Bulstrode harding and other plaintiff against guzzle defendant a prohibition  roll r Ro Abr d Ro Abr l in a prohibition to stay proceed in the spiritual  court upon a suit there for tithe the case be that Gosnel libel there against  they for a modus kill be not pay the plaintiff suggest another modus kill  which suggestion they refuse to receive upon this a prohibition pray  dodderidge justice the modus kill be as well due to the parson as tithe be at  the commonlaw and if the parson de libel in the spiritual court for a modus  kill as he may do and another modus be there suggest and this refuse they may  there try and determine this matter touch this modus and no cause to grant a  prohibition for this refusal but if they de there refuse the suggestion for  the modus upon this ground because their law and our law de differ in the  point of proof as for default of two witness one be Allowable in our law but  not with they in this case a prohibition be to be grant but otherwise they may  there as well try the modus kill as the right of tithe but if a parson de  libel there for tithe in kind and a modus be suggest and there plead the which  they refuse to allow upon this refusal a prohibition be to be grant but  otherwise it be where the libel be as in this case for the modus which they  may well try and therefore no cause to grant a prohibition Haughton justice in  this case a prohibition ought to be grant otherwise in such case upon every  small difference allege in the modus they may try and determine the validity  of every modus kill which they can de by the law they be not to be suffer by  our law to try a modus kill there but they ought to be prohibit and therefore  they proceed to try this modus which be determinable by our law and not by  they in the spiritual court a prohibition ought to be grant dodderidge No  prohibition be in this case to be grant for there they may well Bulstrode er p  try and determine this modus by their law the libel be there original for the  modus but if there be a difference in their proceed between their law and our  law as touch the probate of this modus if prove by one witness the same be  good by our law but not so with they without two witness if this be the ground  of the refusal of the suggestion then a prohibition be to be grant and  therefore this be fit to be examine whether it rest upon this point or not and  if it de so then a prohibition be to be grant but not otherwise if they only  proceed there to try the modus for which the libel be by proof this may well  be there examine by they croak justice at this time deliver no opinion at all  in this case by the rule of the court this matter be refer to a clark of the  court true to examine the difference between they in the spiritual court upon  the libel there and to certify the court of this and so this case be adjourn  to a further time afterward this case be move again dodderidge if there be a  modus kill between the parson and the parishioner and he libel in the  spiritual court to have tithe in kind and the modus be suggest they be in this  case to be prohibit but if he libel there for the modus to have this pay unto  he as he may do and the other party do suggest that he ought to have another  kind of modus but not that for which he libel Bulstrode here the truth of this  matter shall be try there but if the difference between they be touch the  matter of proof of this modus and wherein their law and we de differ in the  manner of the proof by witness in this case they be to be prohibit and so be r  and h also if a parson de libel there for a modus whereas in verity there be  no modus but only a composition of late time between the parson and the  parishioner to pay so much yearly for tithe and not otherwise in this case  because that our law and their law de differ in the point of prescription with  they ten year continuance be a good prescription but not so by our law in this  case they be to be prohibit Haughton a modus kill be proper to be try and  determine by the commonlaw and not by they in the spiritual court for that  their law and our law de differ in many thing as in point of proof of a modus  and in the point of prescription croak a special modus be there libel for be  there to be try but if they differ there in a temporal matter they be then  there to be prohibit this be triable by the commonlaw dodderidge if they de  there refuse to allow of the proof Allowable by our law and wherein they  differ from we they be then to be prohibit not to sue for tithe there and  where there be a modus if they refuse to pay this the parson may sue there for  this modus and this be to be try by they but if in such a case where there be  a modus if the parson will libel to have his tithe in kind and the other show  there this modus which they will not allow of they be here to be prohibit and  this shall be try by our law Haughton there be a custom lie in the suggestion  this they ought to hit right in all the particular or else they will fail this  be in a case of fish tithefish be libel for or the modus for the same the  parson to have tithe of the clear gain make thereby if they allow l for the  charge of the voyage for fish before any tithe to be pay by this they will  make the tithe of the parson to be little or nothing the court declare that  they will see the suggestion and therefore by the rule of the court they be to  make their suggestion and to show the same to the court as they will stand  unto it and in the mean time the suit in the spiritual court to be stay notam  that die novembris termin mich James sir Edward coke chief justice de b r be  remove from his place and novembris sir Henry Montague the king sergeant and  recorder of London be swear chief justice of the king bench in his place  Bulstrode er p