coke a Windsor case pasch Elizabeth rot if two have title to present by turn  and one present a parson who be admit institute c and afterward be deprive he  shall not present again but it shall serve his turn for it be but voidable but  when the admission and institution be mere void it shall not serve for a turn  a sentence reverse be as none in quare hinder the writ be ad church and the  declaration be de advocation two a part and hold well SC cro Elizabeth more  Vid the entry   Ent pl see Fitzgib roll   b roll Rep light Rep in a quare  hinder by a Windsor against the archbishop of Canterbury Fletcher c for the  church of Buscot in the county of Berks the plaintiff declare that he have a  manor to which the advowson of two part of the church be appendant and that  the defendant have a manor to which the advowson of the three part be  appendant and on the declaration and the bar the case be such the plaintiff  have the advowson of two part and the defendant of the three the plaintiff  present once and the incumbent die and afterward be present in the time of e  Parry who be admit institute and induct and afterward in the time of queen  mary he be deprive because he to be species of myrtle and a favourer of the  religion tempore e and the church be void by his deprivation the defendant  present his clerk who be admit institute and induct to stay behind in church  usque Elizabeth and then deprive by jewel other of the high commissioner and  the first sentence declare and adjudge to be void and Parry the first  incumbent restore to the say church and afterward the defendant clerk so  deprive die and then Parry die and the defendant present as in his turn  forasmuch as his incumbent be deprive and Parry the incumbent of the plaintiff  restore by who death the church now become void upon which the plaintiff do  demurrer in law and it be adjudge against the plaintiff and in this case it be  agree if two have title to present by turn and one present who be admit  institute c and afterward be deprive for crime or heresy or any other cause  yet he shall not present again but it shall serve for his a roll Cr Elizabeth  hob a turn so if he present a mere layman who be admit institute c although it  be declare by sentence that he be uncapable and therefore void ab beginning b  roll hob dyer b yet because the church be full till the sentence declaratory  come therefore although this deprivation relate to some purpose yet it shall  serve for his turn because it be but voidable as in the case of Litt if the c    light b light sect c lord marry his ware within the age of consent and  afterward he disagree to it now it be no marriage ab beginning coke b yet he  shall not d   light b   light sect vide Elizabeth dyer pl ult d marry he  afterward so h guard if the guardian marry his ware and afterward they be  divorce causan prcontractus yet he shall not have the marriage of he again but  when the admission and institution be mere void then without doubt a shall not  serve for a turn as if his presentee have coke report a er p be admit  institute and induct but he have not subscribe to the e roll Rep roll   a  Jones Cr Elizabeth and Yelv Cawley e article c accord to the statute of  Elizabeth whereby in such case the admission and institution and induction be  void Elizabeth f dyer pl Anders hob Cr Elizabeth f dyer pl ult send for but in  the principal case although the defendant clerk be parson for the time to all  purpose and during the first deprivation Parry be not incumbent yet when the  second sentence come then Parry be incumbent again by force of his former  presentation institution and induction and need no new institution c and by  force of the second sentence the presentee of the defendant be remove and  Parry restore then when Parry die who be the last presentee of the plaintiff  the defendant shall present as in his turn for the presentation which he make  now on the matter during the life of Parry be the second presentee of the  plaintiff can be in his turn when Parry die incumbent by force of the  plaintiff presentation but if Parry have die g roll Cr Elizabeth g before the  second sentence or have not reverse the former sentence then the defendant  have bad his turn and note that the writ be ad h Doctrin pl     light b a h  church and the declaration be de advocation two a part and well vide dyer e I  dyer pl   a b   b I b f n b b vide Trin Elizabeth rot in the common plea and  hill Elizabeth sir Thomas stanhope case in the common plea and I conceive that  the writ ought to be king f n b a king general as f n b and diverse other book  be but the declaration ought to be accord to his title a in the report of this  case cro Elizabeth ad fin it be state that the whole court hold the  declaration to be ill in that be declare that one have the advowson of the  three part of the church and another two part thereof for it appear that the  one have the entire church for the time when he be to present sole and then  when he declare that one have the advowson of two part of the church videlicet  to present to two turn it be repugnant in itself for by his own show it be to  two part of the advowson and not of the church for the moiety or three part of  the church be where parceners or jointtenants present joint every one have a  part of the church but where two church be unite and consolidate and the  patron agree to present the one two turn and the other a three turn as this  case be there either of they have the entire church for that time and as  walmesley say the difference be well express in Edward law wherefore it be  adjudge for the defendant the entry in coke pl after state that judgement be  give for defendant add et notam that in Trin Elizabeth in the argument of this  case it be hold that where the plaintiff in his count say that legal support  two a part church predict belong to the manor of b this shall be understand  totan legal support and then when he say videlicet ad prsentand ad the same  church dvobus chiefs turn this shall be understand to be but two part of the  advowson and so be repugnant and bad but he ought to have say ad quod dumb  part legal support church predict videlicet c and then it have be good more  report the case to have be adjudge on the same point and for the same reason  as coke report but the report in croak which agree with the distinction take  in   Litt and with what Lord coke notice in his entry be probable the more  correct this diversity do not hold in the case of a rectory for in holland  case Rep a b the plead be ad center point guide whereas it shall have be ad  rectorian center point and it be take by the court to be the same in effect  Vid Windham v bishop of Norwich Brownl wats clerg law smith case Rep Salway v  luson Leon Eveleigh v turner dyer pl Stoughton v palmer Jones Reynoldson v  black I Lord raym a coke report a er p