bouton and hursler how far a prohibition shall not go to the spiritual court  without plead the matter below the defendant libel in the spiritual court for  tithe of sylva adj the plaintiff plead there that the wood demand be not  titheable and now make a suggestion to the court that they be timbertrees and  of year growth and verify it by affidavit and now Mr lee submit it to the  court that this be sufficient without plead it in the court below he say he  rely upon the authority of Inst where it be lie down that when a libel be in  the spiritual court for tithe of sylva adj and the defendant suggest that the  wood be of twenty year growth he may have a prohibition he say likewise that  the court have authority to grant this prohibition upon the face of the libel  for there the demand of the tithe of wood be set forth general and therefore  must be intend to be due de common jure whereas the right of tithe of wood be  only by custom and that be the reason which be give in the case of wood and  Hickson salk why a hundred may prescribe in a non decimand of tithe of wood  for as by custom it grow due by custom it may be make not due but the court  say that this reason indeed be lie down by the judge of this court in that  case but they say this have never be allow for law by any of the other judge  in westminsterhall and it certain be not law for tithe be as much due of sylva  adj by the law of England as any other tithe whatsoever and judge Reynolds say  this may evident be show not to be the reason of this law in relation to  hundred for if it be the same reason will prove that every private man may  prescribe in a non decimand of this nature then as to the other point in  relation to the plea the court say that the jurisdiction arise to the  spiritual court by matter disclose in the libel can be take from they but by  other matter disclose in the plea and therefore they say it ought to have be  set forth in the plea that the tree be of twenty year growth accord the  prohibition be refuse