Andrews burton against WILEDAY and other in prohibition the plaintiff state  that m be a ancient parish have a old parish church and consist of one will  call a and three other will and set forth a custom to make a general rate to  reimburse the churchwarden their expense and for the inhabitant of a by a  particular levy to raise of such rate and the inhabitant of the three other  will by a particular levy the other S that a rate be make by the Andrews er p  parishioner for reimburse the sum of lie out by the defendant the churchwarden  in repair the church and the say three will be rate at above hold that the  custom be well allege and a reasonable one for the word inhabitant be to be  construe accord to the subject matter and include all such person and those  only as by law be liable to the payment of church rate the custom may be or  may have be a reasonable one and though the reason assign by the plaintiff  videlicet that a have more inhabitant be not sufficient it shall not therefore  be overturn in prohibition the plaintiff declare in effect that Manchester be  a ancient parish have a old parish church and consist of one will call  athelstone and three other will that athelstone be a large town and have more  inhabitant than all the other will and that there have be always three  churchwarden choose for Manchester two of which have be always inhabitant of  athelstone and be distinct officer for athelstone only and the other have  always be a inhabitant of one of the three other will and be a distinct  officer for the say three will and then the plaintiff set out a custom that  the churchwarden of the parish have always before the end of their year give  notice to the parishioner to audit their account c after which a general rate  have be make by the parishioner for reimburse unto the churchwarden their  expense and from time immemorial the inhabitant of athelstone have by a  particular levy raise two three of such rate and the inhabitant of the three  other will by a particular levy the other three which say rate have be  distinct the churchwarden of athelstone never intermeddle in levy and collect  the rate in the three other will nor the churchwarden of the say three other  will ever intermeddle in levy and collect the rate in athelstone the plaintiff  further show that the defendant be churchwarden for Manchester and have lie  out in repair the say church and the churchyard belong thereto whereupon a  rate be make by the parishioner for reimburse the same unto the defendant and  the say three will be rate at above one three and the plaintiff allege that he  be a inhabitant of one of the three will and do not occupy land in athelstone  and that he be rate for which he be libel against by the defendant the  defendant plead protest that the land rateable in the three will exceed in  value the land in athelstone that be churchwarden for Andrews the year they  have lie out in repair the say church and churchyard and after pass their  account a rate be make on the parishioner in a amount to and a rate on the  three other will amount to and the plaintiff be rate S to this plea the  plaintiff demurrer it be first argue last Michaelmas term by sergeant Bootle  for the plaintiff and by Mr denison for the defendant and in Hilary term last  by Mr Noell for the plaintiff and by sergeant Eyre for the defendant and it be  this term reargued sergeant chapel have be make one of the judge of this court  since the last argument and the case then stand over on a cur adv vult by  sergeant Bootle and Mr denison as before on the part of the plaintiff it be  insist that this be a have plea for it admit the custom set out in the  declaration and the churchwarden have no authority to levy money contrary to  it whether the land in the three will be more valuable than those in a as  mention in the plea or not be quite immaterial it be answer by the counsel for  the defendant that the plea set out a fact the contrary of which shall have be  allege as the reason of the custom that the defendant may have traverse it and  they object to the custom that the inhabitant of the parish only be thereby  Chargeable with the reparation of the church whereas none be rateable hereto  but the occupier of land for though it be a charge on the person yet it be in  respect of the land jeffrey case   b roll pl comb as to the construction of  the word inhabitant it can possible include both inhabitant and occupier  because if they be both Chargeable it be in different respect and though a  outdweller who own and use land in a parish be liable to churchrate this be  not as a inhabitant but as a occupier indeed by construction of law such a one  be a inhabitant of Andrews the parish but here the word be to be take accord  to its common acceptation and by other part of the declaration it appear that  the plaintiff use it accord for Andrews er p in the beginning of the  declaration he set out that the inhabitant of a be more numerous than the  inhabitant of the three other will by which he must mean person live in a and  the other will and the declaration must therefore receive the same  construction in the subsequent part of it the word parishioner be also use  where the plaintiff speak of the meeting and make a rate and it seem to be put  in contradistinction to the word inhabitant and the averment that the  plaintiff be a inhabitant of and not occupy any land in a strong imply a  distinction between a inhabitant and occupier that in legal proceed the word  inhabitant mean only person reside in a parish appear by Inst so it do when  use in set out a custom   b and though in some statute the word have be  construe to signify occupier as the statute of hue and cry and the statute of  h relate to bridge which Lord coke in his commentary thereon say be by reason  of the necessity of the thing there be a great difference between construe act  of parliament and legal proceed the first must be construe accord to the  intent of the legislature and in such manner that all the part of the statute  may stand together but in plead the word must be take in a strict legal sense  though they be ever so inconsistent therefore in a avowry upon a distress take  for not repair of bridge if the word inhabitant be use it will scarce be good  though that be the word mention in the statute and in the late case a a  declaration against the defendant as in the custody of the marshal of the king  Beneb be hold ill though those be the word general use in act of parliament as  this custom therefore charge the inhabitant only exclusive of occupier who by  common right be Chargeable to the reparation of church it be unreasonable and  void especial as it tend to the prejudice of the church hob hetl roll Andrews  Rep latch this custom be ill in charge a with two three and the other three  will with one three only without any sufficient reason be give for this  inequality which ought to have be show and make part of the custom that the  defendant may have traverse it roll Poph lev it will be a good reason if the  land in a be more valuable in proportion to the rate with which it be charge  than the land in the three other will for church rate ought to be proportion  accord to the quantity and quality of the land but the reason here give for  this inequality be that a be more populous than the other will which be not  material and a insufficient reason be all one as no reason at all beside the  reason of this custom ought to have be show to be a subsist one as be do in  the before cite case for a custom which in the beginning be good and  reasonable may in tract of time become unreasonable and if the cause or  consideration thereof cease the custom be abolish but indeed in the present  case the very supposition that the custom may have have a reasonable  commencement be take away by the plea as this show that the land in the three  will have always be more valuable than those in athelstone as therefore no  good and subsist reason of this custom be here disclose it ought not to be  allow especial as it be a custom of a public nature and against common right  the custom as it be here set out not only exempt some person who be subject to  churchrate but it include other who be not liable as femes covert infant  servant c who be all comprehend in the word inhabitant but have no property be  not rateable to the reparation of the church in a prescription for a easement  as for a way to a church or market the above person be always include in that  word though it be otherwise in a prescription for a profit in the record a  customary election of churchwarden be set out but it do not appear whether  they be choose by the parson or the parishioner or who be the voter and  therefore the custom be uncertain the custom be Andrews inconsistent for the  plaintiff in the first place set out that there be three churchwarden annual  choose for the parish of Manchester and afterward that two of they be  inhabitant of a and distinct officer for a and that the other be a inhabitant  of the other will and a distinct officer for they so that accord to this there  three churchwarden for the whole parish and two of they be churchwarden for  part only and the other for another part it be against law that two of the  churchwarden shall be distinct from the three because all the churchwarden of  a parish make but one corporation cro James on the other side it be argue that  there be a great difference between set up a right in defence of the  jurisdiction of the temporal court and where it be do Andrews er p in the case  of property in the former case a great latitude be allow than in the other  Yelv a custom allege in support of a prohibition be also in nature of a issue  direct by the court for the information thereof and therefore it ought to  receive a favourable construction but more particular the word inhabitant be  not to be take in so restrain a sense as to exclude occupier for all occupier  of land though live out of the parish be a inhabitant as to the purpose of pay  church rate and Chargeable as a inhabitant within the parish Jeffrey S case    b in several act of parliament where inhabitant or other word equivalent be  the only operative word the occupier of land within a parish though live out  of it be include as in the statute of h c for repair of bridge Inst in the  statute of e c h of hue and cry and and in the statute of car c for relief of  the poor so be the construction of the word at the commonlaw   b by the  commonlaw occupier of land be liable to repair the road though they live in  another parish I roll roll Rep and yet in indictment for not repair of highway  the word inhabitant be use and in the Andrews same case a distringa lie  against the inhabitant I Mod and so the word be understand in other case  chamberlain of London case   hob cro Elizabeth S c more by these case and  particular the last it appear that the word inhabitant as well in plead as in  act of parliament ought to be construe accord to the subject matter and  therefore if a occupier of land be Chargeable as a inhabitant as to the  payment of churchrate the word ought in construction to include a occupier  where this be the subject matter the objection that inhabitant and parishioner  be here use in opposition to each other be of no force because where mention  be make in the plead of the parish the word parishioner be use and where will  be mention the word inhabitant as be in propriety of speech more applicable to  their respective subject and it be plain by the plaintiff say that he be a  inhabitant in one of the three will and do not occupy land in a that be do not  intend to exclude occupier by the word inhabitant this custom be good  notwithstanding the inequality of the rate as every custom imply a consent of  the person concern for their mutual convenience indeed where a exemption be  set up in case where the public good be in question some reason for it ought  to appear but in this case no damage can accrue to the public the only matter  in dispute be in what proportion the will must pay the churchrate for the  whole assessment must be pay suppose therefore that no reason can now be give  for the beginning of this custom which through length of time may probable be  forget yet the custom itself have be so long receive and commence as it must  be presume by the consent of the parishioner and also tend to the peace of the  party concern it be not now to be overturn so the custom of gavelkind and of  burroughEnglish which among other thing empower infant to make feoff be allow  by law though no particular reason now appear for these custom and many other  custom particular those mention in Andrews Kitch be contrary to the commonlaw  and yet good though it be very difficult to assign the reason of they as to  show the reason of the custom in plead this be a matter debors need not be do  but the court be to judge of the custom as it be set out salk No case have be  cite to prove that the reason of a custom be traversable but roll show the  contrary in the present case it be to be suppose there be original a good  reason of the inequality and indeed this partly appear by the declaration  wherein it be show that there be two churchwarden for a and but one for the  three other will which prove that there be a great collection for a than for  the other will and also that a be more numerous in inhabitant than the other  will in consequence whereof a have more seat in the church in proportion  thereto and as each inhabitant receive there a personal service which be the  foundation of the rate it be reasonable that he shall pay something in  consideration thereof beside it be here state that a from time out of mind  bath always pay two three and the other will one three and this be a  consideration or reason still subsist roll pl march it can be object that the  custom be uncertain as to the rate for if it be reducible to a certainty it be  sufficient and when the rate be assess the sum be ascertain the objection that  this custom include femes covert servant c be not material for these exception  be never set out in plead unless it be by the party Andrews er p wonder I ho  take advantage of they side as to the election of the churchwarden this be no  part of the custom but only introductory to it beside it must be take as the  word of this plead be that they be choose by the parishioner but this  circumstance be quite immaterial in the present case it be here sufficient  that the defendant have in fact be choose churchwarden there be no  inconsistency in the custom or plead for first three person be choose  churchwarden for the entire parish and then there be a distribution of they as  to the exercise of their office which be often the Andrews case though the  churchwarden of a parish make but one corporation yet custom may overrule this  and control it the court be clear of opinion that this custom be well allege  and also a reasonable one for the word inhabitant be to be construe accord to  the subject matter and therefore here include all such person as be liable by  law to the payment of church rate and these be all such as have any personal  or real estate in the parish the first and three objection therefore will not  hold and probin just also say in answer to the three objection that there be  no need for exclude femes covert and other person who be not liable because  when these be charge it be proper for they to show their exemption as to the  custom itself it may be a very reasonable one for athelstone perhaps have rich  inhabitant than the other will and a inhabitant be to be charge accord to his  ability in land or live Godolph Rep appendix the plaintiff averment must  indeed be consider as mention by he for the purpose of show the reasonableness  of the custom but though this be not sufficient for that end yet as the custom  do not appear unreasonable on the face of it by which the court must go it be  not to be overturn on a demurrer I vent SC Mod all custom must be suppose to  have have a good commencement unless they appear to be inconsistent or against  reason and page just say that if a custom be good in the beginning though the  reason or cause thereof be afterward alter it still remain good as it imply a  agreement at first how at all event it shall be the whole court without take  notice of any other of the objection concur in give judgement for the  plaintiff a bishop v stracy or Stacey Kely Barnard stram