Audience Court

In English law. A court belonging to the archbishop of Canterbury, and held by him in his palace for secrations, and the like. This court has the same authority with the court of arches, but is of inferior dignity and antiquity. The dean of the arches is the official auditor of the audience. The archbishop of York has also his audience.court. Termes de la Ley.

See Court of Audi- ENCfl. AUDITA QUERELA (I/at). A form of action which lies for a defendant to recall or prevent an execution, on account bf some matter occurring after judgment amounting to a discharge, and which could not have been, and cannot be, taken advantage of otherwise. Thatcher v. Gammon, 12 Mass. 268. If in a justice's suit the defendant is out of the state at the time of the service of the writ and remains away until after the return day and has no notice of suit, judgment by default may be set aside by audita querela; Sawyer v. Cross, 65 Vt. 158, 26 Atl. 528; but not unless the action was on its face appealable; Sawyer v. Cross, 66 Vt. 616, 30 Atl. 5. It is a regular suit in which the parties appear and plead; Brooks v. Hunt, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 484; Gleason v. Peck, 12 Vt. 56, 36 Am. Dec. 329; Clark v. Hydraulic Co., 12 Vt. 435; Melton v. Howard, 7 How. (Miss.) 103; Avery v. U. S., 12 Wall. (U. S.) 305, 20 L. Ed. 405; and in which damages may be recovered if execution was issued improperly; Brooke, Abr. Damages 38; but the writ must be allowed in open court, and is not of itself a supersedeas; Emery v. Patton, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 125. It is a remedial process, equitable in its nature, based upon facts, and not upon the erroneous judgments or acts of the court; 2 Wms. Saund. 148, n.; Lovejoy v. Webber, 10 Mass. 103; Brackett v. Winslow, 17 Mass. 159; Little v. Cook, 1 Aik. (Vt.) 363, 15 Am. Dec. 698; Porter v. Vaughn, 24 Vt. 211. It lies where an execution against A has; been taken out on a judgment acknowledged by B. without authority, in A's name; Fitzh. N. B. 233; and see Cro. Eliz. 233; and generally for any matters which work a discharge occurring after judgment entered; Cro. Car. 443; Pettit v. Seaman, 2 Root (Conn.) 178; Com. v. Whitney, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 439; see 5 Co. 86 &; and for matters occurring before judgment which the defendant could not plead through want bf notice or through collusion or fraud of the plaintiff; Johnson v. Harvey, 4 Mass. 485; Smock v. Dade, 5 Rand. (Va.) 639, 16 Am. Dec. 780; Wardell v. Eden, 2 Johns. Cas. 258; Williams v. Butcher, 1 W. N. C. (Pa.) 304. though it has not been; 1 Rolle, Abr. 306, 431, pi. 10; 1 Mod. Ill; either before or after execution has issued; Lothrop v. Bennet, Kirb. (Conn.) 187. It does not lie for matter which might have been, or which may be, taken advantage of by a writ of error; Sutton v. Tyrrell, 10 Vt. 87; in answer to a scire facias of the plaintiff; 1 Salk. 264; nor where there is or has been a remedy by plea or otherwise-. T. Raym. 80; Thatcher v. (Jammon, 12 Mass. 270; Barrett v. Vaughan, <". Vt. 243; v. U. S., 12 Wall. (U. S. i 305, -jo l. Ed. 405; nor where there has been an agreement to accept a.smaller sum in payment of a larger debt, while any part of the agreement continues executory; Keen v. Vaughan's Ex'x, 48 Pa. 477: nor to show that a confessed judgment was to be collateral security only; Emery v. Patton, 0 I'liila. (Pa.) 125; nor where a judgment is erroneous in part without a tender of the legal part of the Judgment; Rickard v. Fisk, 66 Vt. 675, 30 Atl. '.>::; nor against the commonwealth; Com. v. Berger, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 237. In modern practice it is usual to grant the same relief upon motion which might be obtained by audita querela; Baker v. Judges, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 191; Witherow v. Keller, 11 S. & R. (Pa.) 271; and in some of the states the remedy by motion has entirely superseded the ancient remedy; Smock v. Dade, 5 Rand. (Va.) 639, 16 Am. Dec. 780; Longworth v. Screven, 2 Hill (S. C.) 298, 27 Am. Dec. 381; Marsh v. Haywood, 6 Humphr. (Tenn.) 210; Dunlap v. Clements, 18 Ala. 77S; Chambers v. Neal, 13 B. Monr. (Ky.) 256; while in others audita querela is of frequent use as a remedy recognized by statute; Sawyer v. Cross. 66 Vt. 616, 30 Atl. 5; Rickard v. Fisk, 66 Vt. C7r>, 30 Atl. 93; Stone v. Chamberlain, 7 Gray (Mass.) 206; Foss v. Witham, 9 Allen (Mass.) 572. "Audita querela was given quite recently, that is to say in the tenth year of the reign, in Parliament,... and it was never given before." Y. B. 18 Edw. Ill, Rolls Series, p. 308. See Jac. L. Diet.; Fitzh. N. B. 102; Register of Writs, vol. 1, pp. 149, 150 (for the writ itself).

In English ecclesiastical law. A court of the Archbishop of Canterbury, of equal authority with the arches court, though inferior in both dignity and antiquity.

In English law. A court belonging to the Archbishop of Canterbury, having jurisdiction of maiters of form only, as the confirmation of bishops, anil the like. This court bas the same authority with the Court of Arches, but is of inferior dignity and antiquity. The Dean of the Arches is the official auditor of the Audience court. The Archbishop of York has also his Audience court.

[L. Lat. cwria audientice Cantuariensis^ In In English ecclesiastical law. A court belonging to the Archbishop of Canterbury, of equal authority with the Arches court, thoucfh inferior both in dignity and antiquity. Term^s de la ley, Wharton^ s Lex,