case reef Griffith appellant thomas lewis respondent that June see r S c Ord r  on a decree for tithe the master report only S due to the plaintiff yet this  shall entitle he to his cost a parson may sue in a court of equity for his  tithe be the amount of the demand ever so small the dean and chapter of  Worcester be in right of their church seize in fee of the impropriate rectory  or parsonage of old Radnor and of all manner of tithe arise and renew yearly  within the say parish by indenture of lease under their common seal date the  that of November demise the same to the most noble James duke of chandos his  executor administrator and assign from the date of the say lease for year  under the yearly rend therein mention and by indenture date the that of  February the duke assign the say lease and premise to the respondent his  executor administrator and assign subject to the say yearly rend whereby the  respondent become well entitle to all the tithe and duty arise and grow within  the say rectory and the titheable place thereof the appellant after the say  that of February occupy a message and land within the say parish and  particular thirty acre of meadow and pasture ground but neglect to tithe the  same for the year and or to make the respondent any satisfaction for such  tithe he in Michaelmas term file his bill in the court of exchequer against  the appellant for a account and satisfaction thereof to this bill the  appellant put in his answer and thereby admit it to be the general opinion of  the country that the respondent be owner of the tithe say that he occupy one  message a small garden five acre of arable four acre of pasture ground and  acre and a half of meadow that as to the meadow he be tenant at will at pound  S a year and that it be in the general opinion tithe free and never any tithe  hay be pay for the same but be only tenant at will and the value of brown er p  the tithe small and rather than give any colour for a suit he order his  servant mow there in in case the respondent agent demand tithe hay to set it  out that soon after Henry Davies the respondent servant who have be a tithe  gatherer year be offer to have the hay tithe answer he never gather tithe from  thence and will not meddle with it and they may carry it away whereupon the  hay be carry home brown untithed that in the year Edward turner the respondent  agent come to the say meadow and see the hay tithe and open one of the cock  and imagine that no tithe be due go away and say he will consult Howell Lewis  the respondent chief agent and soon after return and say he will not meddle  with it whereupon the appellant carry it home and that have graze the say  meadow each year till the middle of may he have but little hay and believe the  tithe thereof be not worth above S d each year but know not how the say meadow  become exempt from the payment of tithe issue be join several witness be  examine who prove the demand of tithe hay of the say meadow and that the  appellant forbid the respondent to take the same but no proof be give of the  pretend exemption on the that of November the cause be hear before the baron  of the exchequer who decree that the appellant shall account with and satisfy  the respondent for the value of the tithe of hay of the say meadow for the  year and and it be thereby refer to the DeputyRemembrancer to take such  account and to make his report with all convenient speed and the cause be to  continue in the paper of cause to be further hear upon come in of the say  report in pursuance of this decree the deputy on the d of February make his  report and thereby certify that there be due to the respondent from the  appellant for the value of the tithe of hay of the say meadow for the year and  the sum of S and the cause be hear upon this report on the that of the same  month the court decree that the report shall be confirm and that the appellant  shall pay the respondent the say S report due together with the cost of the  suit to be tax and which be afterward tax at the sum of pound S d the  appellant rather than satisfy this demand appeal from the decree insist r  pauncefort I Griffith that the bill be find on a suppose fraud in the  appellant in conceal his tithe and pray a discovery and account of the tithe  so suppose to be conceal and the appellant have by his answer deny any  concealment the respondent in order to entitle himself to any decree upon such  a bill ought to have verify the allegation of it but which he have not attempt  to do that the appellant have state the matter of fact as to the tithe of the  meadow and deny all fraud and as no fraud be attempt to be prove upon the  commission or insist on at the hear nothing remain in controversy between the  party or to be account for but a demand of S or S for which the respondent may  have have and ought to have take his remedy in a court of law and not bring  the appellant into a court of equity for a demand so very inconsiderable as to  be beneath the dignity of the court to take any notice of but suppose the  decree proper there be not the least colour to decree the appellant to account  for the tithe hay of the year which he have actual set out and which the brown  respondent agent may have carry away but will not meddle with nor be there any  evidence that the hay in question be worth S if however it real be worth that  sum the decree cost which amount to pound S d be sure a punishment more than  equal to the appellant crime in not pay S and especial as he have swear in his  answer that the respondent never demand satisfaction under these circumstance  therefore it be hope that the decree will be reverse and the respondent bill  dismiss with cost on the other side it be say I strange r Lloyd that tithe in  kind be due of common right and no presumption from report only ought to be of  any weight to avoid a demand so find and though the appellant by his answer  have set up a pretence of exemption from tithe yet he have give no proof of it  nor have he set up any modus or composition in lieu of tithe that it appear  clear from the proceed in the cause that the appellant controvert the  respondent right to the tithe and therefore it be proper to sue in a court of  equity in order to ascertain and settle such right and that the appellant  answer as to his not dispute the respondent right be inconsistent with itself  for though he admit that he will brown er p have pay tithe for his hay have he  think the respondent will have require it yet he do not even submit by his  answer to pay any tithe for the same though the respondent have require it by  his bill after hear counsel on this appeal it be order and adjudge that the  same shall be dismiss and the decree therein complain of affirm jour vol p  court