Bulstrode the king against taverner Ro Rep Richard taverner be indict arraign  and now try at the bar by a jury of Middlesex for the kill and murder of one  John bird Martij James England Scotland the indictment be take at Hartford  assize before Wamsley and croak justice of assize and goaldelivery for the  kill of he in Theobals park Thomas Musgrave be present and his second but flee  and stand outlaw taverner also be outlaw but return and be take and termin  Hillar bring a writ of error and reverse the utlary because there be but day  between the two county day and plead to the indictment and now he be try at  the bar for his life one Hugh be second unto bird who be also kill a brother  of bird do prosecute this business and there be a good and sufficient jury  swear he produce his witness to prove a former quarrel and a fall out between  they upon which and upon a mutual challenge the one to the other they join in  single combat in the which bird be kill and this they show to prove a continue  malice to make this milk to be murder it be further show that the cause of  difference between they and of the subsequent challenge be first by bird who  send the challenge unto taverner who do accept of it upon very forcible  provocation and then send he a letter appoint Bulstrode er p therein the time  when and the place where they be to meet and the weapon to be single sword and  withal send he a pattern thereof and to have a second accord they meet on  Sunday in the afternoon and there do fight the great part of the witness  produce do show unto the jury that all the provocation be on the part of bird  who send the challenge and that taverner will have have a reconcilement make  between they be very unwilling to fight upon such a slight or rather no cause  at all be only for his refusal to pay money unto bird which be owe by he to he  he be then minus sufficient to pay this but promise to pay he afterward so  soon as he can what be due to he this will not satisfy bird but he will be  revenge on he by single combat the judge perceive the circumstance the which  if they only be to be consider without the law will make the matter much  favourable on the part of taverner therefore in this case they direct the jury  as to the matter in law touch the murder coke chief justice it be well say by  one knock or dash pugnan where plus periculum victory how living S loss of his  good of his land of his life and the jeopardy of soul without true repentance  this I say for law that if one only de give the cause and provocation and send  the challenge and the other accept of it and upon this they enter combat and  he which send the challenge be kill this be clear murder in the other for it  be not material in the law who begin the quarrel so as there be a former  quarrel and the malice still continue until the last stroke give for the  difference will be this if they be once reconcile for the first matter and  afterward they happen to fall out again sudden and de fight and the one kill  the other this be but a manslaughter croak justice agree with he herein and no  palliate of the matter at the place by they appoint to fight will make any  difference or alteration of the case dodderidge justice the place be here  appoint by taverner himself he do fight upon the Sunday have hear a sermon in  the morning and the text be non kill so that it be altogether forbid by God  because that juxta Bulstrode likeness God lactus be a human being no lawful  cause can there be for one to fight in single combat but only in defence of  his country or state he agree in all with the other coke this be a plain case  and without any question if one kill another in fight upon the provocation of  he which be kill this be murder here taverner send his weapon appoint the  place and time for no private provocation he ought to fight in such a manner  for it shall be murder in he if he kill he in the defence of his reputation  and we de all of we agree in this that it be clear murder in he  notwithstanding he kill he upon the provocation of the other and not on his  part where time and place be appoint they sleep upon it and so they fight and  he kill the other we de all agree that this be murder in he Haughton justice  two matter be here considerable whether here be any excuse and extenuation of  the murder the provocation be only by he that be kill wherein I shall deliver  ill opinion and herein I agree to that which have be before deliver that when  there be a mutual consent to go to a place and there to perform the fight  where they come not for their defence but for to fight each of they carry  malice alone with he the one of they be kill this be clear murder in the other  so I agree herein the law to be as it have be say the second matter whether  there be any clear of this here a day be appoint and a place and two day after  they de meet accord to their appointment this be in discharge of the malice  taverner then say that he do confess his error that he do not acquaint the  judge with this matter at the first to have have a order by they take therein  and he be so forcible urge to this by threat to proclaim he a coward and that  he will kill he in some base manner this error in defence of himself and of  his reputation have cause he to fall into this inconvenience and he say also  that the king edict be not then extant and that therefore he do very much  bewail his miserable and unfortunate chance to be the first precedent in this  case to have the trial of law to who the court answer you be not the first  precedent by many hundred for this be the commonlaw before the king edict  which be but revelation law old non innovation novae law Bulstrode er p and so  with this direction of the court the jury find the prisoner guilty of felony  and murder of which he be indict and arraign but that he have neither good nor  chattel upon demand of the prisoner by the clerk of the crown what he have to  say for himself why the court shall not proceed to give judgement upon he the  prisoner say that he have nothing further to say upon this croak justice to  the prisoner you have be indict for this fact and have plead not guilty and  have have a fair trial the jury have find you guilty wherein they have do very  discreet and with good advice and judgement they have well weigh and pursue  their evidence and now taverner take into your heart with serious meditation  all the error of your life pass repulsively for be bene born bene bring up  male live as you have be now you be to prepare your self for your appearance  at the judgmentseat of God neither good nor ill come to any one by chance but  by the divine providence of God as touch this offence of which you be find  guilty it be a offence of blood a cry sin for offence in other matter  gentleman for dixit Deus ad a human being quare hoc to make but in matter of  blood gentleman for the question there be not quare hoc to make send dixit  Deus ad Cain quid to make vox blood fratis tui proclaim ad I de land No answer  to this can be make no excuse in defence of his reputation as here have be  make but this be no excuse this matter be prosecute and so now to be punish ut  pna ad few metus ad all men to come up for this offence of effusion of blood  no sleeveless Bulstrode excuse can serve Cain answer to God question of where  be Abel frater thy with a not to know nuqquid custos brother urinate sum ego a  human being man Deus non lupus none of these will serve his turn but quid to  make knock or dash victorian where more damage come to he which do overcome  than unto he who be vanquish his punishment be secret inter Pontus spring he  may find mercy but as to the murderer quid to make for he vox blood brother  tui proclaim ad I c insult hedgehog super earth fugitive hedgehog super earth  the civil sword of justice hang now shake over your head judge God scope sera  always certan as one well observe blood it be a cry sin the which do pollute  the land the observation of the barbarian out of the light of nature be  admirable where see a man to escape one danger and to have another overtake he  as saint Paul act have escape the danger of the sea upon the land a viper  fasten on his hand they censure he present say he have provoke God that he be  a murderer who though he have escape the sea yet vengeance suffer not to live  this they collect out of the light of nature but there they be mistake in the  person but not in the matter here make your repentance correspondent to your  offence quid word audian the dawn fanctam to see a quarrel offer and the same  entertain on the sabbathday you hear before a sermon in the pulpit and the  text non kill notwithstanding this you do undertake this quarrel this do much  aggravate your offence that you have not suck so good juice out of so good  herb as you ought to have do but if you will now cry unto God true in  sincerity of heart domine liberan I de blood he will then hear you and he have  send his son to this purpose for to deliver you who have say come unto I all  that be weary and heavy load c the jury here have do discreet and wise you be  now just condemned inasmuch as the jury have find you guilty the court do  therefore adjudge that you shall be carry from hence to the place from whence  you come and from thence to the place of execution and there to be hang per  collum until thou art dead day a mercy de vostre ailme coke chief justice if  the cause be never so important yet it can allow one to draw blood of a  subject if this be lawful who shall then live if all be so as you taverner  have say yet by the very letter of the law this milk be murder in you here a  challenge send accept of by you the weapon time and place agree on and second  to be and chirurgeon to be ready if this be not murder what then shall be  murder wretched people slavery where law be not examined you be punish here ut  pna ad few no one aware punish ut past to call again send ut going to be  praevenia insult be land near outpouring blood nec aliter to make peace iris i  God nec to quiet nisi per outpouring Self blood Bulstrode er p notam in the  case of taverner the coroner give evidence to the jury super look substantial  object but they will give up no verdict wherefore he adjourn they from time to  time and from place to place but they will not agree upon a verdict upon this  a letter be send to he from Fleming chief justice not to take a verdict of  they upon which he go to the assize at Hartford and do acquaint the judge with  it for his discharge the juror be fine and the indictment there take at  Hartford coke the jury be to be fine if they will not give up their verdict  dodderidge if such pack be the indictment then be to be find before the  justice of assize as here it be the court command the coroner for his care in  this business grange v Denny Bustrode er report date Bulstrode grange  plaintiff against denny defendant enter mich James b r rot error in a quare  hinder Ro Rep Ro Abr in a writ of error to reverse a judgement give in the  court of c b in a quare hinder bring there against the archbishop the bishop  and three other defendant the archbishop plead that he claim nothing but as  metropolitan the bishop plead that he claim nothing but as ordinary and the  three other as disturber make their title judgement for the plaintiff three  error here assign for reverse of the judgement S l in the quare hinder here  cost be assess by the jury this error be waive be a error only in the jury but  no judgement give for cost and the penalty of damage include cost another  matter move for error because there be no release of the party of the cost  give by the jury the whole court clear of opinion that this ought not to be be  not at all material the second error insist upon that the judgement give for  the plaintiff against the two first S the archbishop and the bishop be without  a be remiss execution until the other be try against the other three defendant  this be one entire quare hinder and for this omission be a essential and  principal part of the judgement therefore all to abate and to be reverse for  the whole and for this be cite e fol a quare hinder bring by the queen against  diverse a recovery by default against one of they the judgement be to have a  writ to the bishop and damage for half a year but execution to stay till it be  try between the other defendant otherwise this execution against one alone  will abate the writ against the other defendant as in trespass against two the  issue be try against one the plaintiff pray execution the writ shall abate  against the other coke chief justice if he have take execution against the  other it be true then and shall be so as it have be say to prove that such a  cesser of execution be material and part of the record these book be urge S e  fol l dower recover with a be remiss execution during the minority of a infant  and h fol in a Forge of faux faits so that as it be urge this be a material  part of the record this be omit in the judgement in the c b be a material part  of the judgement shall make the same to be erroneous and the enter of this at  the assize will nothing at all aid it the three error the plaintiff here have  judgement breve metropolitan grant to he where it ought to have be breve  bishop it be urge the difference to be where the archbishop and bishop be  defendant and claim nothing but as ordinary there it ought to be breve bishop  but if the bishop si bishop be pars there it shall be breve metropolitan  authority and precedent urge for this coke pars fol in boswells case in a  quare hinder against the bishop of London and John Lancaster the bishop plead  quod ipse nothing to have nec to have proclaim in church prediction nisi  admission institution leading or bringing in a mask upon this plea the  plaintiff have a writ to the bishop send be remiss execution until what time  Le plea between the plaintiff and the other be determine and with this agree e  fol Fitzherbert nat short catalog fol b a man recover his presentation in the  c b against the bishop he may have a writ to the same bishop to admit his  clerk or to the metropolitan if he Bulstrode will and coke pars fol b in  Baynhams case Bulstrode er p Wray chief justice cite a case adjudge in b r  between Goodwin and franklin where a venire facias be award to the coroner  where it ought to have be to the sheriff and so juror return by one who have  no authority that this be in the nature of a insufficient trial and that  therefore upon consideration have of Elizabeth dyer fol and of the statute  they resolve that this be not remedy by any of the statute and therefore a  venire facias de to make new be award so here as it be urge in this case the  writ be award metropolitan where it ought to have be bishop and the party put  out of possession by this misawarding of the writ therefore this be erroneous  coke pars fol b in Specots case there breve Johan Archep Cantuar all England  primate loci that metropolitan eastern quod prediction bishop be pars bishop  in pity it be urge that this misawarding of the writ here be error in boswells  case coke pars fol a that the metropolitan shall never present by lap but when  the inferior ordinary may have collation by lap and surcease his time and so  be h fol and Fitzherbert nat short catalog fol c so that it be urge the  difference to be where the ordinary be a disturber and where not if he be a  disturber then it be in the election of the party to have the writ to he or to  the metropolitan but where the ordinary do no wrong there the writ ought to go  to the ordinary without any such election in the party to maintain the  judgement it be urge the second error to be no error S the omission quod be  remiss execution quousq because there be a respite of the execution until the  judgement give against all therefore it be urge this omission to be no error  these be only word of form and not of substance the same be only as a caveat  to the court that no execution to be grant until c it be but a respite of  execution but no part of the judgement as to the three error the writ be to  the metropolitan where it ought to be to the bishop this be no error it be  here in the election of he who recover to which of they he will have his writ  and if he be a disturber or not all be one the whole court agree in this and  make answer that all the book be so that he may have his writ to the one or to  the other at his election where the ordinary be a disturber it be then urge  that in this case the party who recover have election to have his writ to the  one or to the other as appear by Fitzherbert nat short catalog fol b it be in  his election to have his writ to the bishop or to the archbishop and that  without any distinction there put h fol the bishop party to the writ therefore  breve metropolitan and in his default seed vacant then to the guardian of the  spiritualties as Elizabeth dyer fol blower case and e fol the writ award  metropolitan because bishop Hereford to be pars ut blower case h fol the same  error there assign that the writ be direct metropolitan whereas it ought to  have be bishop he not be a disturber there it be question and Norton there  assign the same error as here in this case and yet the same there hold to be  good and accord to this the precedent be urge to be so as the old book of  entry fol where the bishop claim nothing but as ordinary and yet the writ  there award metropolitan also in the New Book of entry fol l coke chief  justice when the bishop here have anger he by accept the clerk of another it  be a plain case because pars he may well distrust he and so have his writ  metropolitan if he will but I have always observe this if he be party to the  suit or not it be in the election of the party to have his writ to the bishop  or to the metropolitan but I will now move another matter not touch before  allow this writ to be bishop which seem unto I prima fancy Bulstrode to be  very hard there be error in reddition judgment and error in execution if you  will have a writ award to the metropolitan or to the bishop this be but only  in point of execution and therefore you ought to have have your writ of error  as to this only be but a error in execution if any at all by this the  judgement shall not at all be shake or reverse if at all only quoad the  precedent in this case will lead and direct we Haughton justice whether may  the judge of assize give judgement there in a quare hinder coke curian they  may so de in a quare hinder and in a assize dodderidge justice this rule be to  be observe S that you shall not take away Bulstrode er p the jurisdiction of  any man without good and just cause as here of the bishop who claim nothing  but as ordinary and no amerciament shall be here against he for what cause  therefore will you here take away from his jurisdiction and give this to  another if the bishop be a disturber yet as to the execution of the writ to he  direct the law will trust he if you which be the party will leave this unto he  but because in this case he may delay you it be therefore in your election  either to have the writ to he or to the metropolitan and this be so where the  ordinary be a disturber and this appear to be so by all our book but here the  archbishop also be pars both of they be now in a equal degree whether here in  this case you may take away the jurisdiction of the bishop and there will be a  difference between this case and the case of the sheriff and coroner the  return by the sheriff where it ought to be by the coroner be not good for they  be of so great antiquity that their commencement be not know otherwise it be  of a bishop c but the reason which may be make here for the allowance of this  writ to the archbishop be this for that he have chiefs jurisdiction and the  bishop have a jurisdiction under he and the same draw out of his jurisdiction  in all the precedent before remember the archbishop be not party coke Haughton  this shall make no difference at all as to the party election to which of they  he will have his writ direct he have his election in both case coke in veer  and jefferies case put pars fol in prince case I do first move this matter  where one have good only in one diocese and the metropolitan of the same  province pretend that he have good notabilia in diverse diocese commit the  administration this be not void but voidable by sentence because he have  jurisdiction throughout the whole diocese within his province he have the  first cathedralchurch and be the ordinary and all other bishop within his  province be derive from he otherwise it be where the ordinary of a diocese do  commit the administration of good when as the party have good notabilia in  diverse diocese this be void for all this reason do induce I in this case to  be of opinion and this writ here metropolitan be well award dodderidge austin  the monk be the first convert and the first archbishop of Canterbury and he  constitute one Paulinus the first bishop of Rochester Richardson sergeant for  the maintenance of this writ here to the archbishop cite h fol Elizabeth dyer  fol old book of entry fol plea because pars nomina in breve the whole court  agree if the bishop be a disturber that yet the party have his election to who  he will have his writ coke where the bishop admit another man to ill benefice  this will trouble and anger I and in a quare hinder against he and the other  he plead that he have nothing but as ordinary I shall yet have ill election to  have ill writ to he or to the metropolitan or seed vacant to the guardian of  the spiritualties and as touch the guardian of the spiritualties of common  right by the commonlaw the dean and chapter seed vacant of the bishop be  guardian of the Bulstrode spiritualties as appear by term pasch e fol but now  the archbishop have use to have this by way of composition as great lord will  encroach all into their own hand dodderidge every archbishop have a diocese  and a province and of his diocese he be a bishop and of his province he be  archbishop and within his province he be to be visitor of all the church  within his province and seed vacant of any bishop within his province he  himself be guardian of the spiritualties of all the bishopric within his  province send seed vacant of his own diocese the dean and chapter of this be  guardian of the spiritualties coke this do commence by way of composition but  original it be not so but the dean and chapter be guardian of the  spiritualties dodderidge it do not appear to be so by our book no mention be  make of any such composition but the guardian of the spiritualties to be  accord to the difference before put between a province and a diocese the whole  court clear of opinion that the writ here direct metropolitan be well award  and so this no error but yet it rest for this time upon a curian advisare vult  afterward S termin Trinit James b r this case be move again and argue  Bulstrode er p and the former error insist upon because the judgement be  without any cesser of execution until the other matter try coke this be no  error for that execution be never sue out the chief and main error insist upon  be the award of the writ metropolitan whereas it ought to have be bishop as it  be urge by George croak if both of they have be disturber then he have his  election to have his writ to the one of they or to the other if in this case  as it be urge the bishop have be condemned upon a nothing to say the writ then  may have be to the archbishop by Fitzherbert nat short catalog fol the only  book insist upon be if the bishop be party the plaintiff there have his  election to have his writ either to the bishop or to the archbishop but as it  be urge this be to be intend where the bishop be a disturber and not where he  be only pars naming and so be the book of h fol where he claim only as  ordinary the writ shall be direct to he unless there be a special disturbance  show with this agree h fol Bohuns case and e fol l where the rule be give that  if no disturbance be find in the bishop the writ shall be direct to he but if  any disturbance be find in he then the writ to be at his election to he or to  the archbishop and so be e Fitzherbert title wooer plea that the writ shall  not be take away from the bishop but where there be a wrong assign in his  person as ordinary by reason of his office for that admission and institution  belong unto he and as it be urge the precedent in the old book of entry fol be  mistake on the other side e fol be cite where by Thorp as this principal case  be the party have his election to have his writ either to thebishop or to the  archbishop coke chief justice the writ be here award to the archbishop because  the bishop be name in the writ of quare hinder and also it appear by the  record that he have admit the clerk of the other and this before the writ  bring Denny bring the quare hinder against they all and join therein the arch  bishop also if the archbishop have not be name in the writ yet I think it have  be very clear that the writ may have be award to the archbishop because bishop  be pars and name in the writ and I also think that the name of the archbishop  in this case shall make no alteration at all of the case but the reason of  this be not as it have be say because of his supreme power and authority for  if none of they be name he ought to have the writ to the archbishop he be the  diocesan and not unto the bishop and this be clear but the reason be because  pars nomina in breve it be to be consider whether Bulstrode here the join of  the archbishop do make any alteration in the case non because bishop hinder  therefore breve metropolitan send because be pars nomina in breve if this be  error yet the same be only error in reddition performance and it shall be very  dangerous to reverse this judgement for this cause and here also the bishop be  not a indifferent person to who the writ ought to be direct and so without any  further debate this case be adjourn till a further day at which time  Richardson sergeant move the court for affirmance of the judgement coke the  law in this case be very clear if the metropolitan be no party and the  ordinary be a party he may have his writ metropolitan and the join of they  both in the quare hinder shall not at all hurt the matter so that I be of  opinion that the party here in this case may well have his writ to the one of  they or to the other as he please and so his writ here award metropolitan be  well award Haughton justice I have see some precedent in which the writ have  be award to the metropolitan because bishop be pars the whole court nullo to  speak against agree clear that in this case the writ be award metropolitan be  well award and that the judgement be no way erroneous for this and accord the  judgement of the court be quod judgment affirme Bulstrode er p