case lead against Carlton if a person sue in the spiritual court for a matter  which upon the face of the proceed be out of its jurisdiction yet on judgement  against he by default on a declaration in prohibition the jury on a writ of  enquiry can only give damage for the proceed subsequent to the issue of the  prohibition a man sue in the spiritual court for a matter which upon the face  of the libel appear to be of temporal conusance and obtain a sentence the  defendant appeal first and then sue out a prohibition in the declaration upon  that prohibition and process thereupon there be judgement against the  defendant by nil to say and writ of inquiry of damage award it be now debate  whether damage be to be give by the jury upon the writ of inquiry for the  proceed in the spiritual court from the beginning of the suit in that court or  only for the process in that court subsequent to the delivery of the writ of  prohibition Whitaker sergeant contend that the plaintiff in prohibition be to  have damage in this case for all the proceed in the spiritual court from the  beginning of the suit because the matter appear upon the face of the libel to  be of temporal not spiritual conusance that be in point of law a prohibition  to proceed and their proceed at all be both a injury to the party and a  contempt to the crown he labour to maintain this difference that where the  matter be original of spiritual conusance and become temporal only near  diminution triationis there damage be to be recover only for proceed after a  prohibition but that where the matter be original of temporal conusance there  the law be itself a prohibition and to this purpose he quote Inst Fitzherbert  Abr pl title prohibition the yearbook Henry pl cro car W Jones modern report  darnel sergeant on the other side this be a declaration upon a prohibition in  the common form the chief thing complain of be proceed in contempt of the  prohibition deliver the jury upon the writ of inquiry be to inquire de  prmissis videlicet the thing complain of in the declaration which be the  contempt of the prohibition be the law as sergeant Whitaker will have it the  plaintiff shall have declare in another manner possible in a declaration upon  a prohibition set forth whereas all cause unless testamentary or matrimonial  be of temporal conusance c that yet c as in Rastalls entry the law may be with  they and yet in those very case issue be often join upon this very point  videlicet proceed after prohibition deliver c for the sheriff to take upon he  to judge what thing be of spiritual and what of temporal conusance will be a  thing of a dangerous nature and yet this must be the consequence if c Parker  chief justice be of opinion that damage be to be give only for the proceed in  the spiritual court since the prohibition deliver this be a special action for  proceed in contempt of the prohibition this be the very gist of the action  upon this issue be constant join which accord to what be now contend for must  be a immaterial issue for if the issue be find with the defendant that he have  not proceed after the prohibition deliver yet if he have proceed at all the  plaintiff must have judgement for his damage nay accord to this doctrine the  very plead this plea in this sort of action be very impertinent and upon do  which the plaintiff may sign his judgement for he ought not to plead that he  do not proceed after prohibition c but that he do not proceed at all modern  report No action lie against a man for sue in the spiritual court where he  have no right prohibition be to the judge not to the party and in this case  this not a modern report er p prohibition to the first judge but to the judge  upon the appeal a further circumstance of the unreasonableness of what be ask  for be that the party desire to have his damage for the charge process and  delay occasion by his own appeal in a prohibition two thing be to be consider  first whether the party be to be punish second whether he be to be estopped  his not proceed after the prohibition deliver prevent his punishment and  excuse he from contempt but can hinder the plaintiff of his judgement if upon  this issue whether the defendant do or do not proceed after prohibition  deliver verdict be find for the defendant no cost be ever give the late  statute about give cost be unnecessary if this doctrine have be true and of  this opinion be the court but Pratt justice hesitate the case be adjourn