case shatter and his wife against friend if in a suit in which the spiritual  court have jurisdiction any temporal matter arise as in a suit for a legacy  and payment be plead and they refuse proof of it by one witness a prohibition  shall go although after sentence give SC post SC Mod SC comb SC salk SC Carth  SC holt declaration in prohibition upon surmise that the defendant there sue  for a legacy of ten pound and the defendant offer proof of its payment by one  witness but be reject the defendant to have a consultation plead that before  the prohibition sue there be a sentence the plaintiff demurrer Mr squib argue  for the plaintiff that in their form of proceed they shall follow their own  course but not in matter of substance the end of a prohibition be to preserve  the commonlaw the matter of evidence be the chief and material part of the  suit testamentary matter be original of temporal jurisdiction and here dolbin  justice interrupt he and say that Henssos case a be not law for Selden say no  man can show the contrary when it begin it be in Lindwood by the special law  and custom of England then he proceed to cite authority which be Conesbys case  b Bulbrook v bridge c Keffins case d Cecil v Scott e Bellamy v Alden f  Longmore v churchyard g Bagnal v Stokes h chamberlain v Nichols I cum many men  other c I argue e contra that no prohibition ought to go first because it be  entire of their conusance and second because they be come too late after  sentence first no mail can deny that the original cause be of their conusance  and then the a   Godolp b Hutton c roll Abr d roll rep e Litt Rep f latch g  latch h cro Elizabeth I more shower KB er p rule in the register be full quod  non be consonant account quod getting to know accessorij in curian Christian  to entangle where getting to know cause first ad forum mock to get knowledge  of to stretch out and upon that rule be a consultation frame in the register  and where their law and we differ in the manner of proceed and they go accord  to their own way and contrary shower KB to we yet no prohibition as palmer  case king and Cootnels case there in the same book be the same and if they  proceed contrary to our rule a appeal lie for that gravamen in Bridgmans case  it be take as a rule that if the cause be within their jurisdiction it shall  be presume they proceed accord to their law and then a appeal lie if otherwise  nay in case of refusal of proof by one witness prohibition have be deny I  agree there have be many grant as in the case of Scott v wall m and Bagnal v  Stokes n and many other but my Lord the reason of the law be clear on our side  as that it be entire of their jurisdiction and never can be try in the court  temporal there can be no dash or cross of sentence or judgement and our law  always require two witness when the trial be by witness and never do admit of  one but where the trial be by the jury of the neighbourhood and for authority  there be abundance for we too as in roll Abr proof of a will by one witness  cite yet no prohibition because of their jurisdiction then as to this of  payment of a legacy in James it be strong controvert in the case of brown v  Wentworth oh and so much as that a declaration be order and a demurrer and as  cite in roll Abr it be agree on the motion that proof of a testament by one  witness refuse be no cause for a prohibition and the reason be the same as in  our case and no difference can be assign as it be in Yelv if offer for a  revocation and reject there be Popham and William justice against the  prohibition and their reason be very strong because the thing be mere  ecclesiastical and for which the party can have no relief at commonlaw and the  king court can no way be entitle to it therefore they must go their own way  whereas if it be a thing which may come into the commonlaw court there may be  cross of proof and to prevent that prohibition have be grant that the proof or  sentence there may be no bias to a jury here but never where the whole matter  be of their conusance the case of Robert   be plain and full mich James libel  for substraction of tithe the defendant offer proof of demise by one witness  and reject and a consultation upon a deliberate consideration of all the case  before that time and this per totan curian and in full case there cite by Wray  and all the judge it be lie down as a rule where the original belong to the  ecclesiastical court the determination shower KB of that which depend upon it  do belong to the judge of the same court their proceed be part of the law of  the land and to be take notice of and allow as such and their jurisdiction be  to be preserve but the great authority of all be the opinion of all the judge  in the Inst where they do all under their hand agree that if the question be  upon payment of tithe or legacy or such like incident we be to leave it to the  trial of their law though the party have but one witness but where the matter  be not determinable there but in the court temporal there lie a prohibition  either upon or without such a surmise in the case of Warner v Barret hetley it  be a question again and there Yelverton make a good distinction where it be  mere ecclesiastical as for a legacy of a sum of money there proof of payment  be of the nature of the thing demand and consequent be entire within their  jurisdiction and they may proceed their own way for they have jurisdiction of  the proof and matter both and there be no rule there in that case of a plene  to manage by one witness though the opinion seem to be for a prohibition  because the matter of that plea be commonlaw and then be of commonlaw nature a  commonlaw proof shall be receive otherwise not and this seem find on a great  deal of reason for otherwise no bind can be set where they shall be allow to  proceed accord to their own law and where accord to we Twisden justice and  some other have always hold strong against prohibition in this matter and he  do usual affirm that since the four year of Charles the first no prohibition  be king Hilary term James in the king bench roll Abr hob m hob see also hob n  cro Elizabeth oh Yelv shower KB er p grant because they refuse a single  witness for this court have no conusance of the matter and therefore they must  proceed by their law and not by we where the jury be instead of witness and  one suppose to know the fact as be of the vicinage and testimony of witness by  our law be no conclusive evidence but be and ought to be leave to the jury in  the case of yell v sir Edward Powell a parson sue in a court Christian for not  set out of tithe for double value on the statute Edward c the defendant  surmise that he set they out and they refuse the testimony of one witness no  prohibition because they have cognizance in the case of prince v hewet p hold  that they have be deny ever since Jones time and be deny in that case of  sanderson v Hawson on plene to manage offer to be prove by one witness because  it be proper triable before they and for shower KB the gravamen a appeal lie  and in that case of Mitford v Emerson r deny because the principal matter be  of their jurisdiction it be true that afterward in the case of Desbrough v  Richardson S it be grant but it be a much different case from we as I say  before for that be a complicate plea and contain matter of commonlaw and  therefore commonlaw proof may be receive but here plea of payment be of the  same nature with the demand and consequent of their own cognizance beside as  to the consequence there can be no distinction or bind frame but that this  will destroy all their proceed for at this rate no allowance can be of any  ecclesiastical proof but in all case they shall be compellable to receive  whatsoever proof a jury do usual credit for no subject matter can be more  entire of their cognizance than this beside Mr squib agree it in the case of a  will and how to distinguish they I can imagine then as to the second point it  be after sentence in hob in sir I wait case and many other the rule be express  that for any thing not appear in the libel but for matter that be mere suggest  that be collateral to the libel no prohibition after a sentence holt chief  justice as to the last they come soon enough for they can not come till they  be aggrieve by refusal of proof and that be not know till sentence as that of  citation out of the diocese that be the first instance and by a litigate there  the party admit their jurisdiction but here be no such matter then for the  other the opinion of all the judge James seem mighty strong with I eyres  justice I know of no law in England that allow proof by one witness for where  trial be not by jury but per testes there must be two in all case dolbin  justice strongly for the prohibition that it be a unconscionable unreasonable  thing to disallow the proof and as to that which I insist on as to the dash or  cross of sentence and proof the court of chancery will relieve and enjoin the  party plaintiff not to proceed and why shall not we afterward in Michaelmas  term will mary the court deliver their opinion seriatim t