carter and crosss case carter bring a action of detinue of a chain against  Crosts and declare that Thomas carter his brother be thereof possess and die  intestate for which cause the bishop of cork grant he letter of administration  and that the chain come to the defendant hand by trover c and declare also  that he be as administrator thereof possess in London to which the defendant  Crosts plead the general issue and the jury give a special verdict and find  that the administration be commit to carter in London by the bishop of cork in  Ireland here and do not find that carter be possess of the chain in London and  upon this special verdict first it be move that the bishop of cork in Ireland  be in England may commit administration of thing in Ireland and it be hold  clear by the court that he may of thing within his diocese in Ireland because  it be a authority power or matter that follow his person and wheresoever his  person be there be his authority as the bishop of London may commit  administration be at York but it ought to be always of thing within his  diocese and therefore they hold that the declaration be good in that point  that the bishop of cork do commit administration in London although there be  no such bishop of England the second point be if a administrator make by a  bishop of Ireland may bring a action here as administrator and it be hold that  he can not because of the letter of the administration grant in Ireland there  can be no trial here in England although that road justice say that act do in  spiritual court in foreign place as at Rome or elsewhere the law say that a  jury may take notice of they because such court and the spiritual court here  make but one court and he prove it by the case of the miscreancy in r trial  where a quare hinder be bring by the king against the clerk of a church within  the bishopric of Durham and count that the bishop who be dead present his  clerk and that the clerk die and the chapter collate a cardinal who for  miscreancy and schism be deprive the temporalties be in the king hand burgh he  have count of a avoidance for miscreancy at the court of Rome which thing be  not tryable here Belknap chief justice I say for certain that this court shall  have conusans of the plea and that I will prove by reason for all spiritual  court be but one court and if a man in the arch be deprive for a crime and  appeal to Rome and be also there deprive that deprivation Godbolt be triable  in the king court in the arch and if a man be adhere unto the king enemy in  France his land be forfeitable and his adherence shall be try where his land  be as oftentimes it have be for adherence to the king enemy in Scotland and so  by my faith if one be miscreant his land be forfeitable and the lord thereof  shall have the escheat and that be good reason for if a man who be out of the  faith of the king shall forfeit his land for the same a strong he who be out  of the faith of God and that he swear to be law whereupon burgh say respond  ouster and so say Fitzherbert trial by that plea and judgement miscreancy and  deprivation at Rome shall betray here and there the venire facias be award to  the sheriff where the church be and not to the bishop of Durham and so the  miscreancy and deprivation shall betray where the church be the three point be  whether a administrator may count of his own possession although he be never  possess and the whole court be of opinion that he may if the intestate at the  time of his death be possess the administrator may declare of good take out of  his own possession although he be never possess for of transitory thing the  law cast upon he a sufficient possession to maintain a action possessory as  the lord before seize may have a ravishment of ware c but otherwise it be if  one take the good of the intestate out of his possession before he Godbolt er  p die for then but only a bare right come to the administrator and that be to  be mean when the good be take transgressive and not dissolving the four point  be whether the jury may find matter do out of the realm and if that shall  abate the writ or not and they hold also clear that upon a general issue the  jury may find a foreign matter as a thing do out of the realm but it shall not  abate the writ if it be not matter of substance and plead before but here the  find of the letter of administration be more then they have in issue and also  be but matter of evidence for the substance in this case be the possession and  not the administration for he may have a action of his possession without show  the letter of administration and afterward judgement be give for carter the  plaintiff Godbolt mich Elizabeth in the king bench