case ballard against Gerrard suit can be in the spiritual court for the fee of  a registrer S c ld ray S c salk S c holt the registrar of a spiritual court  libel there for certain fee belong to his office as for a groat for every oath  administer and other small fee accrueing to he in the exercise of his office  and proceed carry to a excommunication and prohibition be move for upon  suggestion that the office of a registrar be a temporal office and by  consequence matter concern the fee thereof be only conusable at commonlaw and  though it be object to be for fee accrueing for the necessary exercise of his  office in court which fee be his sole recompense and so small from every  particular person that to put he to a action at law will be in effect to  deprive he of they entire and some of they may be such for which there may be  no remedy at law as in case of the box money of this court or the fee of a  doorkeeper and as to the quantum of they they be assess by the court and any  court ancient or new that have necessary officer may ascertain fee to they and  all those that use the court shall be conclude thereby and yet those fee may  be so small from each person that it may not be worth while to bring a action  at law for they and it be say if one refuse to pay the fee of the doorkeeper  the court will commit he and that be the only remedy holt chief justice contra  as to your case of the box money he shall not have the rule if he do not pay  for the box and we can justify commit one for not pay of fee and sure there  must be a original legal remedy if there be right and sure the office of  registrar or modern report archdeacon be a freehold for which a assize will  lie d if so a denial of the reasonable and usual fee thereof will be a seize  of his office and no court have a power of settle the fee of its officer so as  to conclude the subject but thus far they may go as to judge what be  reasonable fee and in a quantum to deserve by the officer for such fee the  judge assess they reasonable may be good but not conclusive evidence to a jury  and so of the table of the usual fee of a court not new erect and after it be  once find reasonable by a jury then it may become conclusive evidence and so  it have be adjudge in the fifteen year of Charles the second between Beal and  prior for the fee of the registrar of the office of insurance vide hard  however he think it very proper for a prohibition to have it settle judicial  and he say he will never grant a mandamus to swear the registrer of the  spiritual court or a official but will put they to a assize and he say it be  very unreasonable to suffer the spiritual judge to determine the right of lie  person and he have know a official obtain a prohibition when they will sue he  in order to a deprivation below though contrary to the case of sutton hospital  and none can be conclude as to a temporal right by the opinion of the  spiritual court and here a prohibition be award a a see accord Horton v Wilson  Mod Ferm keb Johnston v lee skin Johnston v Oxenden Mod Johnston v lee Mod pit  v Evans stram vin Abr Pearson v Campion dougl modern report er p