case chamberlain against Hewson if a wife obtain cost in the spiritual court  in a suit against a woman for adultery with her husband the husband may  release they but if the wife proceed in the spiritual court and the adulteress  plead the release a prohibition shall go except it appear that the wife  previous to the institute of her suit against the adulteress be separate a  month et thoro from her husband and allow alimony S c salk S c Mod S c holt S  c ld ray the case here be thus mrs Hewson the wife of colonel Hewson sue the  plaintiff mrs chamberlain in the spiritual court for adultery with her husband  and have sentence there and recover eighty pound cost against her then mrs  chamberlain procure a release of colonel Hewson under hand and seal  notwithstanding which the wife prosecute her in the court Christian for the  cost upon which it be move here for a prohibition suggest that the  ecclesiastical court have no conusance of this deed of release modern wright  sergeant argue that no prohibition ought to go to the spiritual modern er p  court for that they have conusance of all this matter and that it be a rule in  law where getting to know first there getting to know accessarii so that it be  not material whether the release be good or not but the point be whether this  court will think fit to meddle with it since the original cause be cognisable  by the spiritual court there be a case roll Abr prohibition a where a release  be likewise plead in the spiritual court as it be here and a prohibition be  deny and if in such case the husband release shall be good to bar the wife of  her cost all suit of this nature will be elude for it be the cost that be  reckon the most grievous punishment in this court there be but two sort of  punishment there penance and cost and the penance too may be dispense with for  money sir b shower e contra we hope that a prohibition shall go since the  ecclesiastical court have refuse to allow this release which with submission  they ought not to do for the cost as soon as they be pay to the wife belong to  the husband and therefore he may release they before they be pay so the rule  put by Mr sergeant be fallacious for in many case they can proceed in the  spiritual court though the original cause be within their jurisdiction so be  goodwin case Yelv b a executor enter into a bind to pay a legacy he be sue in  the spiritual court as for a legacy the executor plead payment accord to the  bind they will not allow the plea and a prohibition be grant for the executor  by give bind for payment of the legacy have extinguish the legacy and make it  mere a debt at commonlaw a wife divorce causan adulterer of the husband sue in  the spiritual court for a legacy Stephens v totty cro Elizabeth c the  defendant plead the release of the husband make after the divorce which be  disallow in the spiritual court and a prohibition be grant for this release be  good for they remain man and wife notwithstanding the divorce roll Abr d  therefore we pray that the prohibition may stand holt chief justice after that  rate they shall try the validity of letter patent and of feoff c if they have  conusance of the original indeed if they make a ill construction of the law we  prohibit they so if they will not allow a release unless prove by two witness  we will prohibit modern they as in the case of Shotter v friend Mod show comb  salk Carth a the spiritual court be confine within their compass and if they  go beyond their line we will fetch they back by a prohibition for under that  notion of where getting to know first there getting to know accessarii they  may do as they please and so subvert and destroy the commonlaw indeed if the  suggestion have be that they refuse to receive this plea it may be something  Rokeby justice sir Bartholomew shower your client do not deserve alley favour  but she must have justice at another day this matter be again stir holt chief  justice if a feme covert sue sole in the ecclesiastical court for defamation  as she may if she cohabit with her husband he may release the cost but if they  be divorce a month et thoro there in such case or of incontinency c he can  release the cost and the reason be that if they be divorce a month et thoro  the husband allow his wife alimony and the cost of the suit be out of the  alimony and therefore he can discharge one more than the other Motterams case  be the very same Motteram v Motteram roll S c roll Rep b and the same be in  Bulstrode Bulstrode c baron and feme divorce causan adultery a month et thoro  the feme sue in the ecclesiastical court sole against one for slander sentence  be for her the husband release all action and this very suit c the defendant  plead this release in the ecclesiastical court which be disallow yet no  prohibition be grant in case of a legacy aliter yet if the suit be there for a  legacy devise to the wife which be original due to the baron and feme and be  not a part of the alimony he may release the suit and also the cost because he  may discharge the principal my opinion be that there shall be a prohibition in  this case but here modern er p you say alimony be sentence to Hewsons wife  prove that and then it be in our discretion not to grant a prohibition as if  it be suggest that the party be cite out of the diocese we prohibit they but  on proof that it be upon request to the archbishop as be the exception in the  statute Henry c we can stop the prohibition