Bulstrode austin plaintiff against CLIFTON and other defendant enter pasch  James b r rot a prohibition to the spiritual court in a prohibition against  the church warden of the parish of dale to stay proceed in a suit by they in  the ecclesiastical court the suit there be for the surplusage of profit the  plaintiff show that his feesimple land and other land be charge with the  payment of fifteeiis and S yearly to the poor and that the residue of the  profit he be to have for his own use the other do maintain their libel and  aver that the surplusage be to go for reparation of the church and the residue  to be dispose of for charitable use and take a travers without boo that the  surplusage of the profit be to be to the use of the plaintiff himself to this  plea and travers the plaintiff demurrer in law the only question be whether  this travers be well talcen or not William justice demand whether one may not  give his land charge with S to the poor with payment of fifteen and reparation  of the church clear he may well so do the court all clear of opinion that the  travers be good Bulstrode er p and well take and no other matter here be to be  traverse George croak move the court for the plaintiff that this travers be  not good and that so the plaintiff have good cause of demurrer for if a man  plead in bar and take a traverse by this he wave his plea in bar this which be  traverse be but a inducement to the plea and not a plea in it self and no  travers be to be take neither to inducement nor yet to the conclusion of a  plea as appear in Knightleys case cite coke part iol in the archbishop of  canterburys case also no travers be to be take upon a mes nor yet upon any  name of the party and so the travers here not good and pray judgement for the  plaintiff Yelverton for the defendant that the travers be well take for the  point of the suggestion be always traversable so here in this case the  plaintiff here suggest that he be to have the surplusage of the profit to his  own use the defendant do travers this the take of the profit be always  traversable for this make he tenant or not tenant this therefore be  traversable and so here the take of the profit to his own use William justice  the travers here be well take and there be no other matter in this case  traversable Fleming chief justice agree that this traverse be good and well  take for this be the sole negative and the point of the libel and no other  issue can be take the whole court agree the travers to be well take and so  judgement be give against the plaintiff