coke prohibition mich James No prohibition lie after the writ de excommunicate  to take in hand what remedy a party wrongful excommunicate have note where a  defendant in a cause of defamation for call plaintiff a whore be cite before  the dean and arch out of the proper diocese against the statute Henry and  after sentence a writ of excommunicate caviendo be grant no prohibition lie  upon that statute where it appear to the court that the matter of the libel be  not within the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court a prohibition lie with  clause to deliver the party note it be resolve in the same term that if a man  be excommunicate by the ordinary where he ought not to be as after a general  pardon c and the defendant be negligent do not sue a prohibition but remain  excommunicate by forty day and upon certificate in chancery he be take by the  king writ de excommunicate to take in hand that no prohibition lie in this  case for that he be take by the king writ and no precedent or authority can be  find where a prohibition be grant after the party be take by the king writ for  prohibition lie to prohibit ecclesiastical proceed not any thing which be do  by the king writ by force of the commonlaw and if a prohibition be grant it  will not deliver the party then it be move what remedy have the party who be  so wrong excommunicate to which it be answer that he have three remedy c he  may have a writ out of chancery to absolve he for as it be hold in h fol in  all case where a man be excommunicate by the bishop against our law he shall  have writ out of the chancery direct to the bishop command he to assoil he and  with this agree Edward a a the result of my research upon this subject which I  have look into very attentive be that where the spiritual court have  excommunicate a person for a cause for which they have not by the law of the  land authority to do so he have a coke report er p when a man be excommunicate  against the law of this realm so that he can have a writ de caution to send to  for then he ought coke to appear mandalis church formless law id be Church  rites where in truth it be excommunicate contrajus etformam law id be common  law but if he show his cause to the bishop and request he to assoil he for  this that he be excommunicate after the offence be pardon or this that the  cause do not appear to be of ecclesiastical cognizance and be refuse to assoil  he so that he be now disable to sue any writ of the king so long as he remain  excommunicate he may have a action sur Le case against the ordinary who have  do he this wrong to disable he in this case and with this agree the dr and  Stud lib cap fol if the party be excommunicate for none of the cause mention  in the Act of Elizabeth cap then he may have this for plea in the king bench  by the same Act and avoid the penalty inflict by the same Act note it be  resolve by the court c that where one be cite before the dean of the arch in  cause of defamation for call the plaintiff whore out of the proper diocese  sure the diocese of London against the statute of h and the plaintiff have  sentence and the defendant be excommunicate and so continue day and upon  certificate into the chancery a writ of excommunicate to take in hand be grant  and after the defendant be take and imprison by force of it that he shall not  have a prohibition upon the statute h for no writ in the register extend to it  etsententia si how Julminaveritis sin dilation to call again and after  sentence be appeal a prohibition lie as appear by the register but no writ nor  precedent can be show in this case but there be a writ in the register call a  writ de caution to send to when the defendant be take by the king writ de  excommunicate to take in hand de to appear order ecclesix and to assoil and  deliver the defendant but note a diversity where it appear to the court that  the matter of the libel be not within their jurisdiction as of lie fee or of  lie contract c there lie a prohibition b with clause to deliver the party for  there he can find caution de to appear order church for this that order church  contralegem et extra jurisdiction svan but in the case at the bar although it  appear by the libel that the defendant be of one such parish in London yet  inasmuch as the statute h have many exception sure that the ordinary request  the archbishop c to examine the case c so that the say defamation be the  matter of the libel be of ecclesiastical cognizance and the statute have many  exception so that it do not appear to we judicial without information that the  citation be against the form of the statute and this information come too late  in this case after the defendant have persist so long in his contumacy and be  take by the king writ and imprison