AALT images for the Fawne case:

[Appearance of petitioner]

Memorandum that on June 25 this same term comes here in court Robert Fawne by Edmund Fawne his attorney and gives it to the court to be understood that,

[common law jurisdiction over lay fee and free tenements]

whereas all and singular pleas and cognizances of pleas touching or emerging from lay fee or free tenement look and pertain specially to the now lord king and his royal crown and ought and always up to the present have been accustomed to be tried, determined, and discussed by the law of the land of this realm of England and not by ecclesiastical laws or censures,

[statute of 2 Henry V for accused’s right to see the libel]

and, whereas in the statute edited in parliament of the lord Henry late king of England fifth after the Conquest held in the second year of his reign at Westminster in Middlesex among other things it was enacted by the authority of the same parliament by reason that divers liege people of the king were daily cited to appear in spiritual court before the spiritual judges there to answer to divers persons both concerning matters that touched free tenement, debt, trespass, covenants, and others things the cognizance of which pertained to the court of the lord king as concerning matrimony and testament, and when such manner persons thus cited appeared and sought the libel so as to be informed concerning that which was suggested against them so that they could give there their answer or otherwise to purchase the lord king’s writ of prohibition according to their case, which certain libel was denied to them by the said spiritual judges with the intention that such manner persons should not be aided by any such writ, against the law and to the grave damage of such person thus impleaded, the same lord king by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and at the prayer and instance of the community assembled in the same parliament ordained and established that at the time that the libel was granted by law it would be granted and delivered to the party without any difficulty, as in the statute among other things is more fully contained,

[Fawne had the office of hosteler in college as a free tenement]

and whereas that Robert Fawne now is and for the space of four years already elapsed was the hosteller of the school of the college of Blessed Mary in Winchester in Hampshire legitimately admitted and constituted by the warden and the greater part of the fellows of the abovesaid college for the time being and had and exercised the office and was thereof seized and ought to hold and exercise it as of free tenement for the term of his life,

[the college bylaws for security of the hosteler and procedure for removal]

and, whereas by the statutes and ordinances made and constituted in the abovesaid college for the common utility and public good of the same college and for the better governance, disposition, and handling of things and businesses in the same college to be governed and handled among other things it was established and ordained that the hosteler of the abovesaid school of the abovesaid college would have and exercise that office by the warden and greater part of the fellows of the abovesaid college for the time being for the term of his life with expulsion or removal from the exercise of the same office only if he was detected or stained by perjury, theft, manifest adultery, notorious homicide, willful atrocity, striking of the warden, a perpetual fellow or a master instructor, or inflicting a serious wound or unless by the warden and fellows of the abovesaid college he was found insufficient or unsuitable and that each such manner hosteler detected or stained by the abovesaid crimes or by any of them or found insufficient or unsuitable by the warden and the greater part of the fellows of the abovesaid college for the time being should be expelled and removed from his office and not by any other persons or by any other person or not for any other cause, and also by the abovesaid statutes and ordinances made and constituted in the abovesaid college it is established and ordained that each person infringing the same and incurring danger of expulsion or removed therefrom should be warned of such manner his delict by the warden and greater part of the fellows of the abovesaid college for the time being before he is expelled or removed and that if on such manner warning thus made he not reform then he would be expelled or removed by the warden and greater part of the fellows of the abovesaid college for the time being at their will if they want, and also if the visitators of the abovesaid college for the time being discern or consider a master instructor or hosteler of the abovesaid school or any of the fellows of the abovesaid college detected or stained of any crime to be expelled or removed therefrom and denounce and promulgate that decree or censure then such manner decree or censure thus denounced and promulgated would be executed by the warden and greater part of the fellows of the abovesaid college for the time being,

[suit to remove Fawne in High Commission and not by specified process]

nevertheless a certain Thomas bishop of Winchester, George Ryves doctor of sacred theology, Thomas Ryves, Josias White, Nicholas Love, John Boles, William Matkyn, Robert Byly, Edmund Gray, and Guy Dobbins not ignorant of the premises but scheming and intending to disinherit the now lord king and his royal crown as well as the same Robert Fawne against the form of the abovesaid statute edited in the abovesaid second year of the abovesaid reign of the late King Henry V and against the law and custom of this realm of England and against the abovesaid statutes and ordinances of the abovesaid college less rightly and unduly to injure him as well as to cause that Robert to be removed from his abovesaid office and the exercise of the same without the consent of the warden and the greater part of the fellows of the abovesaid college and without due warning or due process had or made, and slyly and craftily to draw into a plea the cognizance of the plea that looks and pertains to the court of the said now lord king and his royal crown to other examination in spiritual court less justly, by articulating and objecting against that Robert Fawne in the same spiritual court by certain articles exhibited there by their promotion or means to try the title of Robert Fawne’s free tenement in his abovesaid office in the court spiritual court before the abovesaid commissioners and to cause that Robert Fawne to be removed from the same office and the exercise thereof, and less rightly constrained that Robert to be cited by that occasion and to appear in the abovesaid spiritual court before the aforementioned commissioners thereon and to answer the abovesaid articles,

[High Commission refused to consider the matter or to give a copy of the libel]

and although that Robert Fawne was and still is and for the whole time that that Robert was hosteler of the abovesaid school sufficient and suitable to have and exercise that office, and although also that Robert Fawne in the abovesaid spiritual court before the aforementioned commissioners often sought and requested those commissioners to grant and deliver to the same Robert Fawne a copy of the aforementioned articles exhibited against him in the abovesaid form according to the form of the statute edited in the abovesaid year of the reign of the late King Henry V as well as often pleaded and alleged all and singular other the premises often specified for his exoneration in the premises in the abovesaid spiritual court to the aforementioned commissioners and offered to prove them by inevitable testimony and truth, nevertheless the same commissioners completely refused to admit or receive that plea, allegation, and proof or to grant or deliver a copy of the same to Robert Fawne, and the abovesaid Bishop George, Thomas, Josias, Nicholas, John, William, Robert Byly, Edmund, and Guy try with all their might and daily scheme to condemn that Robert Fawne by definitive sentence of the said spiritual court of and on the premises and to remove him from his abovesaid office and the exercise of the same without reasonable or legitimate cause, in contempt of the said now lord king and the grave damage, prejudice, impoverishment and manifest oppression of that Robert Fawne and against the form of the statute abovesaid edited in the second year abovesaid of the abovesaid reign of the late King Henry V and the law of the land of this realm of England,

[petition and grant of prohibition without mention of security or depositions]

and this that Robert Fawne is ready to verify, wherefore that Robert humbly imploring the aid and munificence of the court of the said now lord king here seeks a remedy and the said now lord king’s writ of prohibition to be directed to the aforementioned Bishop George, Josias, Nicholas, John, William, Robert Byly, Edmund and Guy to prohibit the aforementioned commissioners that they not further hold a plea touching any of the premises before them and to prohibit the aforementioned warden and fellows of the abovesaid college and the aforementioned Bishop George, Josias, Nicholas, John, William, Robert Byly, Edmund, and Guy and each of them that they or any of them not prosecute against that Robert Fawne further as to the premises nor attempt anything thereon or presume to attempt anything to the damage or prejudice of that Robert Fawne or anything that would serve as an impediment to exercising the office or for the office to be exercised. And it is granted to him etc.