burrow paxton versus knight prohibition not to go after sentence unless defect  of jurisdiction be apparent in the libel Mr Norton show cause against a  prohibition this be a question whether a prohibition shall be grant to stay  proceed in ail ecclesiastical court in a suit by a Quaker for a seat in a  church sound his title upon a prescriptive right in which suit the  ecclesiastical court have determine against he and he now come after sentence  below for a prohibition note a immemorial prescription be allege on both side  Mr Nortonagainst the prohibition cite ld raym the case of Jacob v Dallow salk  SC Mod SC case in b r tempt W SC Farresley S c a l burrow as to prohibition  after sentence hetley the case of baton v Ayliffe which have be cite on the  other side be a case to which the court will not pay great attention it be  determine tempt c and be a lose note and even Mr Watson in his complete  incumbent treat it as a case of no authority the court will not after sentence  a grant a prohibition unless the defect of jurisdiction appear upon the face  of the libel b vide ante a see also east east vin as to seat in a church as to  prohibition on account of a prescription vide vin pl and and the note pl a  libel for a ecclesiastical duty may be find on a prescription and it be not  any cause for a prohibition unless it be deny and then it S palm Noy Mr just  denison observe that the complete incumbent be not write by Watson but by Mr  place of York a but that they will if it appear on the face of the proceed see  salk Mod godb comb mos burr will b this be a clear ground for grant the  prohibition if the ecclesiastical court burrow er p strange the case of argyle  v Huntis express so in point and the case of stone v foul mich Annaethere cite  foe be to the same effect ld raym be also in point the churchwarden of market  Bosworth v the rector of market Bosworth where the spiritual court have  adjudge against the custom set up though their law allow a less time than the  commonlaw to make a custom but the prohibition be deny so here if the  spiritual court will admit less evidence of a prescription than the temporal  court will and the prescription be nevertheless find to be groundless it be  certain that the party who set it up can have no reason to come for a  prohibition after sentence and his only reason for it can be as the court  observe in the last cite case to get clear of those cost which he have by his  own vexatious suit render himself liable to and which as be there adjudge he  ought to pay but the court seem to think that if the sentence of the  ecclesiastical court be a nullity their award of cost must be so too and here  be reciprocal prescription allege and the prescriptive right of the one be  determine for though that of the other be determine against they have adjudge  the adverse prescription to be a good one which they can not try and which  they will establish upon less evidence than the commonlaw require and Lord  Mansfield say that though he be very sorry that the court be oblige to grant a  prohibition because the party apply for it only to get rid of pay the cost  occasion by his own vexatious suit yet he think they can not avoid do it per  cur rule for a prohibition make absolute