case cowper v clerk see Fraser v mason Q b d Lord chancellor king Eq can ab pl  a single copyholder be not relievable in equity for a excessive fine because  this be determinable at law but to avoid multiplicity of suit several  copyholder S may join to be relieve against a general fine that be excessive  the bill be to be relieve against a excessive fine impose by the defendant sir  Thomas clerk knight upon Mr Spencer Cowper late Mr justice Cowper for a  watermill and some land hold of sir Thomas clerk manor of Brickendon in  Hertfordshire by copy of courtroll the case be thus a miller be seize in fee  of a mill and a small parcel of land within the manor of Brickendon hold peer  William by copy of courtroll of the say manor the stream of which mill run by  some of the land belong to the late mrs cullen seat and estate at  HertingfordBury in Hertfordshire and bank be erect by the say miller in the  land of the say mrs cologne then a infant by the consent of her guardian mrs  sullen come of age sell her seat and estate at HertingfordBury to Spencer  Cowper esquire who threaten to pull down these bank which be in his land and  which will in a great measure destroy the mill the miller and Mr justice  Cowper come to a agreement that the miller shall convey the mill and a small  parcel of land thereunto adjoin unto Mr justice Cowper in fee who be to  procure a licence from the lord of the manor to lease the copyhold mill and  premise that before be let at a less rend to the miller for ninetynine year at  pound per annum accord peer William er p the miller surrender the copyhold  mill and premise to the use of Mr justice Cowper and his heir who be thereunto  admit do by virtue of a licence from the defendant sir Thomas clerk demise the  copyhold premise to the miller for ninetynine year at pound per annum rend but  at present the improve value of the say mill land house and barn build thereon  be about pound per annum the fine to be pay on descent and alienation of these  copyhold be uncertain and the defendant sir Thomas clerk set a fine on Mr  justice cowpers admittance to the copyhold in question of pound which he  refuse to pay insist that it be unreasonable and that it ought to be accord to  the value of pound per annum it have be so let with sir Thomas clerk privity  as be say but not prove when he give a licence to let it for ninetynine peer  William year indeed after the ninetynine year shall be expire the improve  value may then be the measure of the fine it be further urge that the value of  the mill be increase by the bank set up on Mr justice cowpers land which he  may pull down at pleasure and therefore the benefit arise to the mill in  consequence of so precarious a advantage ought not to enhance the fine on the  other side it be say that the bank have be erect on Mr justice cowpers land by  the consent of the infant guardian and in consideration of the quiet enjoyment  of these bank great sum of money have be expend thereon and the estate with  these bank then erect have be purchase by Mr justice Cowper it be not in his  power to pull they down that the matter complain of videlicet the  unreasonableness of the fine be proper determinable at law not in this court  moreover all the equitable circumstance of the bill in respect of the fine set  on Mr justice Cowper in his lifetime and likewise with regard to that demand  of the heir since his death seem full answer by the proof the Lord chancellor  be of opinion that a bill can not be bring by a single copyholder to be  relieve against a excessive fine in regard the fine insist to be excessive  ought to be try by a jury before who all the deposition in the present case  touch the unreasonableness thereof will be proper evidence though his lordship  admit that a bill may lie in order to settle a general fine to be pay by all  the copyhold tenant of a manor to prevent a multiplicity of suit and that with  this diversity be the case cite for the plaintiff from the first chancery  report vo to be understand see Chan Rep Middleton v Jackson and Popham v  Lancaster whereupon the plaintiff bill be dismiss with cost Reg lib a fol vide  Disney v Robertson bunb baker v Roger Sel can in Charles mayor of York v  Pilkington atk Bouverie v apprentice bro c c Lord tenham v Herbert atk wake v  Conyers Cox S c Eden dilly v do yes Jun hanson v gardener yes weal and the  west Middlesex waterwork I W corporation of maiden v coat mad and see holder v  Chambury post n