Barnardiston king b MOXAM against penny and down churchwarden of the parish of  saint bennet in Glassenburgh how far a person may be rate to the repair of a  church accord to his stock in trade a prohibition be move for to stop the  defendant sue in the court of the vicar general of the diocese of bath and  well the defendant libel there upon a custom in their parish that every  parishioner be Chargeable with a rate for the repair of the church accord to  his stock in trade per canon Church rites palace ordinance they aver that the  plaintiff who be a Quaker be a parishioner and have a stock in trade but that  he have refuse to bear his proportion in a church rate the plaintiff deny the  custom in his plea and traverse his be a parishioner and upon this suggestion  the present motion be make Mr draper say he shall submit it whether any man  personal estate be Chargeable with the repair of a church the land inheritance  be adapt to Barnardiston king b er p that purpose but his personal property be  only liable to a rate make for the ornament of the church he say far admit a  man personal estate be subject he think it will be pretty hard to carry it so  far as to say that his stock in trade shall for that will be subject the  tradesman to great inconvenience than other in the parish beside the statute  of W m have establish a particular method for the recovery of ecclesiastical  duty owe from quaker by apply to a temporal conusance and therefore the bishop  court be not a proper place for the defendant application thus much be say  upon the face of the libel itself but then Mr draper observe that this suit  that be now go on be still more improper upon the defendant plea because the  ecclesiastical court have not authority to try either of the point that be  deny in it to this the court make answer that there be some old opinion in the  book to support the distinction mention but that the law be now settle to the  contrary then as to the second observation they say it have be determine that  a stock in trade be liable to a poor rate and they can not distinguish that  from the present case to the three they say that statute give a new method of  recovery but have no word to take away the old one and judge Reynolds cite a  Norfolk case which he be of counsel in where the churchwarden actual apply to  two justice to give relief in a case of this nature and they will do nothing  in it upon which they go into the ecclesiastical court a prohibition be move  for in the common plea and upon debate refuse to the four inducement they  observe that this be not a local custom which be libel upon but only a custom  by the canon law which be nothing else but the canon law itself and to the  last argument they say that the ecclesiastical court have conusance of who be  parochial person as well as what be parochial right and accord be refuse the  prohibition but several case be cite out of the canon law they make a rule to  show cause and no body oppose it afterward make it absolute Robottom v roe  barn KB er report date Barnardiston king b ROBOTTOM and roam how far the court  will grant a attachment against a bailiff for extortion on rule to show cause  why a attachment shall not go against one clendon for extort two guinea from  the defendant before he will allow he to be bail his counsel say that the  defendant abscond and for that reason clendon be force to be make a special  officer in the writ and the fee for that be S of the money beside he be two  day lie in watch for he with a couple of follower and he think S little enough  for that the court say the fee of S be certain due and the rest of the money  be moderate enough but yet it ought not to have be demand of the defendant so  grant the attachment