Buxton against Bateman ante in chattel Br church if the repair be but matter  of evidence the party need not allege it as suggestion for prohibition no more  then in prescription because no issue can be thereon and the matter be  ecclesiastic there must be a temporal reason give to draw it thence and so be  all the book and in this very case a prohibition be grant in c b because that  by the commonlaw he must allege he do repair whereas usage alone in the  spiritual court may be sufficient by their law winnington for the defendant Cr  after verdict its well enough as prescription for common not say pertinent but  only for beast levant and couchant Twisden upon advice Keble er p with some  other judge conceive in action upon the case its sufficient to prescribe  general but in a prohibition as all the precedent be they doubt it be  necessary to allege a cause but here its not find tanquam ad messuagium  pertinent which may be for other cause then of reparation but only that all  such as have ancient house have use to sit which may be by place of ordinary  and its not like the case of common which shall be intend pertain to the land  after verdict Windham agree the distinction betwixt a action upon the case and  prohibition the one take away the jurisdiction of the ordinary the other not  and it do not appear whither isle peculiar or not and therefore it shall be  intend it be now after verdict but the not say ad messuagium Keble pertinent  its ill which Windham agree the court agree the prescription sufficient in  this action but upon this last point of not say tanquam ad messuagium spectant  Adjornatur prohibition Jones move for prohibition for Cookson administrator of  pot to the bishop court of Lincoln upon suggestion that the last incumbent be  for some time put ill by the late usurper and so by the Act of oblivion be to  be discharge for so much in suit there for pension as in action for tithe if h  suggest its barren ground on Edward he shall have prohibition present which  the court here deny before this he plead in the spiritual court and it there  appear this to be the single issue whereby the party have tie himself up and  then if the spiritual court will not allow the plea prohibition shall be grant  as in action for tithe if the defendant plead unity and so discharge by the  statute then prohibition shall go but not before