case the king against george archbishop of Canterbury and though priest  Trinity term car roll quare hinder to present to a church above the value of  ayear the incumbent have take another benefice plea confess the acceptance of  the second a see Geo c as to the form of the indictment and Geo c as to the  punishment of perjury a Oldbury v Gregory more b cro Elizabeth c see Ann c  croak car er p benefice and that the church be thereby void but that the  offence be within a general pardon replication show a exception in the pardon  ante hetley Jones will burr the king successor may present to a benefice upon  a lapse to his predecessor if a incumbent accept a plurality the church become  void by the statute of Henry c and the patron ought to present within month  after the avoidance which he may do without sentence of deprivation for he be  bind to take notice of this avoidance at his peril but neither the interest of  the patron or the king shall be discharge by a general pardon quare hinder ad  praesentand ad church substitute de Ichingstock and make title by the statute  of Henry c for that one Shilston be vicar of Ichingstock which be a benefice  with cure of soul above the value of eight pound ayear in the fifteen year of  king James take a second benefice videlicet the vicarage of HolcombBurnel in  the county of Devon be a benefice with cure and be thereto admit institute and  induct whereby the first benefice become void and remain void for two year and  so title of presentation accrue to king James and from he descend to the king  which now be and therefore belong to the king to present the archbishop claim  nothing but as ordinary the defendant priest plead and confess the king title  from the acceptance of the second benefice whereby the first be void and so  remain void James and plead the general pardon of James and that the say  Shilton be not a person except in the pardon nor the say cause of lapse except  and that John Shilton so be incumbent resign that benefice of Ichingstock and  give title to John fail to present who upon the say resignation present the  defendant who be admit institute and induct before the writ of the king c to  this the attorneygeneral reply show the exception in the pardon wherein be  except all title and action of quare hinder other than such action of quare  hinder which the king have or may have ration lapsus incur ultra three year  last pass for or concern any benefice whereof any incumbent then be or the  last day of the parliament shall be in actual possession by the presentation  of any patron or the collation of any ordinary and that the say church be so  void by lapse John fail present c and traverse that the say vicarage of  Icbingstock vacavi per resignationem of the say John Shilston upon this  replication the defendant demurrer after diverse argument at the bar and twice  argue at the bench in the common plea and the judge be divide both time  videlicet Richardson chief justice and Harvey for the plaintiff and Hutton and  Yelverton for the defendant and afterward sir Robert heath chief justice of  the common plea and Harvey for the plaintiff and Hutton and Vernon for the  defendant by reason of this difference in opinion it be adjourn into the  exchequer Chamber and argue there at the bar and afterward croak car by all  the justice of both bench and baron of the exchequer videlicet by sir Thomas  Richardson chief justice of the king bench sir Robert heath chief justice of  the common plea sir Burgundy davenport chief baron of the exchequer and by all  the other justice and baron and two main question be make first if a avoidance  of a church happen and continue void diverse year so as the king have title to  present by lapse and the king do not take advantage thereof but die whether  the succeed king may take advantage of this lapse or be bar by the statute of  Edward c and that rest only upon the exposition of the say statute the word  whereof be and touch presentment to be make by the king or his heir to any  benefice in another right by old title the king grant that from henceforth he  nor any of his heir shall not take title to present to any benefice in another  right of any time of his progenitor nor that any prelate be bind to receive c  but that the king and his heir be for ever hereafter clear bar of all such  presentment save always to he and his heir croak car er p all such presentment  in another right fall or to fall of all his time and of the time to come it be  strong urge at the bar and also at the bench by those who argue for the  defendant that this statute extend to all the successor and heir of king  Edward the three that none of they may present to a church in another right as  they argue that this church be because the king have not that title as to this  proper advowson but in right of he who have the inheritance to any church  which fall in time of his progenitor and the rather for at in the abridgement  of the statute in the book of the statute this save be altogether omit so they  conceive the king be bind by the express word be of the statute and that there  be not any such save Vernon justice continue of this opinion but Hutton who  argue in the common plea for the defendant in this point that the title of the  king be bind by the say statute and that he may not have title to present to a  church fall in the time of his predecessor by reason of his title of lapse  fall in the time of his predecessor now change his opinion and all the other  justice and baron except Vernon argue for t e plaintiff in this point that the  king have good title to present by lapse incur in the time of his predecessor  and be not restrain by the Edward c for by the express word of the statute all  right and title to present in his own time videlicet until before the statute  and in his time after and all his heir videlicet after the death of Edward be  save and it shall not bar the title which the king have in another right fall  or to fall in his own time or in the time of his heir and that there be such a  save appear by the copy out of the parliament roll and by a ancient book in  the exchequer writ in parchment where it be writ with a save and they hold  that these word of old title be intend in the time of the progenitor of king  Edward the three and not of any title of presentment to fall in the time of  Edward the three or of any of his heir but intend to exclude king Edward the  three and all his croak car heir from title of presentation in other right  fall before the time of king Edward the three whereof any church be full and  which title be only in another right and that be the express intent of the  statute videlicet to take away the statute of Edward c in this point and  Berkleyand some of the justice doubt whether a presentation by lapse shall be  say to be in another right but only presentment by reason of guardianship and  temporalties in the king band but all the other justice and baron agree that  it shall be say to be in another right for although he present ration tribe  which voted first yet he present as in the right of the patron so it be where  one present by reason of a church be void after forfeiture for alienation  without licence or for outlawry and for that be cite Edward quare hinder Henry  Elizabeth dyer and for the principal point they rely upon Henry where it be so  resolve Henry Elizabeth dyer   a and many precedent where the king make title  to present by lapse and title in another right wherefore for this point  Richardson chief justice who argue alone in one day say it be to be take for  clear law that the king have good title to present and the declaration be good  notwithstanding that objection the second question be if Shilston be incumbent  and may resign whether by his resignation the church be become void and that  rest upon the exposition of the statute of James c of the general pardon and  the statute of Henry c of plurality whether the church be absolute void by  acceptance of a second benefice be both with cure and if the pardon unto he be  in possession may make he incumbent this point be argue strong in the common  plea by Yelverton and Hutton and afterward there by Vernon and Hutton and by  both of they in the exchequer Chamber for the defendant that this church by  the Henry c be not absolute void in fact but be voidable quoad the patron that  he may present by the statute but until he present the other remain incumbent  and then he remain incumbent and for three year be in possession of the church  as incumbent until the pardon of James and the pardon then come he be in  possession establish he in possession and continue he incumbent and he can  afterward be oust by the king or any other and then he be incumbent until be  resign and therefore his plea be good for he be out of the exception of the  pardon for he be in for three year before the pardon and therefore they say he  remain incumbent croak car er p that he may plead as incumbent by the statute  of Edward c as he plead here also he be incumbent as to all stranger but not  as to his patron for he may present before any deprivation although a stranger  can because the church remain full against he and be be incumbent so as be may  take a release of any annuity issue out of the parsonage and be Chargeable in  a annuity and be Chargeable to the payment of subsidy and fifteen and may have  a action of debt against any of his parishioner for not set out their croak  car tithe and many other reason they allege and say that the pen of this  statute differ much from the statute of Elizabeth c of simony and from the  Elizabeth c for not read of the article wherefore they conclude that judgement  ought to be give for the defendant but all the other justice and baron argue  against it for they all hold that the church be absolute void in facto et jure  by take of the second benefice and that by the express word of the Henry c for  at the commonlaw before the say statute by reason of the canon and  constitution ecclesiastical the first church be in jure void so as the patron  may present thereto if he will but because it be a ecclesiastical constitution  the patron be not compellable to take notice of that avoidance until  deprivation and notice thereof give he and then after deprivation the church  be void in facto et jure and the patron at his peril ought to present and this  appear by the book Edward Edward Edward Edward I Henry f n b l Henry now by  the Henry c it be make absolute void after admission institution and induction  so it be void facto et jure and the patron at his peril ought to take notice  thereof and present within the six month otherwise a lapse incur and that it  be void to all purpose absolute appear by the manner of plead in this and all  other such case that by the admission institution and induction to the second  benefice prima church vacavi de parsona of the incumbent et to be empty to  join so the church be absolute void by the plead and confession of the  defendant and this appear by the book since the statute of Henry that by the  acceptance of a second benefice the church be void facto et jure quoad the  patron and all other dyer   b holland case and   b digby case   b green case  and dyer and   entry and for the reason before allege on the other side  videlicet that be may plead as incumbent that be because he be admit by the  writ to be incumbent and his plead as incumbent be not contradict and for the  take of a release it be much to be doubt and if it be good it be because he be  in possession as a intruder to who a release may be a discharge of such thing  and for his be charge with subsidy that be because be have the pro fit and  therefore reasonable he shall bear and pay the charge and quoad his have debt  for not set forth tithe it be deny by all those who argue on the other side  and as to the pardon of James all the other justice and baron hold that the  pardon do not help he first because it be no offence within the body of the  Act for it be not any offence or contempt against the king second because it  never be the intent of the pardon to dispense with plurality nor be there any  word therein to make he a incumbent or to make a plenarty of a church which be  absolute void and diverse of the justice and the chief baron hold that a  special pardon after such a absolute avoidance with word that he may retain or  whatsoever other word he may have can make he incumbent so the general word in  the pardon shall not inure to make a dispensation and the church be once void  shall not be full without a new presentation admission and institution and for  the word in the exception of the general pardon of all title and action of  quare hinder other than croak car such title and action of quare hinder as  have incur by lapse above three year before the first day of this parliament  whereof any incumbent be in actual possession by any presentation or collation  c the last part of this exception do not extend to the say Shilton for that  extend only to those who be in as incumbent which he be not and not to those  who be in as incumbent by usurpation and wrong which be removable by quare  hinder and which may not be remove without quare hinder and it be say that  since the statute of Henry there have be diverse general pardon and no  plurality be ever conceive to be within they wherefore they conclude that  judgement shall be give for the plaintiff and it be adjudge accord croak car  er p