brittle against WILMOT and king arch court that session Hilary term December  saint in a debate on the admissibility of a libel in a cause of subtraction of  churchrate the court can take notice of nothing that be not express plead or  refer to in the libel if a rate be make only for the repair of a church it be  illegal to raise more than be want for that purpose appeal from consistory of  London in the vacation after Hilary term John Wilmot and William king then and  now churchwarden of Hornsey in Middlesex take out citation against John  Brettell in a cause of subtraction of rate in easter term Mr Stevens appear  for lee er p Brettell and Mr Skelton for the churchwarden give in a libel  plead that in the church of Hornsey be very much out lee of repair that on  that September after due notice for that purpose a vestry be hold when it be  unanimous agree the church shall be repair the repair be begin in April and on  that October the parishioner meet in vestry after due notice and make a rate  of S d in the pound upon all house and land in the parish to pay the workman  bill which rate amount to S that Brettell life in a house for which he pay  ayear and that he be duly and equal rate at S d N B the rate be annex to the  libel wherein it appear that he be rate S for his house and S d for his land  call bath land which he have in the parish make together S d the admissibility  of this libel be debate in the consistory court of London on d June when the  chancellor admit it from which Brettell appeal to the arch Brettells counsel  admit that he be not unequal assess but insist that the rate be illegal  because it be make without any estimate of what the repair will amount to that  on that October when the rate be make the vestry know make a rate for the  repair amount to a great sum than the workman bill come to for the bill be  then before the vestry as appear by the vestry Act of that day which be refer  to in the libel and there it appear that the bill come only to S d but this  rate be for S that by subsequent order the bill be refer to a surveyor who  reduce they to S old and on that January the vestry appoint a committee to  settle the bill and adjust a rate whereby they have depart from the rate of  that October lee judgment sir George lee but I be of opinion the chancellor of  London have do right in admit the libel for upon debate of the admissibility  of the libel the court can take notice of nothing but what be either express  mention therein or refer to by it all the act of vestry therefore except that  of that October to which the libel refer be out of the present question and  may be matter of plea for Mr Brettell hereafter and as to the grand objection  that this rate which be annex to and make part of the libel be for a great sum  of money than be want it be gratis dictum for at the bead of the rate it be  say to be make to pay for the repair of the church and for other disbursement  of the churchwarden in their office I therefore remit the cause and condemned  Brettell in cost but say if it shall appear that this rate be make only for  repair of the church I shall be clear of opinion it be illegal to raise so  much more than be want and therefore in that case it will be most advisable  for the churchwarden to drop this rate and suit and to get a new rate make for  the sum real want and as to a estimate it will have be proper before the  repair be make but the work be do before the rate be make and the rate be now  ground so far as concern these repair on the workman bill it be say the  churchwarden have bring suit against twelve other parishioner upon the same  rate