An exact abridgment in English, of The commentaries, or reports of the learned and famous lawyer, Edmond Plowden, an apprentice of the common law.: Concerning diverse cases and matters in law, and the arguments thereupon; in the times of the reignes of King Edward the Sixth, Queen Mary, King Philip, and Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth, with the exceptions to the pleadings, and answers thereunto; the resolutions of the matters in law, and all other principall matters arising upon the same. By F.H. of the Inner Temple London, Esq;

Foure answers to the foure excep∣tions of the Plea.

First, The first exception is because the Pa∣tent is not pleaded with a Non obstante, of the Statute of Mortmaine, and therefore not good by Dyer.

But Plowden held the contrary, for that the Grant is good untill Office found, and then hee may well pleade a licence for that time; also the Patent is Excerta scientia, which countervailes the clause of Non obstante, for that implies that the King was knowing of the Law; for ignorance indeed may be allowed in the King, ignorance in Law not: So if the King grant Lands to his Villain, the Land passeth untill Office; but it is no infranchise∣ment, because if he was his Villain or not, is a forrain matter, and not apparent to the King. And the Kings Grant shall not enure to two intents, where one is forraine matter. The clause of Non obstante, is requisite in a Patent, to be Sheriffe for life, 2. H. 7. because the Sta∣tute saith by precise words, That he shall not be Sheriffe above one yeare. So a Patent to a Murtherer for pardon; and that he shall not finde sureties, for his good behaviour ought to have a Non obstante, 10. E. 3. because this Sta∣tute avoided the Patent by precise words, with∣out such surety; But the Statute of Mort∣maine doth not so here, but giveth entry or seisure for a paine, admitting the Grant to be good.

The second exception was, that the Pa∣tent made not them Parson by expresse words by Dyer.

The second exception was answered by Plow∣den, who said, because the words amounted to [unspec 503] as much, and for that the Kings appeared to be so, that it should not be void, because Ex gratia & mero motu.

The third exception made by Dyer, was, that they did not plead that they entred.

But Plowden answered that, because the Patent granted them power to retaine, &c. And also they pleaded that they were seised, which implies an entrie, and in the Common Pleas, use upon possession executory shall say seised onely, without saying, that he entred and was seised.

The fourth exception that was made by Dyer, was, for that they pleaded that they were seised of the Rectory of the Parsonage of the Deane, in the right of their Cathedrall Church of Worcester, whereas it should be in the right of the Church of the Deane.

Plowden answered the fourth exception thus, That they plead the seisen of all the intire thing, otherwise if it were of parcell of it; or things pertaining to it, for there they should plead that they were seised of it in the right of the Church of the Deane.

But Judgement was given for the Bishop.