case shatter and his wife against friend see this case ante page in a suit in  the spiritual court for a legacy if the court refuse proof of payment by one  witness a prohibition shall go though sentence have be give SC ante SC Mod SC  comb SC salk SC Carth SC holt now this term the court deliver their opinion  seriatim Eyre justice the prohibition be well grant I admit that where the  ecclesiastical court proceed in a matter mere spiritual though their proceed  be contrary to the g roll Abr h cro Elizabeth Yelv I cro Elizabeth Godolph  king cro James l salk stram term Rep ld ray m Mod Bac Abr shower KB er p  commonlaw yet no prohibition lie the case of Chadron v Harris a brown v  Wentworth b Robert case c Baqual v Stokes d and Inst go upon the distinction  between the surmise of have but one witness to prove and the court disallow of  one witness but I think a prohibition ought to go because they have disallow  the proof by one witness of a temporal matter but this only incident to a  matter within their jurisdiction he cite hut hob more Poph cro Yelv Cowp  Richardson v disborough roll Abr and if the law be otherwise it will be a  great inconvenience to executor and administrator for upon a appeal the party  will be remediless and as to that of after sentence it be grant after sentence  in more and cro Elizabeth Bagnal v Stokes Gregory justice for the prohibition  one witness be sufficient to charge he at commonlaw and if one witness shall  not be admit to prove payment it will be a great inconvenience shower KB  dolbin justice for the prohibition that it ought rather to be after sentence  than before for then it be that it appear that they have disallow the proof it  be the most rational thing in the world that a prohibition shall go for this  be a mere temporal thing and then they ought to proceed accord to commonlaw  sufficient proof or not be the common case of all mankind that be or shall be  executor or administrator holt chief justice for the prohibition and that he  doubt it at first because he think upon appeal they will themselves have  relieve against the disallowance of any such proof but he find they all insist  on it that one witness be never Allowable though of never so much credit  whereas proof by one witness be sufficient in our law that this be a temporal  matter and then they ought to go accord to our law if it be for a revocation  one witness be enough Yelv and the   light be a particular case but if there  be a trial of a challenge one witness be enough by our law and so it be in the  case of a summons Fitzherbert n b or Henry it be de consuetude royal power  that they have conusance of these matter Linwood and therefore they must  proceed accord to our law in case of tithe their law require notice to the  parson but our law require no such thing roll Abr he also observe that the  resolution in Inst of all the judge be easter term James and yet in the very  next term in Trinity the James the case of brown v Wentworth Yelv a  prohibition be grant and so I think this point be settle though no answer make  to the concession of all the judge only that some of they break it the next  term