case machine against malton if a person live in the diocese of York and there  substract tithe for land and afterward remove into and inhabit in any other  diocese yet he may be libel against in the spiritual court of York  notwithstanding the Henry c say that no one shall be cite out of the diocese  in which he life for by Henry c the suit for withhold tithe be local S c Lutw  S c n Lut S c salk S c salk S c Carth S c Mod S c ld ray here the case be that  machine have substract tithe as they say within the diocese of York and then  remove out of that diocese to Lincoln and live there and seven year after his  live there they libel against he in the spiritual modern court at York upon  which he bring a action upon the statute Henry c for be cite out of the  diocese where he live the question be whether this be within that Act I take  it that this case be not within that Act indeed the design of the Act be to  maintain the jurisdiction of inferior diocese see the case of Fraums v Powell  godb a but where there be not a remedy in the inferior diocese the party may  be cite to such a court which have jurisdiction of the matter and in the case  of porter v Rochester   b the archbishop be reduce to his proper diocese or  peculiar jurisdiction except in five case first in default of the ordinary  second in the case of appeal three if the ordinary dare not or if he will not  convent the party fourthly if the ordinary be party to the suit below five in  case of instance and request by the ordinary in this case S c Brownl c the  suit be begin below and sentence there give and after a appeal upon this  sentence to the delegate and all this while no endeavour to stay these suit  upon this statute a legacy have be sue for in the prerogative court though the  party dwell in another diocese roll Rep see also Fitzherbert d and in every  one of the case express in the statute it be plain that diocese and  jurisdiction be couple together so that it be evident the word diocese import  jurisdiction and not a compass of ground as appear also by the statute of  Henry c winch Entr in roll Rep one be sue for tithe in the bishop of Salisbury  court the other sue a prohibition for that he be in the jurisdiction of a  peculiar and that the archdeacon be his peculiar I take this case to be  express within the statute which be make for the general ease of the subject  from the oppression of the apparitor for before that statute the poor subject  be worry up and down and cite at great distance from the place where they live  not only for defamatory word but also for the substraction of tithe as appear  in keb the suggestion be that the party be cite out of the county where he  live which be not within Henry c the cause of action be local for tithe modern  er p within the diocese and consultation be award on motion and the canon make  take notice of this statute then to say that here be no jurisdiction in the  inferior diocese be false for the person may be sue in the place where he life  for the substraction of tithe in another diocese and so be modern the case of  Lynch v porter Brownl e which be argue by the civilian for it be a maxim in  the civil law that the court may follow the criminal there be a case of  uvoodward v Mackprice Mod f where a prohibition be grant in such a case  uvoodward and other who live in the diocese of Litchfield and Coventry but  occupy land in the diocese of Peterborough be tax by the parishioner where  they use the land for the bell of the church and upon refusal to pay a suit be  against they in the diocese of Peterborough and they bad a prohibition there  be another authority on which I chief depend it be the case of Jones v boyer  Brownl a where it be agree that if a man inhabit in one diocese he have cause  to sue for tithe in the same diocese in which he inhabit and if in another  diocese there he ought to sue in the diocese where the defendant do inhabit  and not where the tithe be Payable nor where the plaintiff inhabit the case be  express for I that the suit ought to be in the diocese where the defendant  inhabit therefore upon this authority which be so express for I I pray your  lordship judgement for a prohibition holt chief justice as for that case of  Jones v boyer it be in the case of personal tithe and there indeed forum  sequitur party in law suit but not so in case of local tithe we will give our  opinion next term c ld ray say the court award a consultation because by the  statute Henry c S the suit for withhold tithe be in express word appoint to be  before the ordinary of the place where the wrong be do but if it have be in  another case it have be within the Henry c S and the prohibition shall have  continued  S c Carth accord b