case carter against firmin if a statute make for rebuilding a city destroy by  fire enact that no building shall be erect within the limit of the city but  accord to certain direction in the Act it only extend to building upon old  foundation and not to erection entire new by the statute car c for rebuilding  the city of London it be enact that no building or house shall be erect within  the limit of the city but such as shall be pursuant to the scantlings mention  in the say Act and if any person shall do contrary be convict upon the oath of  two witness then the house so build shall be deem a common nuisance c and it  be further enact that all difference arise between builder concern place and  stop up light shall be hear and determine by the alderman of the ware and if  he be party or can determine it then by the mayor and court of alderman Mr  carter be possess of a house in three KingCourt in fenchurchstreet and Mr  firmin have a house contiguous there be a partywall set between both these  house by the city surveyor and both build above twenty year since and now Mr  carter will build a stable upon a void piece of around which be never build on  before upon which the other complain to the court of alderman who send two  surveyor be city officer to view this building upon who report that court  hinder any far building till the right of the thing shall be determine and now  Mr carter move for a prohibition to the court of alderman and by his counsel  allege that they have no jurisdiction over this matter for their house be  build twenty year since accord to the rule prescribe by the Act that the  authority of that court be limit to the builder of house upon the foundation  of those modern which be destroy by the fire and do not extend to such person  modern er p who build upon new foundation so that the house be build their  jurisdiction be determine it be temporary only and shall not be continue  afterward and of this opinion be the court and therefore incline to grant the  motion but at another day this matter be stir again it be say by the court  that there may be a custom in the city to regulate light and for the  uniformity of building but not to determine man right this be say because the  attorneygeneral insist that the city surveyor be officer as ancient as any  record of the corporation that their oath be in the book of oath which be  likewise a very ancient book that these officer have in all time pass be  appoint to make particular report to the court of alderman to which the party  concern have always comply and that it will be very inconvenient if a  prohibition shall go contrary to such a ancient custom therefore it be order  that the plaintiff shall declare upon a prohibition and that the defendant may  if he see cause plead this custom that so the court may be judicial apprise of  the matter