case ewer against jones for a prohibition to the admiralty to a suit concern  seaman wage upon plead statute of limitation S c salk S c ld ray S c comy do  you move for a prohibition to the court of admiralty to stay a suit there for  seaman wage the contract be upon land and the suggestion be that they plead  the statute James c of limitation and that the admiralty reject their plea and  have obtain a rule nisi before it be now offer against it that wherever the  commonlaw court allow the admiralty jurisdiction they ought not to prohibit  they and here they have jurisdiction as in case of hypothecation and a  sentence in the court of admiralty beyond sea shall be execute by the court of  admiralty here in Bridgmans case Hobart a suit to seize a ship for piracy do  by the mariner and though they may sue at commonlaw in this case et it be hard  to make they do it for it be in effect to give away their right for at  commonlaw the suit must be all several whereas they may all join in the  admiralty and so by a easy contribution maintain and carry on the suit and  beside they may sue the ship there which they can do at commonlaw and the  statute of limitation enumerate the action it limit and they be all suit at  commonlaw it be no bar to a suit in equity see Johnston v smith burr south sea  company v Wymondsel Peer wms Eq Cas Abr Wych v east India company Peer wms and  Mitfords plead d edit b upon a trust nor for a legacy nor modern upon a  rational part will do you much good and the reason give for the Iatter case be  because it be not a commonlaw proceed but accord to a particular custom and a  strong when the proceed be by the civil law mark hut to this it be answer that  it be a indulgence to suffer seaman to sue in the admiralty for wage for in  the time of king Edward the three prohibition have go and it be first agree  that for a suit upon a contract super deeply mare no prohibition shall go upon  their refuse the plea of the statute of limitation but this be matter strict  cognisable at commonlaw only in which case this plea have be good and be it  not hard by indulgence to they to have defendant bar of his just plea and this  be what stick with the court and they say that this be a statute bar of right  ought to be take strict now by whether c S all suit and action in the court of  admiralty for seaman wage shall be commence and sue within six year next after  the cause of such suit or action shall accruer and not after provide that if  the person entitle to such suit or action shall at the time it accrue be  within the age of twentyone year feme covert non compos chin imprison or  beyond the sea he shall be at liberty to bring the action within six year next  after come of age be discovert of sane memory at large and return from beyond  the sea c c c c curian without doubt a sentence in the admiralty where they  have jurisdiction bind the property holt chief justice remember the case of  Hugh v CorneliusRay skin show ld ray show a France and holland be at war and  the French take a English ship as a Dutch one and the ship be sentence as  prize be sell by virtue of the capture and the first owner bring a action of  trover and the sentence be give in evidence and upon special verdict it be  hold that the property be alter by the sentence but to the point in question  whether the statute have be well plead they all seem to incline that a  prohibition ought to go upon refusal of it but as it be here plead it be ill  videlicet that it appear by the libel that the suit be six year after the  cause of action which be ill for the time on which it be lie be not material  and therefore the defendant ought not by his plea to hold the modern er p  plaintiff to the immaterial time but to plead direct that no suit have be  within six year after cause of action accrue and if notwithstanding a matter  ill plead by you they go on why shall we prohibit they nor shall we rather  think that they reject your plea as not at all Allowable by their law as to  its matter than because it be bad in substance as to the legal manner of plead  it they also agree that if the refuse a plea which by their law be a good plea  it will be reason to appeal but not to prohibit they and the rule be discharge  Lord Raymond say this case be move again but that a prohibition be still deny  but it seem chief because the defendant have appeal for that a prohibition be  grant in easter term between ride v partridge in the same case S c ld ray see  hide v partridge ld ray salk salk Mod b note in case of seaman the duty do not  arise from the contract but from the service do and therefore though the  contract be above six year and any part of the service be within that time it  be out of the statute and if a man be beyond sea at the time the debt accrue  he may plead it by way of replication to the defendant bar of the statute see  the whether c S c