ambler case knight against mosely observe upon Sowerby v friar l r Eq see Ross  v Adcock l r c p patron of a live may have a injunction against the incumbent  to stay waste bill by patron against rector to stay waste in dig stone c on  the glebe other than what be necessary for repair and improve the rectory and  for a account of what have be dig and sell to be pay to plaintiff or such  person as be entitle thereto demurrer as to the account and also as to stay  the dig of stone other than c and by way of answer set out that the quarry be  open before Lord chancellor the parson have a feesimple qualify and under  restriction in right of the church but he can do every thing that a private  owner of a inheritance can he can commit waste nor open i but may work those  already open Even a bishop can Talbot bishop of Durham apply to parliament to  enable he to open i but reject see the bill which appear to have pass the lord  in the year give by Mr Hargrave in his work entitle a enquiry into the state  of the county palatine Durhamp with his observation upon it parson may fall  timber or dig stone to repair and they have be indulge in sell such timber or  stone where the money have be apply in repair see wither v bishop of  Winchester mere injunction have be grant even against bishop to restrain from  fall large quantity of timber at the instance of the attorneygeneral on the  behalf of the crown the patron of bishopric see in Jefferson v bishop of  Durham Bos pull if the demurrer have only go to the account it have be good  for the patron can have any profit from the live but it be too general as to  stay the dig of stone c and though the answer set out that the quarry be open  before yet the demurrer can have aid from the answer but it be bad as to that  part and be so it must be overrule as to the whole for a demurrer can be good  in part and bad in part as a plea may there be no entry of this case either in  lib Reg or in Reg Min book see Hoskins v Featherston bro c c Strache v Frances  atk S C nom Bradley v Strakley barn Ch Rep wither v dean and chapter of  Winchester mere herring v dean and chapter of saint Paul will S c Swanst  bishop of Winchester v Wolgar ib in note see Bos pull a as the judgement in  this case seem very imperfect the editor have subjoin the follow note of what  the Lord chancellor say as give in Mr hargrave ms Lord chancellor the demurrer  can be support by the averment of any matter of fact the material part of the  demurrer be to that part which seek to restrain the parson from get stone out  of the glebe except for the use of the rectory I can take the answer into  consideration the rule be that a parson have a feesimple qualify in right of  the church in the possession of the church and he be to defend for himself and  his successor the inheritance of the church but he have not the same right as  a private owner he can commit waste nor fall tree nor work new i but he man  work such as be open bishop can do it in the m S I remember a case of a  application to parliament by bishop Talbot to enable he to open new i in the  bishopric and it be reject they may fall tree for repair and dig stone to be  apply for the benefit of the rectory in roll Abr there be a prohibition of  waste to restrain bishop in the case of the crown and the attorneygeneral may  by information prevent a devastation if the demurrer have be only to the  account it will have be right for the patron can take no profit of the live  and there be no instance of his take and lie it out for the benefit and  increase of the rectory but the demurrer cover too much and must be overrule  for the whole for it be not like a plea which be a defence and may be good for  part and bad for part ambler er p in Strachey v Francis which be a bill by a  patron against a parson to claim waste and a demurrer it be overrule that be  for cut timber and before Lord Hardwicke hark ms numb p see earl of Suffolk v  green atk Huggins v York building company atk Metcalf v Harvey Ves n mayor c  of London v levy Ves Todd v gee Ves baker v Mellish Ves but there be instance  of allow a demurrer part rolt v Lord Sommerville Eq can Abr Radcliffe v  Frusman bro p g Edward Toml cite Ves see east India company v neave Ves Redes  Tr and a demurrer may be good as to one defendant and bad as to another mayor  c of London v levy Ves see p wms atk