Biddulph esquire versus ather c b two allowance in eire and a judgement in  trespass year since be not conclusive evidence against usage for year last  pass to have wreck of the sea trover for a sloop upon not guilty be try before  Mr justice Wilmot at the last assize for the county of Sussex upon a motion  for a new trial the judge certify that the plaintiff title to the sloop be  that he be lord of the manor of lance in the county of Sussex and be so be  entitle by prescription to all wreck of the sea throw upon that manor and that  the sloop for which this action be bring be wreck upon that manor I and to  prove his prescriptive right the plaintiff by courtrolls and parole evidence  prove that the lord of the manor of lance have take and enjoy wreck throw upon  that manor from the d day of April until the time of bring this action without  any interruption for the defendant who be bailiff or servant to the duke of  Norfolk and seize this sloop as wreck on behalf of his grace it be insist that  the duke of Norfolk be entitle to all wreck throw upon any land lie within the  rape or barony or honour of Brambre in the county of Sussex and it be prove  that the manor of lance lie within the hundred of Brightford which lie within  the rape or barony or honour of Brambre it be also prove for the defendant by  record that at a court of Eyre hold at Chichester in Sussex in the that year  of king Edward adarn de Bavent claim free chase in his manor of Rocking and  wreck of the sea in his manor of hay which liberty he and his ancestor have  enjoy time immemorially and it be find by the jury that be and his ancestor  have and ought to have free chase in his manor of Rocking and that he and his  ancestor never have wreck of the sea nor ought to have in his manor of hay  eastern quod domini baron de Brambre always ibidem alibi per totan baron  prediction she freedom use to be she to have to withhold and therefore as to  the wreck of the sea he be amerce for his false claim Wilson king bench it be  also prove for the defendant by record that at the same court Nigel de brock  and Hugo de Busey claim wreck of the sea in their manor of lance and Kingston  near Shoreham and that they and their ancestor have time immemorially use the  say liberty and it be find by the jury quod preceding Nigellus et Hugo never  act  prediction freedom nec wreccum mock to have to withhold send dominus  William de Breuse mock wreccum to have debet si to fall upon per costeram  maris in rape de Brambre therefore to look at closely be quod prediction  Nigellus Hugo de the other do to have prediction wreccum send because mock to  call to be in pity pro falsely warcry it be likewise prove for the defendant  by record that in the that year of Edward John odrich and several other be  attach to answer John de Mowbray quare cum ipse dominus honor de Brambre to  step out idem Q Johannes de Mowbray to have ipse he that goes before Himself  domini bonoris prediction a tempore quo non extat memory bucusq to have  constieverunt infra honor predict wreccum maris whoever ad hujusmodi wreccum  to stretch out a saying beforehand Johannes odrich and many other person take  and carry away diverse quantity of good cast by the sea upon the land at hone  WorthyDg lance Pende Shoreharn and kyneston within the honour of Brambre and  which ought to belong to the say John de Mowbray as wreck and upon not guilty  plead the jury find that several of the defendant in the plead mention be  guilty of take and carry away the say wreck to the plaintiff damage of and  judgement be enter against they for the say then Mr justice Wilmot further  report that it be insist for the defendant at the trial that these three  record prove that the usage set up by the plaintiff must have commence within  the time of memory since the reign of Richard the first and that therefore the  plaintiff prescriptive right claim by he be defeat and that be the judge ought  to have direct the jury to find for the defendant but upon the trial say the  judge I be of opinion and do deliver it as my opinion to the jury that the  record produce be not conclusive but be matter of evidence to be leave to  their consideration and unless the say record be conclusive I think the  verdict be agreeable to the evidence which be for the plaintiff damage upon  this motion for a new trial the court order this cause to be set down in  Wilson king bench er p the paper to be argue solemnly  and now it be insist by  sergeant prime for the defendant that these record of judgement or  determination in eire and judgement Wilson king bench in trespass be in proper  court have competent jurisdiction of the matter in question be conclusive  evidence for the defendant and that the judge be mistake in his opinion and  direction to the jury and ought not to have leave the matter to the jury in  the manner he do but shall have direct they to find a verdict for the  defendant and for this purpose he cite Carth salk stram and say that the  record give in evidence in the present case seem to he strong than a sentence  in the spiritual court in the case of a marriage which be always hold to be  conclusive if a vicar endowment be within the legal time of memory the parson  can prescribe against it though he have ancient usage of his side in proof  more pl roll Abr p on the other side for the plaintiff it be insist by  sergeant will and resolve by the whole court that neither these two allowance  in eire nor the judgement in trespass be conclusive and some of the judge  doubt whether they be any evidence at all but all agree that usage for the  plaintiff for year last pass be much strong proof of the plaintiff right and  the whole be fit to be leave to the jury and they all say the jury and the  judge have both do right they admit that a sentence in the ecclesiastical  court in a matter whereof they have the sole cognizance be conclusive evidence  and parole evidence shall not be receive against it but that be because that  court bath the sole cognizance thereof and that a endowment of a vicar destroy  the prescriptive right to tithe in the parson but that the present record be  no more conclusive that a inquisition post death or a verdict in many case  touch the same matter which be often res inter elsewhere acta as in the action  of trespass by Mowbray it may perhaps be bring by the person then in  possession against person who be mere wrongdoers for any thing that appear and  in plead a allowance in eire the true way per holt c j be to allege a  immemorial usage and then also to produce the allowance in b r or in eire I  salk I rule to show cause why a new trial shall not be grant be discharge and  judgement give for the plaintiff