case the king against TURVIL if the king present to a benefice on be entitle  to it by a simoniacal contract his presentee shall not be remove though the  simony be pardon S C Freem quare hinder the king be entitle to a presentation  by the statute of Elizabeth c because of a simoniacal contract make by the  rightful patron and be accord do present then come the Act of general pardon  James c by which under general word it be now admit that simony be pardon in  which Act there be a beneficial clause of restitution videlicet the king give  to his subject all good chattel debt fine issue profit amerciament forfeiture  and sum of money forfeit by reason of any offence c do the question be whether  the king presentee or the patron have the better title this case be only  mention now but argue in Michaelmas term follow by Jones sergeant that the  king presentee be entitle he agree that simony be pardon but not the  consequence thereof for it be not like the case where a stroke be give at one  time and death happen at another if the stroke which be the first offence be  pardon before the death of the party that be a pardon likewise of the felony  for it be true the stroke be the cause of the death and that be pare n all the  natural effect be pardon with the cause b see the case of Cuddinglon v Wilkins  hob and reilly case case in Clown law b but legal consequence be not thus  pardon as if a man be outlaw in trespass and the king pardon the outlawry the  fine remain Edward pl Henry pl roll Abr modern in this Act of pardon there be  word of grant but the presentation be not within the clause of restitution for  it be a interest and not a authority vest in the king and therefore a thinor  of another nature than what be intend to be restore because it be high and  shall not be comprehend among the general word of good and chattel c which be  thing of a low nature and be all in the personalty cro car Conyers sergeant  argue for the title of the patron and say that there be three material clause  in this Act first a pardon of the offence therein mention in general and  particular word second that all thing not except shall be pardon by general  word as if particular name three the pardon to be take most favourable for the  subject upon which clause it must necessary follow that this offence be pardon  and then all the consequence from thence deduce will be likewise pardon and so  the patron restore to his presentation for all charter of restitution be to be  take favourable pi Com the presentation vest no legal right in the presentee  for in the case of the king it be revocable after institution and before  induction   light b so likewise a second presentation will repeal the first  roll and if the king presentee die before induction that be also a revocation  if therefore the party have no legal right by this presentation and the king  by the simony have only a authority to present and no legal interest vest then  by this Act be have revoke the presentation and the right patron be restore to  his title to present the court be all of opinion absent Ellis that the king  presentee have a good title and by consequence the patron have no right to  present this turn for here be a interest vest in the king like the case where  the king be entitle to the good of a felon de see by inquisition and then come  a Act of indemnity that shall not divest the king of his right but where  nothing vest before the office find a modern er p pardon before the  inquisition extinguish all forfeiture as it be resolve in tomb case a see also    Inst side sand Mod Plowd hale hawk p c hawk p c a so if the pardon in this  case have come before the presentation the party have be restore position quo  c modern the king can do no more the bishop be to do the rest neither be the  presentation revoke by this Act it may have be revoke by implication in some  case as where there be a second presentation but such a general revocation  will not do it judgement be give for the plaintiff and a writ of error bring  but the cause be end by agreement