for the act does not consider the expense.-21 & 22 G. 2. Canc. Stockwell v. Terry. ii. 118 19. Common lands newly inclosed, not producing a crop without extraordinary labour and expense, are exempt from tithes for seven years, under stat. 2 & 3 Edw. 6.-20 G. 3. Scacc. Hutchins v. Maughan. iii. 1290

20. Lands of a boggy and rushy nature, requiring very considerable expense in stubbing, draining, ploughing, liming, and manuring, and of so swampy a description, that cattle could not go on it without being lost; and when drained, ploughed, and sown, could not be harrowed by cattle, but by men only; and the crops from which, it was estimated, could not compensate for the expense of inclosing it under 20 years, was held to be clearly barren land within the statute 2 & 3 Edw. 6.-25 G. 3. Canc. Byron v. Lamb. iii. 1337

21. Land, if not naturally barren, but in its nature fit for tillage, is not within the protection of the statute 2 & 3 Edw. 6. notwithstanding great expense may be necessary for the draining, inclosing, and manuring of it.-31 G. 3. Scacc. Jones v Le David. iii. 1362

22. The rule of law for determining what is barren ground within stat. 2 & 3 Ed. 6. c. 13. is whether the land is of such a nature as to require an extraordinary expense in the manuring or tilling, to bring it into a proper state of cultivation; and not whether it is or is not in its nature so fertile as, after being ploughed and sown, to produce of itself without manuring or tillage a crop worth more than the expense of ploughing, sowing, and reaping. Land which is of a good natural quality shall pay tithe immediately, notwithstanding the stat. 2 & 3 Edw. 6. c. cap. 13., although the expense attending the breaking it up and liming it exceeds the return made to the farmer in the several first years of cultivating it.-54 G. 3. B. R. Warwick v. Collins. ii. 679 23. In an action for not setting out tithes, the onus of proving that the land is barren, lies on the defendant.

24. The proper test of barrenness within this statute, is, whether the land requires extraordinary expense either in manure or labour, to bring it into a proper state of cultivation. 55 G. 3. C. B. Lord Selsea v. Powell. iii. 714 25. Where the defendants to a bill for tithes

set up a claim of exemption under the 2d & 3d Edw. 6. cap. 13. and produced strong evidence of the land in question requiring to be cleared and levelled, and that it gave more than usual trouble in ploughing, and cost more than the customary expense in manuring it with lime; the court directed an issue, to try whether the lands of which the tithes were demanded, were of such a nature as (exclusive of the labour and expense of clearing the same

2. In a case referred from the chancery to the parliament, on account of its difficulty, a prohibition was refused, after sentence, upon a surmise that the question was, by the words of the libel, concerning the boundaries of the meadow in which tithes were claimed, and not merely concerning the tithes.-9 Hen. 5. i. 31

3. Boundaries of parishes are triable by the common law, not by the spiritual, for the Pope has ordained, that tithes shall be paid within the parish, but has not distinguished parishes. -33 El. B. R. Stransham v. Cullington. i. 101

4. The spiritual courts shall not try the bounds of parishes.-2 Jac. bounds of parishes.-2 Jac. Phillips v. Slack. i. 160

5. Though the bounds of a parish are not triable in the spiritual court, yet the bounds of vills in the same parish are. (Quære, the difference?-Sid.)-14 Car. 2. B. R. Butler v. Yateman. i. 437

6. No prohibition will be granted on suggestion that lands lie within the precincts of a free chapel, and that the bounds thereof are triable at common law, as the bounds of a parish are.-18 Car. 2. B. R. Reeves v. Bould.

i. 447

7. On suggestion that the lands of which tithes were demanded lay out of the parish, the bounds whereof are triable at common law; prohibition was denied, because it did not appear that such plea had been offered in the spiritual court.-31 Car. 2. B. R. Anon. i. 521

BRICKS.-See TITHES, for what payable.

BROOM.

1. A question was moved to the court, whether tithe should be paid of heath, turf, and broom? And the opinion of SUIT, J. was, that if they have paid tithe wool, milk, calves, &c. for their cattle which have gone upon the land, that they should not pay tithe of them. But some doubted of it, and conceived, that they ought to say, that they have used to pay those tithes for all other tithes; otherwise they should pay tithe for heath, turf, broom, &c.— 29 El. B. R. Anon. i. 90

2. The court seemed inclined to think that broom is titheable, unless it be stubbed up to make way for the plough, upon land barren, within the statute 2 E. 6.-13 Jac. B. R. Mascall v. Price. i. 225

3. A prohibition granted to suit for tithes of broom burnt in a house of husbandry.-28 Car. 2. B. R. Dr. Wat's case. i. 508

4. Tithes decreed of broom made into bavins. 6 W. 3. Scacc. Biggs v. Martin.

BULLS.--See EVIDENCE.

i. 585

1. No person, religious or secular, of what estate or condition he be, by colour of any bulls, containing such privileges, to be discharged of tithes pertaining to such parish churches, prebends, hospitals, or vicarages, purchased before the first year of King Richard II. after the conquest, or since not executed, shall put in execution any such bulls so purchased, or any such bulls to be purchased in time to come. And if any such religious or secular person, of what estate and condition he be, henceforth, by colour of such bulls, trouble any person of holy church, prebendaries, wardens of hospitals, or vicars, so that they cannot take or enjoy the tithes due or pertaining to them of their said benefices, that then such disturbers shall incur like process and pain as is ordained by the statute made against them of the order of Cisteaux, in the second year of the reign of our said Lord the King that now is.-7 Hen. 4. c. 6. iv. 17 2. All bulls and dispensations from the Bishop or See of Rome to any subjects of

this realm shall be void.-28 Hen. 8. c. 16.

iv. 38

3. The effect and contents of bulls purchased of the See of Rome, which are allowable, shall be confirmed under the great seal.—Ib. § 6. iv. 39

4. A pope's bull may be pleaded as inducement to a title, notwithstanding 28 H. 8. c. 16. that all briefs, bulls, &c. of the shall pope be void, and not pleaded, used, or allowed in any court.-31 Car. 2. B. R. Etherington v. Archbishop of York. i. 521

5. The pope's bull, exempting the order of the Præmonstratenses from tithes, did not in fact exempt that order from the payment of tithes even of lands in their own occupation, unless the bull was received and allowed in England.-2 G. 3. Scacc. Townley v. Tomlinson. ii. 189

CALVES.-See MODUS, Calves.

1. The owner of a single calf shall, of common right, pay the tenth part of its value when taken from the cow, in lieu of tithes.-5 W. & M. Scacc. Kenyon v. West. i. 582

2. Calves, in kind, to be delivered at the will of the owner, after they were three weeks old, and at such time of the year as the owner might think best to spare them, not hindering his breed, the parson, if he delayed the fetching, to pay for the keeping; bad for uncertainty and unreasonableness, being vitiated by the qualifications of the delivery at will, and the parson to pay for the keep until delivered.— 58 G. 3. Scacc. Jenkinson v. Royston. iii. 896

3. The right of a parson to the tithes of calves accrues when they are dropped; though the tithe cannot be set out or taken until they have arrived at a proper age to be weaned.— 59 G. 3. C. B. Welch v. Uppill. iii. 963

CANONS.

1. Several canons have been prejudicial to the King's prerogative, and to the laws and statutes of this realm.

2. The clergy shall not enact any constitutions or ordinances without the King's assent.

3. The King may assign thirty-two persons to examine the canons, and to continue such as they think worth, and to abridge the residue.

4. Provided always, that no canons, constitutions, or ordinances shall be made or put in execution within this realm by authority of the convocation of the clergy, which shall be contrary or repugnant to the King's prerogative royal, or the customs, laws, or statutes of this realm.

5. Provided also, that such canons, consti

would be commenced against him, was sufficient notice of setting out the tithes to found an action for not removing tithes.

12. And due notices having been given of setting out tithes of garden vegetables and field barley on certain days between the 11th and 16th of September, a general notice on the 17th to the parson, to take away all the tithes of the owner's lands within two days, was likewise holden to be a sufficient notice to ground a similar action.-49 G.3. B.R. Kemp v. Filewood. ii. 570

13. In an action for not removing tithes, the court refused to grant a new trial, though the damages amounted to 150. on a farm of less than 100 acres.

14. Quare if the owner of the land may distrain tithes as dumage-feasant after a reasonable time. 51 G. 3. Scacc. Baker v. Leathes. ii. 604

15. In an action for not carrying away tithe, it was averred (by mistake), that the land was that year sown with grass; and it was not proved that the tithe was set out in a convenient manner for carrying away; but the jury found that it was set out according to the custom of the country. Held, that the variance, and the uncertainty as to the setting out of the tithe, were sufficient grounds for granting a new trial. But the plaintiff was allowed to amend on payment of costs.-5 G. 4. Scacc. Hooper v.

Mantle.

iii. 1163

16. Declaration in case for not carrying away the tithe of corn, alleging it to have been "lawfully and in due manner" set out, is sustained by proof, that the tithe was set out according to an agreement between the parties, though not according to the mode prescribed by the common law. Whether the crop has been left on the ground a reasonable time after the tithe has been set out, for the tithe-owner to compare his tenth part with the residue, is a question of fact for the jury, and not of law for the judge.-5 G. 4. B. R. Facey v. Hur

dom.

CATTLE.-See AGISTMENT.

iii. 1172

CHANCERY.-See TITHES, Chancery.

CHANTRIES.

1. All colleges, chantries, hospitals, &c. having continuance for ever, and all their manors, lands, and hereditaments given to the iv. 61 King.-37 Hen. 8. c. 4.

2. Other chantries, &c. dissolved.-1 Edw. 6. c. 14. iv. 73 3. Colleges, chantries, free chapels, &c. did not come to the crown by 31 Hen. 8. but by 1 E. 6. c. 14. only; and are therefore not entitled to a discharge of tithes under the former

CHAPLAIN.-See CHAPEL.-TITHES,

to whom.

1. A chaplain put in and removed at pleasure cannot claim tithes.-5 W. & M. Cam. Scacc. Wild v. Acton. i. 575

2. A king's chaplain extraordinary is not capable of a plurality within 21 H. 8.—12 W. 3 B. R. Brown v. Mugg. iii. 1233

CHERRIES.

1. Wild cherries are titheable.-32 Car. 2. Scacc. Anon. i. 527

2. Tithes are due of wild cherries.-11 Geo. i. 803 Scacc. Chapman v. Barlow.

CHERRY TREES.-See WOOD.

CHICKENS.

1. No tithes shall be paid of chickens because he pays tithes of the eggs.-15 Jac. B.R. 1 Ro. Abr. 642.

CHURCH.

1. Nothing can be appendant to a church. but gross tithes ; but to a manor with which a church is endowed, franchises may be appendant; and therefore on a plea by the parson that he and his predecessors had been seised of a franchise in right of his church for time, &c. held, that he ought to have alleged, that he found the church seised of the franchise, and have prayed aid of his patron.-Edw. 3. i. 16

CINQUEFOIL.-See CLOVER AND HAY. 1. The seed and stalk of cinquefoil to pay tithe as grass to the vicar who had tithe hay. Jac. 2. Scacc. Anon. i. 558

CISTERTIANS.-See BULLS-DISCHARGE

HOSPITALLERS.

1. Such bulls as had been obtained by the Cistertians to be quit of payment of tithes of their possessions let to farm, or cultivated and occupied by others than by themselves, not to be put in execution.—2 Hen. 4. c. iv. 14 2. The owner of land of the Cistertians shall pay no tithes, but the tenant shall pay.-15 Jac. C. B. Anon. i. 262

3. Lands of the Cistertians (which were discharged quamdiu propriis manibus, &c.) under lease, and consequently paying tithes at the time of the dissolution, shall be discharged when they return into the bands of the owner of the inheritance.-17 Jac. B. R. Porter v. Bathurst. i. 312

4. A prohibition was granted upon suggestion that the land belonged to a Cistertian abbey before the council of Lateran, 15 John, and had always been enjoyed discharged.-9 Car. B. R. Anon.

i. 381

5. The council of Lateran, which discharged the order of Cistertians from payment of tithes, is a general law received in England, and if lands belonging to them were discharged of tithes from the time of that council, no after contract made by the abbot to pay tithes could dispense with the privilege, or make them

liable to tithes, and if there were any such agreement for payment of tithes before the council, yet as a general law that council had dissolved it, and the lands are discharged.

6. Lands belonging to the Cistertians before the second council of Lateran, which came to the King by 31 H. 8. held to be discharged, notwithstanding tithes had been paid for some two years.-1656. Scacc. Staveley v. Ullithorne and others. i. 418

7. Tenant in tail, who has an estate of inheritance in lands formerly belonging to the Cistertians, is within the privilege of that order, and the reversioner shall have it, because it was not interrupted but suspended only, while in life or years is not privileged.-12 Car. 2. Scacc. the hands of particular tenants, but tenant for

Wilson v. Redman and others.

i. 430

8. HALE, C. J. held, that an abbot of the Cistertian order might well renounce the benefit of his privilege.-16 Car. Scacc. Sir W. Ingleby, Bart. v. Wyvell and Ullithorn.

i. 443

9. A suggestion that lands belonged to the Cistertians is not sufficient, without alleging that they were in the hands of that order at the time of the dissolution, and granted over by the King. And Windham said, the owner must be always in possession, for lessee of a patentee shall not have the privilege-20 Car. 2. B. R. Clerk v. Townsend. i. 478

10. A bull to be discharged quamdiu proprüs manibus does not take away any prescription that was at common law before, so if it appear that the lands of Cistertians never paid tithes when in the hands of tenants, they may be so discharged under 31 Hen. 8.-25 Car. 2. B. R. Fosset v. Francklin.

i. 501

11. Where lands had belonged to an abbey of the Cistertian order, under the value of 2001. per annum, and they were not privileged in the abbot's hands, tithes were decreed.-4 W.& M. Scacc. Watts v. Watkins. i. 572

12. Such lands only of the Cistertians as were held in their own hands, and belonged to them before the council of Lateran (which was held 1179) were discharged from the payment of tithes.-9 Geo. Scacc. Lord v. Turk. i. 778

13. Where it appeared that lands of the Cistertians were in tenants' hands, when they came to Hen. 8. the court held that they were consequently not discharged; but quære, as Chief Baron PARKER said the reporter had misrepresented the case.-S. C. i. 778

14. Lands formerly belonging to a Cistertian abbey were held to be discharged of tithes whilst in the manurance of the owner, though such lands were in lease at the time of the dissolution of the abbey.-27 G. 3. Scacc. Cowley v. Keys. ii. 1351

15. Lands formerly belonging to an abbey of the Cistertian order and exempt from tithes