clay vers Simpson and wood when a right to a office which relate to the  revenue be in question how far the court will not make a order for produce the  book relate to that office the duchy Chamber Mr lee inform the court that  queen dowager Katherine in by letter patent under the duchy seal grant to the  defendant Simpson the stewardship of the honour of pomfret in Yorkshire for  thirtyfive year that the plaintiff have obtain a grant of this same office by  letter patent date in December last so that there be a dispute between the two  patentee about the right to this office he say that this be a cause wherein  the king revenue be concern and therefore he move the court that they will  make a order upon wood who be Simpson deputy to bring into court all book and  paper belong to this office to the end that the court may appoint a person  proper to exercise the office during the suit in order that the revenue may be  secure he say there be precedent to be produce where this court have proceed  in this manner upon motion and give notice as they have now do though no cause  have be depend at the time Barnardiston king b er p no more than in the  present case to this purpose a precedent be read term mich Kingston and Ashton  the defendant there claim a grant of a stewardship of one of the king manor  under Lord Molineux who pretend to have have a grant by letter patent of it in  fee but not be able to produce they the court make a rule upon he to bring the  book and roll into court and that the plaintiff shall be put into possession  who have letter patent which he produce of the office and for the defendant  not obey this order the court grant a attachment some other precedent be  produce to the same purpose the chief baron and Mr baron cummins be the judge  assistant of the court and they say that these be precedent of the court have  make rule of this sort where it appear that the person in possession of the  office have not the right so possible if great doubt have be show to the court  in the present case which of the two person have the right they may have  proceed in the like summary way and for the secure of the revenue the court of  exchequer act something in the same way but in the present case there do not  appear any reason to the court to think that the defendant have not the right  as well as the possession for the second letter patent may have be grant  through misinformation and therefore the court do nothing upon the motion