Barnardiston king b the king and bartlet vide before this matter come on again  Mr strange say that there be but one exception now remain of any difficulty  with the court and that be concern the allowance of the disbursement he appeal  from videlicet the disbursement of church Barnardiston king b er p warden and  the allowance thereof as to this he submit it in the first place that the  session have a original jurisdiction for the word in the that section of  Elizabeth give the session a power to determine all matter do in pursuance of  that Act whether the party find himself aggrieve either by the act of the  churchwarden or by the act of the two justice but what he principal rely upon  be that suppose the application to two justice be first of all necessary yet  in the present case it sufficient appear that there be a previous application  make to they and the allowance of the disbursement shall be intend to have be  by the two justice for this purpose he say that by Elizabeth the justice have  a power to order master to pay their servant wage in husbandry but they have a  power of order those sort of wage only yet general order to pay servant wage  have always be hold to be good without specify the wage to be due in husbandry  in the case of the king and the inhabitant of Bitham hill Geo it be state in a  order of removal that a be appoint to be collector of burial and live in a  parish as collector the court hold that a good settlement though it be not  state in the order that he be appoint collector for a year because they say  they will intend he to be so in as much as the statute of W require it but  what come near to the present case be that of the king and the inhabitant of  Ordmanbury Trin Geo where a order appear to be make upon a appeal but not say  to be on a appeal of the party grieve yet that be hold to be sufficient judge  lee say that in Carthew it be hold upon the first clause of this statute of  Elizabeth that a application must be to two justice before the party can come  to the session and he think there be equal reason for the same construction  upon the second clause in this statute relate to the disbursement and as to  the that section the chief justice and he agree that the word must be take  distributive then as to the second observation make by Mr strange the chief  justice say that the set forth this matter concern the allowance of the  disbursement be matter of jurisdiction and therefore the court must require  strict certainty but in the present case he say it be far from be necessary to  be intend that the justice do make this allowance because the parishioner  themselves may allow it in some case namely by acquiesce under it the case of  wage the chief justice do agree because the word of the statute be there  follow judge lee say that the case of the king and the inhabitant of  Ordmanbury deserve to be look into but for the present he say he Barnardiston  king b incline to be of opinion with the chief justice the rest of the court  be of the same opinion however the rule be enlarge that that case may be look  into