case Gerrard against wright Hilary term James roll the land which be  appurtenant to the lesser abbey under the value of l a year give to king Henry  the eight by Henry c and dissolve by Henry c be not exempt from the payment of  tithe although between the gift and the dissolution they be grant to one of  the great abbey the land of which be discharge from tithe as free as they be  at the time of their dissolution Ante Jones hob cro car   more Com dig Com dig  Bac ab croak James er p the perpetual unity of a church and land be not of  itself a discharge from tithe for the tithe be collateral to the land be not  extinguish but only suspend by the union and when the union cease they be  Payable land therefore belong to the lesser abbey though annex to a great  abbey yet not be exempt by Henry c become liable upon the dissolution make by  that statute land which come to the crown by the Edward c l be not exempt from  the payment of tithe by Henry c prohibition in the common plea the case be  that the prior and convent of Hatfield broadoak in the county of Essex be  seize in fee of the rectory appropriate of Hatfield broadoak and of a farm  call downhall in the say parish time whereof c and the say priory be dissolve  by the statute of Henry c be one of the small monastery in the twentyninth  year of the say king grant all the priory of Hatfield and their possession to  the prioress and nun of bark the that Henry croak throw the prioress and nun  of bark by deed enrol surrender their possession to king Henry the eight  afterward the statute of Henry c be make the rectory of Hatfield be grant to  Trinity college in Cambridge who let it to the defendant and the say farm of  Hatfield wonder S afterward grant to one who let it to the plaintiff the  defendant sue the plaintiff in the courtchristian for tithe of the say farm  and he bring thereupon a prohibition contain all this matter and it be  thereupon demurrer after argument at the bar and bench judgement be give for  the defendant that consultation shall be award for Hutton winch and Hobart  resolve for the defendant first they hold that appropriation to such abbey be  give to the king by the statute of Henry c for all tithe church c to they  belong and what concern any way their profit be give second because very much  of the possession of such inferior priory consist in rectory appropriate and  the intent be to give they to the king three proxy and synodals be reserve to  the bishop for they proper belong to the bishop out of the appropriation  fourthly because there be a save of all right and interest of all person other  than the founder donor and patron a if the appropriation itself shall be  dissolve by the dissolution of the body whereto it be annex it never be the  intent that the advowson shall return to the patron wherefore this show the  intent of the statute that it shall be give to the king and shall never be  dissolve a a second point resolve by they be that a perpetual unity of a  church appropriate and the land be not any discharge of the tithe of itself  and the statute of Henry c do not give any discharge but give only the  possession as they be in the hand of the abbot and that refer to the  possession and not to the tithe out of they which be collateral thing and so  there be diverse discharge of tithe first real composition which a layman may  have second discharge by reason of order as cistercians c three by reason of  papal bull fourthly by prescription which ought to be only by a spiritual  corporation and if the statute of Henry c have not be make the personal  discharge as by bull or by reason of order have be discharge also for that the  person to who they be annex be dissolve therefore to prevent it the statute be  make which ordain that where any monastery be discharge from the payment of  tithe in such case the king shall hold the land discharge notwithstanding the  corporation to which such privilege be annex be dissolve and there be not any  clause to this purpose in Henry c and this statute of Henry c do not extend to  monastery dissolve by the statute of Henry c therefore this reason of unity of  possession be not any discharge in itself of the tithe and the statute of  Henry c do not extend to the land in question because it do not intend to give  a discharge but to the land which come to the king after the four of February  Henry and these land in question croak throw be not give within that time  therefore the discharge give by the statute of Henry c do not extend to they  see for this   green v Balser a a say vide whitlow v Weston Jones and star v  Elliot freeman croak James er p land give by the statute of Edward c have not  the benefit of the statute of Henry c and all the clause of Henry c which  touch the possession of the monastery have relation to those land which come  to the king after the four of February Henry and although this clause of  discharge of tithe be in general term yet it shall have relation to the land  which be before mention also in the clause it be mention which be the say  abbot which be to be intend to be the abbey mention in the say statute of  Henry c justice Hutton cite a judgement in the exchequer in this point in the  case of liver v read Elizabeth but Warburton justice argue to the contrary for  he hold that appropriation be not give to the king by the statute of Henry c  wherefore to supply that defect the statute of Henry c be make therefore those  appropriation be give by the statute of Henry c the say discharge extend unto  they second the intent of the statute of Henry c be to give equal discharge to  the one as to the other as well to the land give by the statute of Henry c as  to the land give by Henry c and upon this reason be the case of the land of  the prior of saint John of Jerusalem in dyer but notwithstanding consultation  be grant note this case be so report by justice Jones p hilary term James in  the king bench sir James lea Knt chief justice sir John Doderidge Knt sir  Robert Houghton Knt sir Thomas chamberlain Knt justice sir Thomas Coventry Knt  attorney general Robert heath Esq solicitor general case memorandum the first  day of February this term sir James lea late attorney of the court of ware be  make chief justice of the king bench the Lord chancellor come and sit in court  and sir James lea come betwixt two of the king sergeant to the bar where the  Lord chancellor make a short speech to he of the king favour and reason in  elect he to that place and he be at the bar answer thereto show his  thankfulness and croak throw endeavour in the due execution of his office he  then go into court and have his patent deliver he which be open read and be a  short recital only that the king have constitute he to be chief justice there  command he to attend and execute it it be under the great seal he be then  swear