Carthew shotter versus friend hill will mark b r rot salk prohibition to the  spiritual court for deny a proof by one witness as to the payment of a legacy  Mod SC comb SC show SC more case lev lev cro Elizabeth Raymond prohibition to  the spiritual court in which the plaintiff declare to this effect sacred  scripture that one John friend make his last will and bequeathe a legacy of to  mary friend and make the wife of Shotter executrix and die the plaintiff pay  the legacy to mary friend who afterward die intestate and the defendant as her  administrator libel against the plaintiff for this legacy of to which he  allege in that court by way of plea that he have pay the say legacy to mary  friend in her lifetime which payment he offer to prove by one credible witness  but the court refuse the plea because one witness per see be not sufficient by  their law to prove any matter of fact the defendant plead that before the  prohibition be bring and deliver sentence be give in the spiritual court  against the plaintiff and upon a demurrer to this plea it be insist for the  plaintiff that this a maxim in law that where the common and the  ecclesiastical law differ the commonlaw shall always be prefer and that those  law differ in several point concern evidence for by that law the father can be  a witness where the son be a party the so in the case at bar the proof of the  fact by one witness be not good by their law but this otherwise at commonlaw  for this reasonable that the proof which be good for payment of a debt shall  be likewise sufficient for payment of a legacy moreover upon such single proof  the plaintiff will have relief in chancery and for the same reason shall have  a prohibition here and the case in the cro Bagnal v Stokes Mallary for Marriat  more Bagnal v Stokes roll Rep roll Rep hob Watts v Coninsby Yel brown v  Wentworth roll Abr latch Bellamy v Alden Bulst Hutton Poph hob margin be cite  to prove that prohibition have be grant in case of this nature now suppose a  testator owe money upon bind to the value of the asset and he have devise  several legacy by his will and this bind be prove by one witness and the  legatee libel against the executor who Carthew plead this bind in that court  and they disallow the plea because the bind be prove by one witness alone in  this case if a prohibition shall not go that court will compel the executor to  pay the legacy and yet he the executor will be Chargeable to the obligee for  as to he the payment of the legacy will be a devastavit it can be deny but  that the spiritual court have cognizance of the original cause which in this  case be the legacy and therefore they shall have cognizance of all the roll  Abr hob Rep hetley Inst Linw side Inst b incident and dependency thereon  beside one witness be not conclusive evidence at commonlaw but only evidence  to induce the jury to find the matter Carthew er p but in Michaelmasterm year  W m it be argue and resolve by all the court seriatim that a prohibition shall  go and first it be allow that regular where the spiritual court have  cognizance of the principal they shall have cognizance of the incident and  accessary but if the incident be a matter mere temporal they must proceed  there accord to the course of the commonlaw and not secundum law Church rites  for if they do a prohibition will be grant as for instance in the case of a  nuncupative will which be mere spiritual and such a will be none in their law  unless prove by two witness at least no prohibition shall go though they  disallow the will because prove by one witness and no more for that court have  cognizance of the probate of will but yet if a revocation of such will be  plead there and prove by one witness and they refuse the plea for want of  sufficient proof a prohibition shall go quod notam so where a suit be bring in  that court for substraction of tithe which be of spiritual conusance and the  defendant plead there that he have set out the tithe which he prove by one  witness but they refuse to allow the plea because the defendant have not give  the parson notice of set out the tithe yet upon suggest this matter a  prohibition shall go because notice be not requisite by the commonlaw  therefore if they will proceed upon such a incident accord to the  ecclesiastical law they shall be prohibit but it be agree that a suggestion  that the spiritual court object as to the credibility of a witness be not a  sufficient ground for a prohibition for they be the proper Carthew judge of  the credit of a witness likewise this not a sufficient ground for a  prohibition to suggest that the plaintiff have only one witness to prove the  fact unless be allege that he offer such proof and it be refuse for  insufficiency and a case be now remember between vent keb Richardson and  Desberow adjudge in this court when hale be Ch justice which be the same with  the case at bar and likewise after sentence and yet a prohibition be grant and  holt Ch justice hold that it be not necessary in any case at commonlaw that a  proof of matter of fact shall be make by more than one witness for a single  testimony of one credible witness be sufficient to prove any fact and that the  authority cite in I Inst b do not warrant that opinion which be there find on  they the plaintiff have judgement for a prohibition