case Stratford against neal prohibition S c I stram S c Mod S c fort Writ of  error on a judgement on prohibition in the common plea in Ireland for tithe as  rector of the libel be for agistment of colt cattle c in the spiritual court  of the bishop of fern the declaration be that no tithe be Payable for  agistment of young cattle bring up to the plough and that the plea be refuse  below to ward off pro consultation habend as to two entire part find for the  defendant and judgement and consultation award general in Hilary term in the  seven year of George the Firs exception be take that the traverse be to the  merit of the fact in the suggestion that the cattle be not barren or barren  feed with bay c which have pay tithe which be not modern report er p proper  for the matter suggest be not want of jurisdiction but misbehaviour of the  judge in refuse the plea cro cro Elizabeth suppose the matter in the  allegation be good yet it be too narrow for a consultation that he do not feed  the cattle during the whole time if find feed any part of the time a  prohibition ought to go quoad such time town judgement pl f n b modern report  Chesshyre sergeant the suit must be intend to be right in the ecclesiastical  court if it be matter find proper for the court and it must be remit by  consultation which be all we need pray we follow they in the word of the  traverse the refusal of the plea be only matter of form this term it be argue  by sergeant Pengelly and Mr reeves which I hear but very imperfect the  sergeant cite these several case where consultation do go sand show blow Leon  sand   Ent a cro Elizabeth Lutw Pratt chief justice where several matter be  put in issue that be material the jury must be suppose to find all of they in  a general verdict the consultation give no new matter but direct the court  below to proceed on the libel there I think the judgement ought to be affirm  powys justice be of the same opinion Eyre justice the declaration in  prohibition come in the place of a to know facias quare consultation non and  give it this turn that the plaintiff in prohibition must show the court below  have no jurisdiction and in the to know facias they be to show that court have  in order to bring the first matter into question it be necessary to suppose a  contempt but we know that to be fictitious the matter to be consider be  whether upon the whole it be proper cognisable in the spiritual court if there  have be a contempt they shall have proceed by attachment for cost fortescue  justice be of the same opinion for that the only question before the court be  whether they have a jurisdiction or not which in my opinion they have the  judgement be affirm