coke prohibition hill James see Buckley v Edward ac answer to the complaint of  the precedent of York to the king see Inst   upon Wednesday be ashwednesday  the day of February a great complaint be make by the precedent of York unto  the king that the judge of the commonlaw have in contempt of the command of  the king the last term grant sixty or fifty prohibition at the least out of  the common plea to the precedent and Council of York after the that day of  February and name three in particular scilicet one between bell and Thawptes  another between Snell and Huet and another in a information of a riotous  rescue prefer by English bill by the attorneygeneral against Chrand spher  Dickenson one of the sheriff of York and diverse other in rescue of one  William Watson out of the custody of the deputy of one of the pursuivant of  the same council who have arrest the say Watson by force of a commission of  rebellion award by the precedent and Council which prohibition in the say  information be as be affirm deny upon a motion make in the king bench the last  term and yet grant by we and the king send for I to answer to that complaint  and I only all the rest of the justice be absent wait upon the king in the  chamber near the gallery who in the presence of Egerton Lord chancellor the  earl of Salisbury Lord treasurer the Lord of Northampton Lord privy seal the  earl of Suffolk Lord chamberlain the earl of Worcester the archbishop of  Canterbury the Lord Wotton and other of his counsel rehearse to I the  complaint aforesaid and I perceive well that upon the coke say information he  have conceive great displeasure against the judge of the common plea and chief  against I to which I have the copy of the plaint come send to I by the Lord  treasurer the Sabhath day before answer in this manner that I have with as  much brevity as the time will permit make search in the office of the  ProtboNota rise of the common plea and as to the say case between bell and  Thawptes and Snell and Huet no such can be find but my intent be not to take  advantage of the misprisal and the truth be that the six day of February the  court of common plea have grant a prohibition to the precedent and Council of  York between lock plaintiff and bell and other defendant and that be a  replevin in English be grant by the say precedent and Council which I affirm  be utter against law for at the commonlaw no replevin ought to be make but by  original writ direct to the sheriff and the statute of marlbridge cap and  Westminster cap have authorize the sheriff upon plaint make to he to make a  replevin and all that appear by the say statute and by the book of e Elizabeth  dyer and the king neither by his instruction have make the precedent and  Council sheriff nor can grant to they power to make a replevin against the law  nor against the say act of parliament but the same ought to be make by the  sheriff and all that be affirm by the Lord chancellor for very good law and I  say that it may well be that we have grant other prohibition in other case of  English replevins another prohibition I confess we have grant between sir  Bethel knight now sheriff of the county of York as executor of one Stephenson  who have make he and another his executor and prefer a English bill against  chamber and diverse other in the nature of a action upon case upon a trover  and conversion in the life of the testator of good and chattel to the value of  and because the other executor will not join with he although he be name in  the bill he have not any remedy at the commonlaw he pray remedy there in  equity and I say that the precedent and Council have not any authority to  proceed in that case for diverse cause because there be a express limitation  in their commission that they shall not coke report er p hold plea between  party and party c unless both party or one of they of such size poverty are  heavy that they can sue at the commonlaw and in that case the plaintiff be a  knight and sheriff and a man of great ability by that suit the king be deceive  of his fine for he ought to have have fine because that the damage amount to  and that be one of the cause that the sheriff begin his suit there and not at  the commonlaw another cause be that their decree which they take upon they be  final and uncontrollable either by error or any other remedy and yet the  precedent be a nobleman but not learned in the law and those which be of the  Council there although that they have the countenance of law yet they be not  learned in the law and nevertheless they take upon they final and  uncontrollable decree in matter of great importance for if they may deny  relief to any at their pleasure without controlment so they may do it by their  final decree without error appeal or other remedy which be not so in the n S  court where there be five judge for they can deny justice to none who have  right nor give any judgement but the same be controulable by a writ of error c  coke and if we shall not grant prohibition in case where they hold plea  without authority then the subject shall be wrongful oppress without law and  we restrain to do they justice and their ignorance in the law appear by their  allowance of that suit sure that the one executor have no remedy by the  commonlaw because the other will not join in suit with he at the commonlaw  whereas every one learned in the law know that summons and severance lie in  any suit bring as executor and this also in that particular case be affirm by  the Lord chancellor and he much inveigh against action bring there upon trover  and conversion and say that they can not be find in our ancient book another  prohibition I confess we have grant between the Lord wharton who by English  bill sue before the Council bank Butterniere and other for fish in his several  fish in Darwent in the county of c in the nature of a action of trespass at  the commonlaw to his damage of and for the cause next before recite and  because the same be mere determinable at the commonlaw we grant a prohibition  and that also be allow by the Lord chancellor and as to the case of  information upon the riotous rescous I have forget to speak to that the king  himself ask what the case be to who I answer that the case be that one exhibit  a bill there in the nature of a action of debt upon a P  of mutuor against  Watson who upon his oath affirm that he have satisfy the plaintiff and that he  owe he nothing and yet because the defendant do not deny the debt the Council  decree the same against he and upon that decree the pursuivant be send to  arrest the say Watson who arrest he upon which the rescous be make and because  that the suit be in the nature of a action of debt upon a P  of mutuor at the  commonlaw and the defendant at the commonlaw may have wage his law of which  the defendant ought not to be bar by that English bill because kindness law no  one be to take away the prohibition be grant and that be affirm also by the  Lord chancellor whereupon I conclude that if the principal cause do not belong  unto they all their proceed be in person non judge and then no rescous can be  do but the Lord chancellor say that though the same can be a rescous yet it be  a riot which may be punish there which I deny unless it be by course of law by  force of a commission of oyer and terminer and not by a English bill but to  give the king fall satisfaction in that point the truth be the say case be  debate in court and the court incline to grant a prohibition in the say case  but the same be stay to he better advice upon so as no prohibition be ever  under seal in the say case also I confess that we have grant diverse  prohibition to stay suit there by English bill upon penal statute for the  manner of prosecution as well for the action process c as for the count be to  be pursue and can be alter and therefore without question the Council in such  case can hold plea which be also affirm by the Lord chancellor and I say that  it be resolve in the reign of queen Elizabeth in parrot case and now late in  the case of the precedent and Council of Wales that no court of equity can be  erect at this day without Act of parliament for the reason and cause in the  report of the say case of parot and the king be well satisfy with these reason  and cause of coke our KB way coke report er p proceed who of his grace give I  his royal hand and I depart from thence in his favour and the surmise of the  number and that the prohibition in the say case in the information be deny in  the king bench be utter deny for the same be move when two judge only be in  court who give not any opinion therein but require sergeant Hutton who move it  to move the same again when the court be full c