Carthew VANACRE versus spleen in b r libel against the defendant for not  repair part of the churchwall which by custom he be bind to do a prohibition  be grant after sentence because a custom be not triable in that court keb SC  comb SC cite and allow upon a motion for prohibition in the case of one tiler  versus mantel justice dolben cite the case of Vanacre as follow sacred  scripture spleen the churchwarden of d libel in the spiritual court against  Vanacre for not repair part of the churchwall wherein he set forth that  Vanacre be seize of such a manor c and that the lord thereof for the time be  be by custom immemorial bind to repair that part of the wall ration tenure  Vanacre deny the custom in that court and sentence be give against he  whereupon he move b r for a prohibition suggest the statute h and that he be  cite out of his proper diocese c intend therefore that all be void and in  person non judge but the prohibition be deny because Vanacre by plead to the  libel have admit the jurisdiction of the court and the statute h do not take  away the jurisdiction of all matter arise out of the diocese but only give he  who life out of the diocese a new privilege of plead to the jurisdiction which  benefit of plead if neglect and the party suffer a sentence to be give against  he there the say statute will not serve he for a prohibition afterward to that  court who jurisdiction he have already admit but in that case upon view of the  libel it appear that the ground thereof be a libel upon a custom to pay the  churchwarden for every corpse bury in the body of the church upon deny the  custom a prohibition grant I vent custom ration tenure therefore it be hold  clear by the court that a custom be not triable in the spiritual court and  this libel have no other foundation the ecclesiastical court can have no  conusance thereof till the custom be try at law and for that reason a  prohibition be grant to try it which be afterward try and find against Vanacre  and thereupon a consultation award and so note a difference that if upon the  face of the libel it appear that the spiritual court can have no conusance of  the cause ut above or if it appear that the party cite be a inhabitant at a  place out of the Carthew diocese there the libel be felon de see and in such  case the sentence make no alteration but this otherwise where no such thing  appear on the libel and in the case of tiler and mantel beforementioned it be  say by the counsel at the bar that it appear upon the face of the libel which  be for opprobrious word speak that tiler be cite out of the diocese of London  in which sentence be give for he be name in the libel to live at d in  Hampshire and there the fact be lie whereas this very well know that d in  Hampshire be within the diocese of Winchester and not in the diocese of London  and affidavit be offer of that matter but it be answer by the court that they  can not take any notice within what diocese d in Hampshire be for they can not  ex duty take notice of the limit of bishopric but they shall now take it to be  within the proper diocese notam the case between Brockman and fag Trin will b  r be the very same sacred scripture libel for not repair part of a churchyard  wall which by custom c he Carthew er p be oblige to repair and the custom be  deny and sentence against the defendant but a Rep prohibition grant Carthew de  term sanct trin willi nariae in b r