case Hawkins case if there be a special custom in a parish that the adorn of  the inside of the chancel of the church shall be do at the charge of the owner  and occupier of ancient house yet they be not bind by such a custom both to  ornament and to repair the chancel for the parson be bind to repair of common  right and the custom do not release he nor can the owner and occupier of mill  or rack be rate towards such ornament for where a temporal inheritance be to  be charge by a particular custom the custom must be strict pursue S c holt S c  Carth the churchwarden of the parish of saint Edmund on the bridge in Exeter  libel against Hawkins set forth a ancient custom within that parish that the  adorn the inside of the chancel have be do and perform by the churchwarden at  the public charge of the owner and occupier of ancient house within the parish  by a rate to be make by the say churchwarden by and with the consent of modern  the major part of the parishioner have respect to the annual value of the  house that the chancel want reparation and ornament and that the churchwarden  by the consent of the major part c make a rate which be confirm by the bishop  by which Hawkins be rate seventeen pound and one shilling for mill and rack  within the say parish which be his due proportion accord to the yearly value  of the house there and that he have not pay the same the defendant suggest for  a prohibition that the parishioner ought not to contribute to the repair and  the adorn the inside of the chancel and deny the custom and that the rate be  not make by the major part of the parish the first issue be find for the  plaintiff that there be such a custom and the second issue be find against he  videlicet that the rate be not make by the major part of the parishioner it be  move in arrest of judgement and that a consultation may be grant because the  spiritual court have the original jurisdiction of reparation of church must  likewise have the same jurisdiction of all the incident thereunto belong as  rate c and the verdict can stand in the way for the trial be void because the  matter be not triable at law and therefore the jurisdiction be still save if a  plea ne unques accouple shall be try at the assize neither party will be  conclude by a verdict upon that issue if there have be any inequality in the  rate it may have be try at law but whether a rate or not belong to another  jurisdiction see term Rep a and to prove that where the original matter be of  ecclesiastical cognizance all the dependent thereon be so likewise there be a  case cite in this court Hilary term James Starkey v Barton Yelv see also raym  march b where the churchwarden libel against a parishioner for a churchtax but  the sentence be against they whereupon they appeal to the metropolitan and pen  that appeal one of they give the parishioner a release of all action and  demand the other still proceed to reverse the sentence the parishioner move  for a prohibition suggest this release and upon demurrer it be hold to be no  cause for a prohibition because the principal matter be mere spiritual and  therefore the temporal court will not determine whether the release which be  dependent upon it be a bar or not modern and for this reason though part of  the issue be find against the plaintiff yet he shall have judgement  notwithstanding as where the defendant avow for rend Harrison v Metcalf cro  James a suppose that one vavisor be seize in fee of the locus in quo c and  grant the rend and upon non to go away plead it be find special that another  person be seize and make a lease to this vavisor who grant the rend now it  happen that this lease be determine before the distress take and therefore  though the issue be find for the avowant quod vavisor to go away yet the  estate be determine out of which the rend be suppose to be grant the court  give judgement for the plaintiff though the issue be find against he e contra  No man can say that the parishioner ought of common right to repair modern er  p the chancel there must be either a custom or prescription to charge they  there be two reason why the defendant can be charge in this case first they  allege a custom for owner and occupier of ancient house to be contributory to  the ornament of the chancel but they have not bring the defendant to be within  that custom for they do not charge he in respect of house but for rack and  mill now if a mill shall be construe to be a house yet a rack be not second  the charge for and towards the ornament of a church or chancel be a personal  charge and shall never be impose upon the land of the parishioner but upon the  inhabitant themselves if it have be for the repair of the church there the  land be liable to be rate but this rate can be good because it be make for he  to pay so much for ornament in proportion to the yearly value of his rack and  mill curian without a special custom the parishioner be not to repair the  chancel the parson be bind to do it of common right but where a temporal  inheritance be to be charge by a particular custom the churchwarden must bring  the defendant within the custom otherwise it be not good for it be the custom  which give the jurisdiction now in this case the custom be allege for owner of  house to repair and they have rate the defendant as owner of a mill which can  be intend a house for in a praecipe modern quod To give back a mill can be  demand by the name of house but it must be de molendino Adjournatur