Rep more e pl a articul  allotment of land c that de idoneitate person prsentat ad kindness ecclesiast  per linet examinatio ad judge Church rites c ut near defect scient something  else a cause rationabilium so that it appear there ought to be a reasonable  cause causan roving making indistinct non be the pure milk of reason for it be  common say quod crafty to turn often in universal and by the reason which have  be make that the general allegation of the plaintiff shall be good in the case  at bar it be good because the bishop in examination be judge c Lord Ellesmere  in his observation on the report p after observe that coke in his report of  trollop case Rep start aside to other matter than the point of the judgement  say the like fancy be show in Specots case that the bishop refuse a clerk  present to he for schism shall be force to return the special point wherein  the party be a schismatic yet he deny not but the judge of the commonlaw can  neither examine nor judge the point of schism no more than of heresy c by the  same reason it may be main coke report a er p tained that he may refuse any  clerk because non be fit general or because he be b side roll Rep b guilty man  general but although he be judge in examination yet forasmuch as the proceed  of the bishop be not of c Doct pl c record the cause of the refusal coke a be  d Doct pl d traversable and if it be traverse and the party refuse be alive it  shall be try by the metropolitan and if he be dead it shall be try by the e  Inst e country d qy whether such a general averment be not sufficient in Hele  v the bishop of Exeter and other show parliament Cas it be hold that it be a  good plea on the part of the bishop that the presentee be minus sufficient in  literature without state in what particular and Vid the observation of Lord  Ellenborough king v archbishop of Canterbury and bishop of London east d and  if such a general allegation of bishop shall be admit oh which the patron  shall not have answer because the bishop in his examination be judge the cause  be spiritual as it have be object patron will suffer great prejudice in these  time in their presentation in e f Leon Goldsb Fitzherbert quare imp dyer pl  roll lev f the bishop plaintiff show for cause of refusal that the presentee  have acknowledge himself to be perjure c and so guilty man by which it appear  that the allege that he be guilty man general be not good for no certain issue  can be take thereupon et to waver in opinion there whether there the bishop  ought not to say in facto that he be perjure and not that he have confess  himself perjure in r trial it be agree for good law that if a miscreant or  schismatic be present admit and induct it be a good cause of deprivation so if  he be irreligious he may be refuse as it be say in h but wb n he be charge  with the one or refuse for the other it ought to be allege in particular so  that the party may answer to it and it be observe that it appear in our book  that the cause of refusal ought to be certain as in h h that the presentee be  a bastard roll g villain within age or illiterate c and h that the patron have  be h roll lev Bl Com h excommunicate by day and therefore his presentee be not  to be admit or that the presentee have commit manslaughter as it be hold in e  or that the presentee be outlaw for then he be not fit mask or one who be mere  layman mich Elizabeth I dyer pl I dyer vide Elizabeth king hob Goldsb godb  roll dyer pl king dyer the bishop of Norwich refuse one because he be a  haunter of tavern and a player at unlawful game ob quod to visit alian sin he  be guilty man non fit and it be adjudge that the particular cause be not  sufficient for they be not mala in see but a Bulstr hob roll roll Leon Leon a  mala prohibit and quod ob diverse alian sin he be guilty man non fit be too  general and incertain as e in tender of a marriage and refusal the heir ought  to allege a certain cause of the refusal whereof issue may be take and it be  resolve that all such as be b roll b sufficient cause to deprive be incumbent  be sufficient to refuse a presentee and although it do not appertain to the  king court to determine schism or c wing Max h a b c heresy yet the original  cause of the suit be matter whereof the king court have conusance the cause of  the schism or heresy for which the presentee be refuse ought to be allege in  certain to the intent that the k s court may consult with divine to know coke  b whether it be schism or do and if the party be dead thereupon to direct the  jury that try it coke report a er p and as to the case of the d before b   b f  n b n d coroner which have be put it be answer that it be not to be compare to  the case of a presentee for such allegation be not sufficient as it be confess  by both side either to refuse a presentee or to deprive a incumbent because he  be mask minus idon general and the coroner at the commonlaw have but the keep  of the roll or the plead of the crown e Stanf cor d e but the incumbent have  the care and keep of soul and therefore the law require more circumspection  and certainty in the one case than in the other the king may remove a coroner  by writ direct to he for a cause which shall not be traverse as appear in f n  b thou this be not warrant by f n b it be extraordinary that there be a note  there that the cause be not traversable and vouch   for it and the note be  always say to be write by Lord hale I have compare f n b with old edition  which agree with the modern and the vouch these case as a authority be absurd  note in serjeant hill copy No notice need be give to a coroner of a petition  for his removal and per Lord chancellor Eldon the party remove by a writ de  crowner exonerand may have a commission to inquire whether the cause assign  for his removal be true though he can traverse it ex part Parnell I James walk  e and so not like this case then another error not assign be move see that for  the insufficiency of the bishop plea the court give judgement for the  plaintiff therefore considerate be quod prd e recupere vers predict bishop  prsentation suum ad church prdietam to have breve Jo b archbishop Cantuar  tolius England primate loci that metropolitan eastern quod prd episc be pars c  et idem episc in pity and afterward a writ to inquire of the value of the  church be award and the value and other point of the writ find and return and  upon that judgement be enter again see that the plaintiff shall have a writ to  the archbish ut above et quod recupere versus prd episc financial loss c et  prd evisc in pity so that a bishop be f roll f twice amerce and every  amercement g roll g of a bishop be and in this case he ought not by the law to  be twice amerce and therefore this difference be take if a man bring trespass  against two and one be find guilty to damage by himself and the other be find  guilty to damage by himself in that case each defendant shall be several  amerce and the plaintiff shall be also several amerce against each of they as  appear in e but in a action against a roll   a   a a one and the same  defendant or tenant and the defendant or tenant plead one plea to part and  another plea to the residue or confess part and plead to issue for the other  part and the several issue be find against he yet the defendant or tenant  shall not be twice amerce and therewith agree e by Herle h wherefore it be  conclude that forasmuch as the bishop be one and the same person be twice  amerce and in this case it be error against which it be answer by one of  counsel with the defendant that the latter be only a recital of the former and  so to give a full judgement of all with the damage and not a new judgement for  he can have two writ to the metropolitan no more than he can be b salk jenk  cent roll b twice amerce but if it be agreeableness trick admit that the  latter judgement be erroneous yet the c roll c first judgement be good and  perfect in itself and shall not be impeach for any error in the a second  judgement for the first judgement be the judgement which be in the quare  hinder at the commonlaw for before the stat of west cap the plaintiff in a  quare hinder do not recover damage d   a   light b b Inst Inst Cr Elizabeth d  and the plaintiff after the say statute may take the judgement e jenk cent e  at the commonlaw and relinquish the benefit of the statute if he will coke  report a er p quod concession to be per totan curian for which cause the  defendant in error counsel pray that the judgement may be affirm and so it be  note reader the matter in law be resolve and adjudge by both court