case dean and chapter of ely versus warren June the evidence of a neighbour  manor shall not in general be admit to show the custom of another manor court  of law have admit evidence with regard to profit of i out of other manor where  they be similar to explain the custom of the manor in question copyholder in  fenny land may be entitle to dig up the lord soil for turf the end of the bill  be to prevent waste in dig and carry away the soil in manor that lie in the  level in Cambridgeshire evidence of custom in a neighbour manor offer to be  read to show the custom of the manor in question Lord chancellor it be certain  the rule of law in general that the evidence of neighbour manor shall not be  admit to show the custom of another manor because every manor be to be govern  by its own custom but this rule be not so universal as not to be vary in some  instance as in I country Derbyshire c the court of law have admit evidence  with regard to profit of i c out of other manor where they be analogous and  similar to explain or corroborate the custom of the manor in question now in  the present case there be a great similitude in the manor because this be a  fen county which be of very large extent and the nature of fen and marsh  throughout er gland be pretty much the same the custom here be to dig up the  lord soil for turf which be a very odd custom if apply to any other soil but  fenny and marshy land be often overflow and lie bury under water for seven or  eight year and produce no profit at all to the copyholder and therefore by way  of compensation when the water be drain and the land improve from the  additional soil bring by the flood the copyholder may be entitle to common of  turbary and this seem to be a plausible pretence for such a right and  therefore the evidence offer by the plaintiff must be read atkins though  deposition take de bene be be irregular yet at the hear of the cause it be too  late to make the objection for irregularity but in such case you ought to have  move the court to discharge the order for publication the nature of common of  turbary be very well know which be nothing more than such a quantity of turf  as may be sufficient for the house to which the common be appendant but here  the custom be lie not only in the tenant but the occupant atkins er p which be  a very great absurdity for a occupant who be no more than a tenant at will can  never have a right to take away the soil of the lord the court of exchequer  where there have be a imperfect modus have take a short method by decree the  defendant to pay tithe but this court will not put person to set forth a  custom with so much exactness as be requisite at law or with so much nicety as  the court of exchequer expect the custom in this case be so extraordinary that  if the evidence have not be very strong in the support of it I shall not have  direct a issue to try the custom but shall have decree a injunction to stay  waste in dig up the lord soil before the act of parliament in car ch for the  improvement of the great level of the fen the land in question be common and  then they may take away turf but be sever by this act vide sect and annex to  particular tenement it may very probable lead the tenant into a mistake that  they have the same right to dig turf after severance as before