case sir henry blunt case June the that the court of chivalry proceed accord  to the rule of the civil law except in case omit and there they go accord to  the course and custom of chivalry and arm by the canon law a appeal be admit  from all grievance in general but as the court of chivalry be govern by the  civil law this court will not grant a commission of delegate upon a appeal  from any interlocutory order of that court except only where there be a  definitive sentence or such a one as be term in the civil law to make heavy  man Lord chancellor a suit be institute in the court of chivalry against sir  Henry Blount baronet for assume and usurp arm c as his own proper arm which  neither he nor any of his family ought to bear in the progress of this cause a  allegation be exhibit by the defendant set forth that all pedigree whatsoever  must be sign by the proper hand of the party request such entry to be make in  the book belong to the college of arm and then object to the validity of some  of the entry in the say book as not be sign and therefore no credit to be give  to they but this allegation be reject by the judge of the court of chivalry  and the defendant petition the court of chancery in order to obtain a  commission of delegate to determine the say atkins appeal on the other  sideathere be a cross petition insist that no appeal lie but only from a  definitive or final interlocutory decree have the force of a definitive  sentence Lord chancellor I observe no objection have be make to the  jurisdiction of the court of chivalry but only a appeal from a act of that  court in their ordinary jurisdiction and therefore as it be not insist on in  sir Henry blunt petition it must be throw out of the case there be two  question arise upon the present case first whether a appeal will lie from any  sentence of the court of chivalry except a definitive one or from such a  sentence as be term in the civil law gravamen irre procurable second whether  this particular sentence of the court of chivalry be a gravamen irreparable it  have be admit on all side that the court of chivalry proceed accord to the  rule of the civil law except in case omit and there they be govern by the  course and custom of chivalry and arm and it be so lie down in   there have be  no precedent cite in the argue of this case as to the custom or course of the  court of chivalry in this particular respect therefore it must be bring under  these rule of the civil law with regard to appeal that be so far as the civil  law have be admit in England by the canon law you be admit to appeal from all  grievance in general but in the civil law only where gravamen be irreparable  the author upon this head be very numerous but to show that this have be allow  in England I shall mention only clark praxis Curi admiralitatis England who be  a author of undoubted credit and very full upon this head his lordship then  cite several instance out of the that and saint chapter these rule be extreme  clear and very applicable to the present purpose for say the author although  the party propound exception to witness and the court of admiralty reject they  yet there can be no appeal for in the appeal from the definitive sentence you  may equal propound the same exception nor be you preclude from it this be the  rule then of the civil law in the proceed of the court of admiralty and find  upon very good reason for else it will make cause there unnecessary tedious if  appeal shall be allow upon every trifle or suppose grievance this have great  weight with I in the argument and upon search make in the court of admiralty  by both side there be no precedent to be find of a appeal of this kind doctor  Paul cite a case of grundel and other against gawne and company atkins this  suit commence in the court of admiralty in January and hear atkins er p at the  delegate in march it be bring for wage due to the plaintiff as mariner and  pray that the defendant may set forth whether they be owner of the ship  speedwell bind on a voyage from the port of London to the east Indies this  libel or summary petition be admit and the defendant give in a answer upon  oath but insist they be not oblige to discover upon what voyage the ship be  bind because it will subject they to the penalty of the statute of the will  make in favour of the east India company but notwithstanding the judge of the  court of admiralty decree that they shall make further answer as to their  respective interest in the say ship and whether they be or be not owner at the  time in the summary petition mention from this act the defendant appeal to the  delegate who pronounce against the appeal remit the cause and condemned gawne  and company in cost but this differ wide from the present case for the judge  of the court of admiralty there have commit a error which be gravamen  irreparable for if the defendant have answer the cause will have be at a end  for by the confession they must necessary have make their own answer will have  destroy they in the case of the earl of Coventry in against Gregory king which  be in the nature of a criminal prosecution for have contrary to his oath and  the duty of his office as Lancaster herald cause the arm of his father to be  empale with false arm c king give a negative answer to the libel but it be  insist on behalf of lord Coventry king answer shall be on oath so far as he be  oblige by law to answer it be allege by the defendant that the say libel  contain criminal matter and therefore lord Coventry petition ought not by law  to be admit and pray the same to be reject but the judge decree he shall give  his answer on oath to such of the article as he be oblige by law to answer  upon a appeal to the court of delegate in they allow the appeal from the  interlocutory order this too be very wide from the present case for if king  have make a confession upon oath the cause will have be over and therefore it  be gravamen irreparable and can be use as a authority for sir Henry Blount for  his case depend upon different circumstance then the question will be whether  this decretal order be gravamen irreparable by the law of the college of arm  all pedigree enter in their book must be sign by the party request such entry  to be make and all the ancient book be so and it have be hold that no pedigree  in law be good without it and then sir Henry Blount go on and apply this to  book produce in his cause this be rather a allegation of a matter of law and  must necessary be open even after a definitive sentence nor will sir atkins  Henry Blount be preclude from any advantage he may make of it before the court  of delegate all court have a right to inquire of their officer what be the  usual practice of their court this be the constant method in the king bench  and at trial at nisi prius in salk it be lie down that upon a appeal from a  definitive sentence the judge delegate will certain admit of this very  allegation or allegation to the like effect the present case be not near so  strong as the instance put by Mr clark in his praxis c who be clear of opinion  that in the instance he mention no appeal will lie a objection be take in the  argue of this case that the Lord chancellor upon a petition for a appeal be  not to try the merit of the cause this be undoubted true but then the Lord  chancellor must determine whether a appeal will he or not though lie will not  enter into the merit or decide whether the judge of the court of chivalry have  proper reject the allegation it have be say there can no great mischief ensue  if such a commission shall issue out of the court but what weigh with I be the  make a precedent for future application to chancery of this kind for it will  be of mischievous consequence to allow of such dilatory appeal because as the  court of admiralty proceed by the same law it will be a authority for such  sort of appeal from the interlocutory order of that court and will create  great expense and delay and the suitor there be too necessitous for the most  part to allow of any affect delay for these reason I be clear of opinion that  there be no foundation for sir Henry blunt petition and therefore it must be  dismiss atkins er p