Brownlow goldsborough Huntley against cage high commissioner and their power  in minister oath and take oblition Henry Huntley be plaintiff in the high  Commissilon court against mary Clifford widow defendant Huntley pretend that  he be contract to the defendant and upon that complain to the high court of  commissioner and that she will marry her self to cage and upon that the arch  bishop then do grant a warrant to a pursuivant to attach cage and the say mary  Clifford and upon that they be arrest by force of the say warrant and upon  that they be commit to prison and be imprison a obligation of be take by the  say commissioner of the say mary Clifford by which she be bind to the king  with condition that she shall not marry her self nor contract to any other  until the same suit be determine in the same court and also to appear before  the judge of the arch within nine day after notice of that give and then be  dwell in Holborn after that sir William Armstrodder obtain the say obligation  of the king pretend that that be forfeit for that that the say mary Clifford  have marry her self to cage before that the say suit be end and determine and  upon that the say mary Clifford be another time cite before the high  commissioner and a suit be there promote against her ex duty by Serle the king  proctor who also have the that part of all fine and forfeiture which grow to  the king by reason of the ecclesiastical court and then be article against her  first that she be marry or contract to cage and to that she refuse to answer  for that that it be the direct question upon which the forfeiture of the bind  depend and then this article be refer to some doctor who upon consideration  seem that the article ought to be reform and upon that the article be make  that she live single and unmarried in dhouse with the say cage which be as  much as the first for she can not make any direct answer to that without  discover whether the bind be forfeit or not and upon all this matter a  prohibition be pray to the high Commission court for the say mary Clifford and  all the justice that be coke chief justice Walmsley Warburton and foster agree  that the obligation be void for that it be take by duress of imprisonment for  they can not imprison any second that they ought not to examine any man upon  his oath to make he to Brownlow goldsborough er p betray himself and to incur  any penalty pecuniary or corporal and foster cite a judgement in the exchequer  in Ralph bow case where a English bill be exhibit against one for bring into  England card without licence and one which have a Brownlow goldsborough  monopoly upon that exhibit the say bill and upon that the defendant demurrer  in law upon that and it be agree that the defendant shall not be compel to  answer to that upon oath for that that he have then incur the danger of a  penal statute three that they can take any obligation by which a man shall be  bind to appear in another court but only in the court where the obligation be  take no more than the judge of this court may take obligation of any man to  appear before the council in the north and walmesley also seem that these high  commissioner ought to meddle only with thing of the most high nature and not  of thing which concern matrimony and the ordinary jurisdiction and coke say  that the high commissioner can meddle with any civil cause betwixt party and  party as keep back tithe or not payment of a legacy and lawfulness of marriage  but the cause with which they intermeddle ought to be criminal for otherwise  they dissolve all ordinary jurisdiction and by their sentence every man shall  be conclude for he can appeal nor have any other remedy and also he say that  in civil cause the high commissioner can send a pursuivant to arrest any man  by his body for that be adjudge in Humptons case Elizabeth by Anderson and his  companion judge in the circuit in the county of Northampton with conference  have with all the judge in England where the case be a pursuivant have a  warrant to arrest the body of one for incontinency and to have he before the  high commissioner and a constable come in aid of the say pursuivant in  execution of his warrant and be slay and be adjudge as before that it be no  murder and the reason be for that that the high commissioner can award any  warrant or process to arrest the body of any man but if the warrant have be  award it be agree that it shall be murder but as this case be it be resolve to  be but manslaughter and also he say they can take in civil cause where they  have no jurisdiction but in criminal cause where they have jurisdiction it  seem they may take obligation as the case require but he will not dispute that  nor affirm or disaffirm it but as the principal case be the obligation be make  by duress and so it may be avoid and also he seem that they can not examine  any lie man upon his oath but in cause matrimonial and testamentar that and he  say so be the commonlaw before the make of that statute of point of time  allotment of land as it appear by a canon make by Ottanion which be a legate a  late from the pope in the h and canonical by which be recite that where such  as be draw in length because that lie man be examine upon their oath and  therefore it be provide that lie man shall be examine upon their Brownlow  goldsborough oath although it do not concerti cause testamentary nor  matrimonial the custom of England to the contrary thereof notwithstanding see  fitzherberts naturan narrow places Cromptons justice of peace fol b register b  and hind case Elizabeth or the margin in Scrogs case dyer b so also Lanaberts  justice of peace that those thing be to be give in charge by the Justiceg of  assize and coke say that the writ in the register be frame before the statute  of articuli allotment of land and also be cite one lees case who be commit for  hear of a mass and refuse to be examine upon that upon his oath and have a  prohibition and so he agree that a prohibition shall be grant and upon that it  be award accord note that a prohibition be grant to the high Commission court  for that that they examine the lawfulness of a marriage Symonds v green  BrownIow and goldsborough er Symonds against green high Commission clandestine  marriage note one suit be before the high commissiones and sixteen be bring by  pursuivant before they for that that they be present at a clandestine marriage  and it be urge that this be not to he punish by any inferior ordinary in any  of their consistory for the contract be make in the diocese of the bishop of  Worcester and the marriage in the diocese of Gloucester and the priest which  marry they inhabit in the diocese of Oxford and yet prohibition be award and  the justice be of the opinion that every of they for which the pursuivant be  Brownlow goldsborough er p send may have a action of false imprisonment  against he for they can use any other process but citation only admiral court  admiralty court if atbing do beyond sea shall be there try note that it be  urge by Haugton that the intent of the statute of r chapter be not to inbibite  the admiral court to hold plea of any thing make beyond sea but odd of thing  make within the realm which pertain to the commonlaw and it be not in  prejudice of the king or commonlaw if he hold plea over the sea and that this  be the intent of the statute appear by the preamble but to this coke say that  the office of the admiral be a ancient office though it have be otherwise  conceive by some for he have see record and libel and proceed in the time of  king John where he be call Marina England in the time of Edward and also be  say that the word of the statute be in the negative that be that the admiral  nor his deputy do not meddle from henceforth of any thing do Brownlow  goldsborough within the realm but only thing do upon the sea and he say that  it be adjudge in one wrights case that a thing make at Constantinople shall  not be try in the admiralty for it ought to be make upon the deep sea  otherwise they shall hold no trial of that see or of Edward Edward f  obligation and if a man be slay or murder beyond sea the offender shall not be  punish in the admiralty walmesley and Warburton justice agree that if a thing  be do beyond the sea and may be try by the commonlaw there the admiral court  shall have no jurisdiction but if a obligation hear date beyond sea or be so  local that it can be try by the commonlaw there if the admiral hold plea of  that prohibition shall not be award for it be not to the prejudice of the king  nor of the commonlaw but if the party can have his remedy by the commonlaw the  commonlaw shall be prefer and if at the commonlaw one matter come in question  upon a conveyance or other instrument make beyond sea accord to the course of  the civil law or other law of the nation where it be make the judge ought to  consult with the civilian or other which be expert in the same law and accord  to their information give judgement though that it be make in such form that  the commonlaw can make any construction of it michaelmas jacob in the common  bench agreement by word to keep back tithe if a parson agree and contract with  I that I shall keep back my own tithe if that be make after that I have sow my  corn and for the same year only this shall be good and if the parson sue in  the spiritual court for the tithe I shall have a prohibition but if it be for  more year than one or before the corn be sow this shall not be good by coke  and foster against Warburton and coke say it be adjudge in the king bench in  parson booth case that a contract make with a parishioner for keep back of his  tithe for so many year as he shall be parson be not good and so it be Wellowes  case here also but it be agree by they all that such a contract or agreement  for the tithe of any other be void but only of the party himself which be  party to agreement and that ought to be make by way of keep they back see  beforey easter of James see h and the h b pasche James in the common bench  where a prohibition shall be grant without action hang the question be upon a  motion to have a prohibition the precedent and Council of Wales if that shall  be grant without action hang and coke chief justice say that the record of the  book of h agree with the report and be witness John Prisott Brownlow  goldsborough and Edward be adjudge in the point but yet be advice that there  shall be information walmesley justice say that this be no action but coke  foster and Warburton say that it be a action sufficient upon which a pro  Brownlow goldsborough er p hibition shall be grant and coke say that if they  hold plea of a thing out of their instruction he will grant prohibition  without action hang but if they proceed in erroneous manner in a thing which  be within their instruction he will not grant prohibition without action hang  or information