the jurisdiction was his, he would proceed in every case, without distinguishing,  despite a royal prohibition. He ought1 either to stay proceedings altogether or, when  attached, come or send, so that, the plea having been examined in the royal court,  he desist or proceed by counsel of the court. If he does not do so, let him be punished  with the proper penalty, as above.
Jurisdiction is sometimes changed from one to another, or from person to person, because of a change in the name of things.
 Jurisdiction is sometimes changed from one jurisdiction to another because of a  change in the names of things, as where a lay chattel is made spiritual, as when things  have been tithed, so that the secular jurisdiction is changed to the spiritual. It is  changed again, conversely, when the tithes or the things tithed are sold and transferred  to another; they again begin to be lay chattels.2 The same may be said of a  lay fee, that when its name has been changed by virtue of a testamentary causa, the  lay fee is made, so to speak, a spiritual thing, [according to some,] as may be seen in  connexion with houses, lands [and] tenements bequeathed in cities, boroughs and  vills;3 they again become lay fee when the testament has been executed. 4<But in  truth a prohibition lies, because if a house or estate in a borough is bequeathed, the  matter will be determined in the secular forum, as ought to be done in the case of  an assignment. If the legatee is in seisin, he will have an exception against the heir  and the assise of novel disseisin if he is ejected. If he is out of seisin, he will then have  an action in the secular forum by the modus of the gift, against all.>5 And so,6 as is  evident, with regard to things given or promised because of a matrimonial causa  principally, and so of things accessory to the marriage, as where money has been  promised because of a matrimonial causa, because the accessory ought to be subject  to the same law, that is, the same jurisdiction, as the principal matter.7 But though  cognisance of the aforesaid belongs to the judge and the ecclesiastical forum, it will  nevertheless have to be stayed at the royal prohibition.8
Whether the consent of private persons may change the jurisdiction.
 We must see whether the consent of private persons in private contracts may change  the royal jurisdiction, as where one, betaking himself to a forbidden judicial enquiry,  consents to another jurisdiction despite any prohibition.