case the king vers bishop OF hereford all enter hill geo rot in c b in quare  hinder the bishop plead that he claim nothing but as ordinary and it be hold  have for want of allege notice of the refusal though in a case where the crown  present Gib cod burn e l in a quare hinder for the presentation to the  vicarage of Amystry in Com Hereford the bishop plead that the vicarage be  within the diocese and that he comens er p claim nothing but as ordinary of  the say church that the king by letter patent under the great seal present  George Herbert to be institute super quo idem bishop ut church pillage  ordinary pillage Geo Herbert such present de ability idoneitat svan tam de  custom how knowledge in here part secundum law Church rites adtunc ibidem  examinavi ut de jure to withhold super hujusmodi examination idem bishop  adtunc ibidem come upon per sacrum diversar personar fide appropriate Himself  manifest that this only is apparent quod pillage Geo Herbert tempore  presentation pillage fact to visit year tune ult lapse to be ebrietati act of  giving England a common drunkard common swear England a common swearer ac she  occasion per law saint church before difficult to handle mask too little fit  before admission ad some kindness cum spear animar per quod idem bishop ut  church ill ordinary object to send to pillage Geo Herbert ad vicariam church  pillage prout ei bene to be for sale hoc parat c comens to this plea the  attorneygeneral demurrer and the bishop join in demurrer and exception be take  to the plea first that the bishop say quod ipse nothing proclaim in eaden  church whereas it ought to be in eaden vicar say non allocatur for he add nisi  admission institution induction vicar ad church pillage for though the word  church import the rectory and quare hinder looks like ad church be not good  for a presentation to a vicarage f n b f n b that edit p ld raym a yet the  reference here be to the ordinary who if he be ordinary of the rectory be also  ordinary of the vicarage presentative derive therefrom and so be the precedent  brown raze second there be no certain averment that he be a common drunkard  say non allocatur for drunkenness that with a England be sufficient three the  averment that he be be not certain but only quod super examine bishop come  upon per sacrum personar fide appropriate manifest Himself that this only is  apparent quod to be c say non allocatur for dyer roll it be allow to be good  where the certificate of the ordinary say thrifty celer become to make inq per  how luculent comperuimus to come upon quod c so a certificate of bastardy be  allow which say quod to be mulier prout per inq come upon Fitzherbert Abr fol  a Fitzherbert baste and there Rolf say that it have oftentimes be allow so per  how inq to come upon be bastard be allow raze baste raze Ent b b Specots case  gold jenk Leon and S c Cas in par p c   the plea be super examination bishop  come upon say beforehand advance h before schismatic c so in the case of Hele  versus the bishop of Exeter salk Carth comb lev Mod holt show p c S c d Lutw  so   Ent fourthly for that the bishop do not show that he give notice of the  refusal and it be argue by I that there be a distinction between the refusal  of a clerk of a common person comens and a clerk of the king ID the case of a  common person lapse incur if he do not present within six month and therefore  notice be necessary Hern plead town table   Ent but no one time to run up king  and therefore it be sufficient that he now inform the king of his refusal the  sole ground for require notice be the danger of a lapse as appear by p h Keil  b and therefore a patron may present before notice   b the plea be only a  excuse for the defendant that he be not judge a disturber and though upon a  plea that the bishop claim nothing but as ordinary general the plaintiff may  have a writ to the bishop present and the bishop shall not be amerce but the  plaintiff for false clamour hob so where the bishop plead special that he  claim nothing but as ordinary Edward but it be resolve that the plea be have  for want of notice allege it be lie down in the case of Hele v bishop of  Exeter salk that if the ordinary refuse because guilty man he need not give  notice of his refusal forth crime be as much in the conusance of the patron as  of the bishop but if he refuse because illiteratus he must give personal  notice Lord coke in his second institute p say if the cause of refusal be for  default of learning or that he be a heretic schismatic or the like belong to  the knowledge of ecclesiastical law there the bishop must give notice thereof  to the patron but if the cause be temporal as a felon or homicide or other  temporal crime or if the disability grow by any Act of parliament or other  temporal law there no notice ought to be give unless notice be prescribe to be  give thereby but dr burn in the saint vol of his ecclesiastical law p declare  that in all case it be fair and equitable to give notice to the patron of the  refusal whatever the cause may be for it be very possible that the person  present may be many way unfit and the patron not know it comens er p