boil and boil prohibition to the spiritual court pro Jactitatione maritagii a  prohibition be move for to the the spiritual court on a libel there causan  jactitationis maritagii claim to be wife to a man not be marry to he and  Comberbach er p it be suggest that one marry with a and afterward marry with b  and be indict and convict for it on the statute of James and have his clergy  and be burn in the hand and therefore can not be afterward draw in question in  the ecclesiastical court William against the prohibition here be no conclusion  this matter be proper for the ecclesiastical court although a marriage may be  collateral try by a jury yet in other case as in dower ne unques accouple  ought to be try in the ecclesiastical court and in this case the  ecclesiastical court may examine for alimony and dower in the case of Emmerton  and hide marry or not marry be try in a ejection strong and be notwithstanding  afterward try in the spiritual court and hold clear there that the verdict and  judgement at commonlaw be no estoppel cur there be a great difference between  the case but they do not say what the save in the statute James favour the  proceed in the ecclesiastical court in this case Inst two several Comberbach  jury in this court may find the one that it be a marriage the other that it be  not and therefore the argument that the judgement of the ecclesiastical court  may be against that of this court be not so valid levinz ad idem the  ecclesiastical court can t falsify matter try in this court in a suit for the  same thing but in our case the marriage in fact be in question here but in the  ecclesiastical court the marriage de jure pollexfen ad idem that after a man  be find no simonist in this court the ecclesiastical court may very well  examine the same matter the lie hand on a clerk be a like case and may be try  in both court holt contra for the prohibition because otherwise the  jurisdiction will interfere he agree that this matter may be try first in the  ecclesiastical court and afterward the judge at the old BaiLev will have rely  on their sentence cro and the like case in my Lord hale S time Laundon and  Pickering but after judgement here it be not examinable in the ecclesiastical  court all stranger be conclude from falsify in the point try vide Inst title  Fauxify recovery the case of Emmerton and hide come not up to this case  because that be in a personal action videlicet ejectment hob Serle and William  S case chief justice Holloway and Allibone for the prohibition because the  libel be pro Jactitatione and they will not allow this plea there and they  grant a prohibition Powell to differ