CAWDRY versus strike with lightning vide this case coke lib pa in trespass  bring by Robert Cawdry clerk against George strike with lightning for break  his close at north luffenham in the county of Rutland upon not guilty and a  special verdict the case appear to be this to wit that the plaintiff be rector  Ecelesiae de north luffenham aforesaid of which the place be parcel and be so  seize be deprive of his rectory by the late bishop of London and his colleague  by virtue of the high commission to they and other direct because he have  pronounce and utter slanderous and contumelious word against and in  depravation of the book of common prayer but the form of the sentence be that  the say bishop by and with the assent and consent of five other of the say  commissioner his companion and namely which deprive he and further it be not  find that the commissioner name be the natural subject bear of the queen as  the statute enact that they shall be and if the deprivation be void then they  find the defendant guilty and if it be good then they find he not guilty and  it be move that the deprivation be void first because that whereas the  commission be to they or any three of they of which the say bishop to be one  among other it ought to have be the sentence of they all accord to the  authority give to they which be equal and not that it be do by one with assent  of the other then because it be not find that the commissioner be the natural  subject of the queen bear as by the word of the statute they shall be another  be because the punishment which the statute provide for those of the ministry  which deprave this book be to lose the profit of all their spiritual promotion  but for a year and to be imprison by the space of six month and not to be  deprive until the second offence after that he have be once commit and  therefore to deprive he for the first offence be wrongful and contrary to the  statute but by the whole court for the form of the deprivation it be that  which be use in the ecclesiastical court which always name the chief in  commission that be present at the beginning of the sentence and for the other  they mention they only as here but of their assent and consent to it and in  such case we ought to give credit to their form and therefore it be not to be  compare to a authority give at commonlaw by commission Popham and for the  matter that be not find that the commissioner be the natural subject of the  queen bear it be to be intend that they be such unless the contrary appear but  here at the beginning it be find that the queen secundum course execution  right of way for cattle predict have grant her commission to they in cause  Church rites and therefore it appear sufficient that they be such as the  statute will they to be and for deprivation they all agree that it be good be  do by the authority of the commission for the statute be to be understand  where they prosecute upon the statute by way of indictment and not to restrain  the ecclesiastical jurisdiction be also but in the affirmative and further by  the Act and their commission they may proceed accord to their discretion to  punish the offence prove or confess before they and so be the word of their  commission warrant by the clause of the Act and further the ecclesiastical  jurisdiction be save in the Act and further all the bishop and popish priest  be deprive by virtue of a commission warrant by this clause in the Act and now  late be it agree by all the justice that a fine of mark set upon one for a  vicious liver by the high commission be warrant by virtue of the commission  and Act and therefore the Act with the commission be to be consider in this  case whereupon it be agree that the plaintiff shall take nothing by his writ  which you may see hill Elizabeth rot Popham er p