austin and gervas how far the court will grant a prohibition or not to stay a  suit in the ecclesiastical court relate to a parish clerk upon a dispute  between the plaintiff and defendant concern which of they be elect into the  office of parish clerk the defendant enter a caveat against the plaintiff to  prevent his be swear in the plaintiff institute a suit in the ecclesiastical  court to take off this caveat and pray there that he may be admit upon this  the ecclesiastical court inquire into the whole affair but in the end admit  gervas decree against the plaintiff and condemned he in expense for this the  plaintiff obtain a rule to show cause why a prohibition shall not go to the  ecclesiastical court on account of their have no jurisdiction to examine into  a matter of this nature it concern a right to a temporal office Mr fazakerly  come now to show cause against this rule and say in the first place he submit  it that the ecclesiastical court have a jurisdiction but admit that they have  not that yet the plaintiff can not move for a prohibition to stay proceed in a  suit which he himself have institute beside he say he apprehend that gervas  have a right to be admit and the ecclesiastical court can not refuse it he and  so he say the court be of opinion in one case where a mandamus go to admit a  churchwarden that the ecclesiastical judge be ministerial in this respect that  he be bind to admit the party who apply for the mandamus and that he can make  no return to excuse himself from do it Mr strange argue on the other side and  say that he do agree the office of parish clerk be exercise about spiritual  matter but yet the office itself be temporal for which reason he apprehend the  ecclesiastical court have no jurisdiction concern it and for this purpose cite  Roll s Abr in the case of a register if this then be so he say it will be no  objection that the plaintiff himself have begin this suit in the court below  and of that opinion he observe the court be in the case Barnardiston king b of  dr Wilmot the court declare themselves to be of the same opinion in the  present case and as to what be mention concern the mandamus they do agree  there be one case to that purpose but all the case since have be against it  and now they say it be settle that the ecclesiastical judge may return upon  the mandamus that the partly be not elect upon this Mr fazakerly propose that  the ecclesiastical judge Barnardiston king b er p shall admit Austin as well  as he have admit gervas and that the party shall try the merit of their  election in a feign issue which proposal be accord agree to