Andrews Lockey and wife against Dangerfield a action do not lie for call a  woman a bawd a prohibition therefore refuse post SC stram a prohibition be  pray by Mr Robinson to a suit in the spiritual court for call a woman bawd and  he argue that this be a defamation f or which a action at commonlaw will lie  raym but suppose it to be a word of a mix nature a prohibition ought to go  because otherwise the party may be twice punish roll pl beside this be a word  only of beat and passion in which case the court always grant a prohibition I  side on the other side it be argue by sergeant Hayward that a action at  commonlaw do not lie for call a person bawd this be a offence proper  cognisable in the spiritual court cro car SC roll pl cro car I side SC I Mod  salk but suppose that this be a scandal punishable both in the temporal and  spiritual court yet as a suit be already institute in the spiritual court the  party ought to be suffer to proceed therein W Jones upon the argument of the  case the court allow that if the call a person bawd be actionable this be a  good ground for grant a prohibition but of that they doubt there seem to be  some diversity in the book in relation to the point and therefore they take  time to advice and after consideration it be say by lee c j that  notwithstanding the book cite for the prohibition and Mod which be only a  short note of a case it appear plain by several authority particular roll pl  side SC I vent salk that a action will not lie for this defamation and the  reason why the court deny a prohibition in this case be that what be include  in the description of a bawd be not a temporal offence and he cite the two  follow case Andrews the queen and Pierson a salk ld ray fort a Trin a the  defendant be indict to hicks hall for that she be a common bawd and procure  man and woman to meet together to commit fornication and she be find guilty  and judgement give against her and a writ of error be bring thereon it be  object that the defendant shall have be charge with keep a bawdyhouse and the  court hold that if the defendant have keep a room only for the purpose mention  in the indictment it will have be sufficient but it be no part of the charge  that she keep a bawdyhouse or room for that purpose the indictment be not good  because it contain only matter of spiritual cognizance Kirby and his wife and  Savile b Mod post b hill g a prohibition be there pray to a suit in the  spiritual court for these very word upon a suggestion that a action be bring  for this in the marshalseacourt ut the court after great consideration and  have be attend by civilian deny the prohibition because the matter be of  ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the principal case the prohibition be deny ex  relation of one another