bowl against atkins ante tithe Dism Br in debt on Edward on not guilty they  find special that the abbey of Abington be seize discharge and h grant to the  college of Allsouls and their Keble er p successor and whether the college  shall hold discharge or not be the question and powis pro plaintiff conceive  they shall not when a spiritual person alien to a lie corporation such a  prescription do not pass its true   Cr that the lessee of such spiritual  person shall hold discharge because the great fine be pay for it where a  temporal person have any discharge he must plead it special but not general  Edward but that in case of inheritance such prescription do not pass be  evident because thereby the lie person may claim a immediate discharge to  himself   Entr No person be capable of a discharge but such as be capable of a  grant of tithe themselves when the cause which be some spiritual service cease  the effect thereof also cease and as a temporal person can do the service he  shall not have the benefit and this must be intend a lie corporation nothing  be find to the contrary the grant of one spiritual person to another spiritual  person do not as h pass this prescription of not tithing which be mere  personal as the Keble frankalmoyn of the templar Hub dyer and   archbishop of  Canterburys case where the several cause of discharge be enumerate but the  discharge by prescription be but a consequent of some of the former Cr and for  this reason the most general discharge which be personal shall be intend which  be not grantable over and hereby a discharge will be let in from all the small  abbey and the prior of saint John of Jerusalem which will be a great prejudice  to the church of England Hub be answer in that no land be negative discharge  of tithe but only privatively and be a opinion by inference and contrary to  Hub and other authority this can be intend neither discharge by composition  nor by special grant neither of which can turn to a prescription in non  decimand but must be presume to spring out of the personal discharge else any  layman may prescribe in non decimand the object in Cr make against the  defendant for be once interrupt be destroy Seld hist of tithe be of lessee for  life or year who must so commence their prescription in spiritual person Cr  Syddall against Holms he rely on pro plaintiff and Cr Cornwallis against  spurling Brigdman Hub Baldwin pro defendant in Seld a grant before the Council  of lateran of king John as Edward by Parving may be make by any of their land  and tithe to who they will that be spiritual person therefore it shall be now  intend that some layowner do grant these land cum Decimus to the abbey and so  he hold they discharge whence may be infer that this discharge be inherent in  the land which prescription be not aid by any stat as the other personal  prescription be Cr must be intend of a discharge by prescription for the king  can not have the tithe in any other way like kell pl there be no prejudice to  any person whatsoever especial this be so far a eccelesiastick corporation  that it be capable of tithe Edward queen hinder because a appropriation   may  be make to it as saint mary in oxon be appropriate to oriall college h h h and  in Alden against Tottilt car a grammarschool be capable of a appropriation the  end thereof be spiritual for the advancement of learning dyer be express but  per curian this be mistake and the book be rather contrary be say such only in  equity not within the express letter if this prescription do not pass then the  tithe remain with the abbey till the dissolution and consequent come to the  king who have make no special grant thereof to the person so the plaintiff  have no title also Keble the grant be find only by devoted to to make firm  without find any livery of the meadow out of which but per curian all this  argue the tithe be still due of common right and this prescription be general  find shall in favor church be intend a personal prescription and in the case  of the archbishop of Canterbury above pl it be late adjudge that upon a  exchange between a prior and archbishop that thereby the prescription be  destroy and they say that in one Savernacks case and in the marquis of  hartford case it be resolve that the patentee of the king in fee shall pay  tithe Adjornatur Keble er p