case russel case if the court of honour before the earl marshal proceed  against a person for paint arm and marshal funeral contrary to heraldry a  prohibition will lie as well as a privy seal S c show in a prohibition to the  court of honour hold before the earl marshal upon a libel there set forth that  there be three king at arm garter clarencieux and norroy and six herald  skilful in descent pedigree and arm to who office it do belong to marshal  funeral of great person at request c and that Russel and other have encroach  upon their respective office by take upon they to paint arm and marshal  funeral c the defendant suggest the statute of great Charta videlicet that no  man shall be seize of his liberty and free custom but by judgement of his peer  c the counsel against the prohibition insist that it will not lie to this  court of honour it be a court by prescription for degree of honour and the  herald there proceed accord to ancient custom and be skilful in descent and  pedigree do at the request of several person marshal funeral and if ignorant  man shall be suffer to attempt thing of this nature great confusion will  follow among noble family they have as absolute a determination in matter of  honour pedigree descent and armoury as the chancery have in matter of equity  and no prohibition be ever yet grant to a court of equity this be a court of  great modern er p antiquity have endeavour several time to extend its  jurisdiction and therefore several act of parliament have be make to restrain  they in their proper limit but care be always take to preserve their right by  the statute of Richard c the authority of the earl marshal be declare and a  remedy be give where it be abuse but it be not by way of prohibition by the  court at law but by a privy seal from the king direct to the earl marshal not  to proceed where he have no authority and for these reason it be pray that no  prohibition may be grant modern e contra it be admit that the court of honour  have a jurisdiction to marshal arm but the plaintiff in the prohibition have  not offend against that court for he have all his escutcheon from the herald  and as to marshal funeral there be no negative word in the statute of Richard  c to restrain he neither have the herald any such power by the original patent  by which they be incorporate they may as well complain against every  upholsterer who bang a room with mourning and against every parish clerk who  assist at funeral as against the plaintiff in this case therefore they ought  to be prohibit curian upon the matter set forth in the libel they may maintain  a action on the case for if true it be a wrong do to their possession by do  such thing as belong to their respective office here be no complaint of any  thing do against the rule of honour and therefore this matter can be determine  unless a prohibition be grant and the other side demurrer to the suggestion  many prohibition have be grant in case of like nature as to the DutchyCourt in  matter of equity and so a prohibition be grant in this case see the case of  oldis v Donmille show case parliament to   light Rushw a