Bishop of St. David's v Lucy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 126
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
Pas. 11 W. 3, B. R. 1 Ld. Raym. 447, 539, S. C.
See S. C. 1 Ld. Raym. 447 (with note).
[134] bishops, archbishops, &c. bishop of st. david's versus lucy. [Pas. 11 W. 3, B. E. 1 Ld. Raym. 447, 539, S. C.J [See S. C. 1 Ld. Raym. 447 (with note).] 12 Mod. 238. Ante, 106. Post, 294. Bishop cited before the archbishop in person, for simony. Mod. Cases, &c. 160. Far. 56. The Bishop of St. David's was sued in a Court held at Lambeth, before the Archbishop of Canterbury himself in person, for simony, and several other offences; and now he moved for a prohibition; and the suggestion was, that he was cited to Lambeth, and not to the Arches, and also that he was cited before the archbishop bimself, and not before his vicar-general, and the proceeding against him was in order to a deprivation. Et per Curinm, 1st, The archbishop hath a provincial power over all the bishops of his province, and may hold his Court where he pleases; and he may convene before himself, and sit judge himself; and so may any other bishop; for the power of a chancellor or vicar general is only delegated in case of the bishop. 2dly, The Court held, that the Spiritual Court might proceed to punish him for any offence done against the duty of his office as bishop, and as it relatea to that: for ecclesiastical persons are subject to the canons; those of 1640 have been questioned, but no doubt was ever made as to those of 1603. And as the clergy are under different rules and duties, it is but reasonable that if an ecclesiastical person offend in his ecclesiastical duty, he should be punishable for it in the Ecclesiastical Court, especially if it be in a matter for which he is not punishable at common law; and it is but fit the clergy should have a power to purge their own body from scandalous members. Cawdry's case was remarkable, for he was deprived for preaching against the common prayer ; and yet being the first instance, there was another punishment appointed by the statute. Vide 31 E. 3, c. 4. 2 Inst. 586. The Ecclesiastical Court may punish any ecclesiastical officer for extortion. They may punish for forging of orders, vide Keb. 39. They may punish perjury committed in a Spiritual Court, and a spiritual matter, as matrimony; not in a temporal matter, as in contracts, (but this is not settled, per Holt,) vide 3 Cro. 788. Simony is determin-able in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shephard and Another v Payne and Another
...vol. 2, pp. 248, 353, 364, 369 ; [133] 1 Stephen's Laws of the Clergy, 277 ; 1 Bl. Com. 69; T/te liuhop of St. David'* v. Luc//, 1 Salk 134; Matthew v. BurdM, 2 Salk. 412 ; VeaU v. Priowr, Hardres, 351 ; Goslin v. Ellison, 1 Salk. 330; Pollard v. Gerard, 1 Ld. Raym. 703, 1 Salk. 333, 12 Mod......
-
Middleton v Croft
...the canons, confirmed only by the King, but they must be confirmed by the Parliament to bind the laity, Carthew, 485. The same case is in 1 Salk, 134. Lord Baym. 447. 12 Mod. 38. 3 Salk. 90, and appears to be to the same effect; and both the late Lord Raymond, and the Lord Chief Justice Eyr......
-
The Queen against Baines
...in the Court of Arches, is the archbishop; Com. Dig. Courts (N, 1), (N, 3); and he may act in person ; Bishop of St. David's v. Lucy (1 Salk. 134). The significavit is required by atat. 53 G. 3, c. 127, s. 1, to be in the form prescribed by the schedule, and there it purports to issue from ......
-
The Visitation of the Archbishop of York of the Dean and Chapter of York
...Delegates, on appeal, but has not been published. See p. 27, post. (4) Boughton's case. See p. 28, post. (ft)" 1 Ld. Bay. 447, 539. S. C. 1 Salk. 134, 3 Salk. 90, 12 Mod. 237. And see 14 How. St. Tr. 447. Also the account of the case in 1 Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, 232, et seq. tit. Bishops......