case baker against rogers Michaelmas term Elizabeth roll see Mdrtin v Mackoi Q  b d App Cas p if a stranger contract with a patron for the grant of a  presentation after the church be void and present a person not privy to the  contract the grant be void as be of a choose in action but the presentee shall  not therefore he consider as a usurper but as a simoniacus preferred thing  because he be present in pursuance of a corrupt contract ante the sentence of  a spiritual court in simony be to he take as true though in its consequence it  divest the incumbent of his freehold prohibition upon demurrer the case be one  Broughton seize in fee of the advowson of Barby the church be void Thomas  baker contract before the pardon Elizabeth with Broughton for this avoidance  Broughton for grant it to Thomas baker who by colour of that grant present  Walter baker his brother the now plaintiff who be admit institute and induct  thereto after his induction and before the pardon Thomas baker acquaint the  plaintiff what he pay for that avoidance require he to have consideration  thereof after the pardon Walter baker be sue in the spiritual court before the  high commissioner for simony and the proof there be no more than as before be  show he be sentence that this be simony and that Walter baker be as a intruder  and his admission and institution utter void and as if he never have be parson  for so be their course there when one be deprive as simoniacus thereupon he  bring the prohibition comprise all this matter and the pardon and that he be  not a person except the defendant plead the Act of Elizabeth c S which give  authority to the high croak Elizabeth commissioner and the sentence before  they and pray a consultation but mispleaded the Act in the date videlicet that  January for d January c a it be thereupon demurrer first it be move that this  presentation be not by simony for although the contract be simoniacal for the  avoidance yet it be a mere void grant for the church be void the avoidance can  be grant because it be a thing in action quod to be move ssum b then when a  see Bac ab b the true reason why it be not good be the public utility in guard  against simony not the fictitious reason of its be a choose in action ld  Mansfield burr croak Elizabeth er p he present he gain it by usurpation and  the presentee be in by that presentment by usurpation and not by the  simoniacal contract second although this he simony in the presentor yet ibis  acquaint of the presentee therewith after the induction make it not to he any  simony in he but he be quasi accessary thereto which offence be not except in  the pardon although simony itself be except and the exposition of a pardon  helongs to the commonlaw and not to the spiritual court in Elizabeth n this  court in the case of one fox who be deprive during the parliament for  incontinency before the pardon and another admit institute and induct and  afterward the pardon discharge the offence it be adjudge that this deprivation  and the other admission also be both of they utter void the court hold that  the prohibition lie not for as to the first although the presentee come in  quasiper usurpation yet because it be by mean of a simoniacal contract which  be the cause thereof for otherwise it be to he intend that he will not have  permit that presentment it be hold that it be as well simony as if the grant  have not be void as to the second thev hold it to he simony for there be not  any accessary in simony but all be principal therein as well as in trespass  and it appertain to the spiritual court to determine it and not to this court  to meddle therewith and when the spiritual court have so sentence it this  court ought to give credence thereto and ought not to dispute whether it he  error or not for this court can take conusance of their proceed whether the he  lawful or not which be the reason that in this court it suffice to plead a  sentence out of the spiritual court brief without show the manner thereof or  of their proceed and as the case be in Lord dyer if the spiritual court will  certify the especial matter upon a certificate of matrimon or bastardy or the  like it be not good but they ought to certify precise the one way or other for  this court can adjudge of that special matter but it appertain to their law to  determine it and although it be say that in the spiritual court they ought not  to have intermeddle to divest the freehold which be in the incumbent after the  induction true it be they shall not meddle to alter the freehold but they  meddle only with his manner of obtain his presentment which by consequence  divest the freehold from he by the dissolution of his estate when his  admission and institution be avoid as to the misrecital of the statute it be  not material because it be in bar and the prohibition itself lie not and they  all hold that it be simony in the incumbent although he be not privy thereto  at the first croak Elizabeth simony be define to he v oluntas sive desiderium  correct well to sell Of we tualibus adhcerentia and Warberton say that if one  he present by simony and he who be present be party or privy to the simony he  sb will he deprive and always disable to take any other henefice but if he he  present by simony hetween two stranger whereto he be not privy he be  deprivable by reason of the corruption but not disable to take any other and  that be the rule of the civil law wherefore they all after several argument  agree that the prohibition lie not and consultation be award note No  consultation award upon the roll see Ann c