case Edmonson against walker the admiralty court may decree not only a ship  lie in harbour but also her sail tackle and furniture to be sell for the  payment of the mariner wage but if a person to who the sail be pledge on land  offer a plea to the libel claim property in they and the court refuse to  receive the plea a prohibition shall go SC Carth SC holt prohibition the  defendant walker libel in the admiralty court as executor to her husband  Nehemiah walker late master of the ship Parlarmitan alias henson and the ship  and apparel and have the same decree to be sell for payment of the say master  and the seaman wage then she by a supplemental libel surmise Edmonson to be in  possession of certain sail belong to the say ship which by the say decree be  to be sell and the say Edmonson to have be admonish to render a account of the  particular thereof and to deliver they to John cheek the marshal of that court  that they may be sell accord to the decree but Edmonson have neither give a  account nor deliver the sail and therefore pray that he may be attach donee c  that Edmonson do tender a account then of their main sail two foresails c and  decree to be attach until he have deliver they the plaintiff suggest the  statute of Richard a and that the admiralty have nothing to do with land  affair and that all plead of trespass case c be pertain to the court of the  commonlaw that one tailor former master of shower KB the say ship and owner of  the say sail be indebt to the plaintiff in eighty pound for the say sail and  other sail of he buy at Stepney that be so indebt he do afterward at the same  parish deliver the say sail in the libel mention to he as a pledge for the  debt aforesaid to be detain until what time the say debt be satisfy that he be  not yet satisfy that he detain they videlicet at the parish aforesaid this  suggestion I move for a prohibition for that the admiralty have nothing to do  therewith because our possession and detainer be at land and beside we have  property vest in we at land and if we have none yet the tort which we be  guilty of be at land and therefore determinable only at commonlaw the reason  why wreck be determinable at law be because it be always cast upon the land b  where part be triable at commonlaw and part by the admiral law the commonlaw  shall be prefer c if a man take a mast float at sea and draw it to land claim  admiral jurisdiction action lie not against he for this in the admiralty but  at commonlaw because the tort be at land d owner send a ship to the Indies to  merchandise it commit piracy and when it return to the Thames the admiralty  condemns her after that the owner take away the sail and tackle and he be sue  in the admiralty a prohibition lie which be almost our case for here be a  distinct wrong and as to the case of piracy and sale afterward at land there  the pirate never have property and the sale at land be dependent on the take  here the proprietor be possess antecedent to any suit and the sail not liable  till condemnation for if the ship have be sell at land before such suit a  prohibition shall have go and so it have be on my motion in the case of hoar v  clement hill and car e violet v plane f and cro James be express that a ship  lie at anchor be not within their jurisdiction and the case of Meuxin v  Pensilvanian be the same in the case of leigh v Burling Owen master of a ship  buy sail and other thing and deliver on board not within their jurisdiction if  the owner sell her and furniture and then run away and then suit be in  admiralty for sail deliver a prohibition lie if tackle be buy at land for ship  and suit in admiralty for it a prohibition lie here the sail be sever and not  part of the ship shower KB when a Richard c and Richard c see also Henry c b  Inst c   Inst and see cap case roll Rep d the mayor of Harwichs case roll Abr  than Abr and Hildebrans case Hilary term James in b r roll e show f roll Rep  more cro James shower KB er p they be on shore it be but a device to sue for  the ship and then to get the sail as appurtenance the suit for mariner wage be  of their jurisdiction but by sufferance and so be it hold by Wyndham keb Le it  be only by permission for the help of trade for they may sue at land here be  property claim and wrong do if any at land holt chief justice mariner wage be  within their jurisdiction they may sell the ship and the sail and tackle be  part of it and remain part of it when they be on shore the ship itself be at  land when in harbour it be infra corp come and therefore that be no cause for  a prohibition and as to the case of trespass do infra come it be true they be  out of the jurisdiction but here be only a condemnation of it as a accessary  or appurtenance and as to the property they will and must allow it if you come  in and plead it if otherwise we will prohibit they then I alter my suggestion  and allege a offer of plea claim property and refusal of the plea and have a  prohibition note their course be not to receive a plea unless we bring the  sail into court I e into the custody of the officer and then they will admit a  claim and contest of property and in truth that be the reason of their refuse  any plea in our case but now affidavit be general no notice be take by the  other side of that difference of their court