case Bosworth against WHITEMAN to debt on a bylaw bring by the chamberlain of  London in the mayor court of the city against a person for refuse the office  of sheriff the court of king bench on the record be remove will not permit a  suggestion to be enter thereon that the defendant be a dissenter and disable  by the statute from serve the office be not have receive the sacrament c by a  bylaw of the city of London every citizen worth ten thousand pound if elect  must execute the office of sheriff or forfeit five hundred pound for which sum  the defendant have refuse to execute the office after have be elect to it be  take and the cause be remove into the common plea by habeas corpus cum causan  the sheriff return the cause aforesaid the defendant move for leave to file a  suggestion on this return that he be a dissenter and disable by the statute  not have receive the sacrament accord to the usage of the church of England  within a year before prime and draper sergeant strong insist first that the  motion ought to be grant because else the court can know the truth of the  cause nor second whether the bylaw be good or no and consequent whether they  shall keep or remand the cause and urge many authority to justify their admit  this suggestion on return of habeas corpus as Syd keb   Ent pie case so  prohibition be grant on suggestion contrary to the return on the face of the  libel Inst roll brown that a suggestion have be admit to prove a inferior  court have not jurisdiction Lutw lev Ent they further argue that the writ be  direct to the sheriff mayor and alder modern er p man and return by the  sheriff only that in this return they deceive the court and a prohibition have  be grant to a courtleet for so do roll Abr last the person who be to judge of  this matter be to have the advantage of the fine vent be cite to show that  dissenter be excuse from the office of sheriff modern the court unanimous  agree not to grant the motion and will chief justice consider first whether  any suggestion shall be file second whether this be a proper suggestion he  hold that the court be bind down to judge on the return of the writ and by  this neither party can suffer because if the writ be return by a improper  person it be to be quash and be as no return and if the return be false the  party injure may have a action on the case on the contrary shall they admit  the suggestion the party injure if it be false be without remedy for it be not  traversable which both distinguish it from suggestion grant to find  prohibition on and also from hearing complaint for in prohibition the party be  oblige to suggest and in hearing complaint it be traversable Plowd cro James a  suggestion be never grant but where the party have no other remedy as in claim  conusance Trem Ent b all the precedent mention in support of the motion be of  this nature for they be all grant where the conviction and imprisonment be put  on to the suit and the party have no other remedy Trem Ent c this be also the  case when the defendant be oblige to file a suggestion to bring himself within  the statute James c for that be to recover cost after plea plead very often  after verdict in this case the substance of the suggestion may be either plead  or give in evidence on the general issue in either court if it be doubt  whether the bylaw be good or not the method to determine it be to proceed to  judgement in the inferior court and then bring a writ of error allow this to  be of the same nature with a prohibition yet a prohibition be never grant  until the suit be commence and plea plead because in move for the prohibition  it must be say that the ecclesiastical court refuse the plea but if a  suggestion may be file this be the most improper one in the world because  first it be direct contrary to the return second if on this suggestion the  court shall think proper to retain the cause they must suppose the inferior  court will act illegal which they will never do when they of the inferior  court have jurisdiction for which reason the motion must be discharge