case roberts case where the spiritual court have cognizance of the principal  matter they shall determine that which be incident to it and therefore in a  suit for tithe they may try the title under which they be claim and a  suggestion that the party have but one witness to prove the deed be not a  sufficient ground for prohibition unless such witness be offer and refuse ante  post Yelv cro Elizabeth Carth hut more hob vent lev Com dig Bac Abr ld ray Bl  Com salk Cowp dougl to Rep to Rep Robert have obtain a prohibition in the  common plea to the court Christian in a suit for substraction of tithe and  surmise that the plaintiff now defendant in croak James er p the spiritual  court have but one witness to prove a lease of the tithe which be not there  allow because it be one by one testis and a precedent in Hilary term Elizabeth  in the king bench be show that for this cause a prohibition be grant but upon  advisement in this case by coke and all the justice it be resolve that  consultation shall be award first because there be a rule in the register that  where getting to know first be there getting to know accessariae necessary  follow and so be the yearbook of Edward second if such surmise shall be allow  in every case it will ofttimes be make for mere delay and the spiritual court  shall not try the accessary as well as the principal and coke chief justice  cite a notable precedent in easter term Elizabeth futter v whiskin where  futter bring a prohibition in the king bench suppose that he be owner of the  rectory of Longham in croak throw Norfolk and libel against clement for the  substraction of tithe in which suit whiskin come in pro interest his and claim  it by patent from queen Elizabeth to one hall who feoff bolyn who let we for  year to whiskin and futter claim by a former feoff make by hall to sir Edward  clear and pretend that he prove it by one witness and that in the spiritual  court they will not allow it and for that cause pray a prohibition and whiskin  upon consultation affirm that he claim by a deed of feoff of the rectory and  prove the deed but can not prove the livery and seize for which cause they  sentence against he and traverse that he deny to allow of it be prove by one  witness if he do not prove it by another witness and thereupon futter demurrer  and it be object that this be matter triable at the commonlaw whether feoff or  not therefore the spiritual court shall not intermeddle therewith for  inheritance ought to be try by the commonlaw and not by the spiritual court  where they have another manner of trial and although there be a text in the  civil law that One testis be as nullus testis yet One testis with other  circumstance shall be allow and if it be not yet it shall not be redress by  the commonlaw but by appeal and if they proceed reluctant row it shall be  redress by appeal and when the original cause belong to they although matter  triable at the commonlaw arise depend upon the original cause yet it shall be  determine in the ecclesiastical court and such surmise that he have but one  witness be not sufficient to have a prohibition where the ecclesiastical court  have jurisdiction of the principal for if such a surmise shall be sufficient  all suit in the ecclesiastical court shall thereby be stay or otherwise take  away and the plaintiff in the spiritual court can not have answer thereto