case pit against crying Euhan a clerk of a parish be a temporal officer and  must sue for his due in the temporal court and not in the spiritual SC barn SC  pract Reg SC stram on motion to show cause why a prohibition shall not go the  consistorycourt of the bishop of London to stay the proceed in a suit commence  there by a parishclerk for his due accord to a rate agree to by the parish it  be argue by the counsel against the prohibition that the office of a clerk be  a spiritual office and that his salary for serve that office must necessary be  of ecclesiastical cognizance that he be to be choose by the parson and that in  some modern er p church they read the first lesson roll Abr salk Kely fitzg on  the other side it be say that the office of a clerk be mere temporal peak v  bourn stram Tarrant v Heele burr king v warren Cowp a and that all he have to  do be to wait upon the parson put on his surplice say amen when he be out of  breath and perhaps set a psalm when the parson can sing that a curate can sue  in the ecclesiastical court for his pension and that a assumpsit will lie for  it be express lie down in the case of burth v wood salk it be no matter by who  he be to be choose for that can make the office the more spiritual or temporal  roll Abr cro   keb march Mod Parker v clark salk this fee be due they say by  custom if so a indebitatus will lie for it for all custom imply a promise to  perform it proctor fee be to be sue for at commonlaw salk Jeffords case modern  will chief justice the power of grant prohibition be not as have be say a  discretionary power in the court can we in one case grant a prohibition and in  another though attend with the same circumstance deny it No we be ex debt is  owed the whole of the laws bind to do it if a suit be bring for the same  matter into two court where there be a concur power the court in which it be  first commence have the cognizance of it hob salk what estate the clerk have  be out of the question and so be the right of elect he there be two point to  be consider whether the office of a clerk be spiritual or temporal and suppose  it to be spiritual whether he can sue for his fee in the ecclesiastical court  and for my part I do not look upon the parish clerk to be any order at all I  know of none but bishop clerk and deacon but I do not consider he as a  assistant to the parson nor look upon he as the parson footman as be say but I  take he to be a assistant to the parish and I do not doubt but those book  which say he be a temporal officer be good law and be a temporal officer the  salary or whatever be to be give for the service of the office must of  consequence be of temporal cognizance that be so I think the ecclesiastical  court have no jurisdiction and therefore a prohibition ought to go Denton  justice be of the same opinion fortescue aland justice if we think the  ecclesiastical court have no cognizance we be ex debt is owed the whole of the  laws bind to grant a prohibition vent that a parishclerk be a temporal officer  have often be determine Brownl I think the clerk have a estate for life though  in the case cro two judge be of opinion that be bad a freehold estate and not  a estate at will for that the parson can turn he out but whether he be a  spiritual or temporal officer he can sue in the ecclesiastical court for his  fee for how be they due why by a rate agree to by the parish and sure he may  bring his action upon the agreement and as for proctor fee it be most certain  they can be recover in the spiritual court because it be in itself a temporary  fee and not settle by any canon salk and I be the more ready to grant a  prohibition because no writ of error lie there William fortescue justice the  only question I take it be whether the matter sue for be of ecclesiastical  cognizance or not for if it be a ecclesiastical matter it do not avail what  the person be and be may sue for it in that court and so e contra if the  person sue be a ecclesiastical man and the matter temporal I think a  prohibition ought to go and it be accord grant