case clerk against lee a libel in the spiritual court against a woman divorce  for the expense of such divorce must be against her as a feme sole mary clerk  be prosecute in the spiritual court by a proctor for his fee in a suit bring  by her against her then husband young to be divorce pray a prohibition suggest  first that she be a femecovert and as such not liable to be sue single to pay  the fee second that all action upon the case be suable at commonlaw et non  alibi modern report Salkeld show cause why a prohibition shall not go first as  to her be a feme covert he insist that it be now too late for her to take  advantage of it because it have not be plead in the spiritual court and that  after a sentence of divorce the wife stand in the capacity of a single woman  and have a property distinct from her husband modern report er p Mr darnel  answer that it be very true that after a sentence of divorce husband and wife  be to be consider as single person but that here there be no sentence of  divorce but the marriage declare to be null and void and that her marriage to  clerk be precedent to the proctor suit for his fee in that suit where the  marriage between her and young be declare null but this point be throw out of  the case it appear that the libel be bring against her not as a feme sole but  against her and her husband clerk Parker chief justice if the spiritual court  have jurisdiction perhaps it be not necessary by the form of their law for the  husband to be name in the suit as in the case of a executrix and the reason of  the difference between the commonlaw and the civil law be this that in the  spiritual court the husband though not name may come in pro interest his and  make defence himself shall the wife desert the cause whether therefore the  husband must be join must be determine by the spiritual law and may be a good  cause for a appeal but can be none for a prohibition the single question then  be whether a proctor may not sue in the spiritual court for his fee Mr Salkeld  argue that he may both from the authority on this subject and from the reason  of the thing as to the authority in the case of Horton v Wilson a Mod S c keb  S c Freem a it be hold that a proctor may sue in the spiritual court for his  fee and the reason give be that fee be due by provincial constitution in a  case in Ventris b Anonymous vent b it be say that if the custom be deny then a  prohibition must go but not otherwise so also in the case of doyley v dod c  keb c it be hold that if the custom be deny a prohibition must go non aliter  and say that the jurisdiction extend as much to fee as to cost in the case of  web v Hartfel a keb a hale chief justice say that no action on the case be  ever bring for such fee and therefore they may be sue for in the spiritual  court as to the reason of the thing fee be nothing but wage for work do in a  spiritual court by a spiritual officer in a suit of spiritual conusance modern  report a proctor be as much a officer of the spiritual court as a attorney of  a court at commonlaw the spiritual court be a ancient court and have ancient  officer belong to it to carry on the business and to preserve the honour of  the court but it be impossible that these end can be attain while the court be  bereave of the attendance of its officer a proctor be compellable by law to  serve in his employment b Michaelmas term will see salk b in   light c   light  see salk c it be hold that a attorney be so too consequent the attendance of  neither of they ought to be hinder by oblige they to sue for their fee in  foreign court by the statute of Elizabeth c justice of the peace have power to  compel man to serve in husbandry in which statute there be no express clause  whereby the justice be enable to redress such servant in case their wage be  deny yet it be hold by the equity of the statute that since the justice have a  power to compel their service they shall likewise have a power to give they  redress as to their wage d salk stram d all court have proper fee belong to  their respective officer of which fee each court be most certain the proper  judge e ld ray e the spiritual court have jurisdiction to try extortion in  take fee f keb f darnel for the prohibition as to the case quote non to say no  but there have be resolution that way but the point be now settle in the case  of Johnson v oxendon g Mod g where most of the case now quote be take notice  of and this reason give by chief justice holt that if proctor may sue in the  spiritual court for their fee they will avoid the statute of limitation in the  case of Brioker v Goodall a prohibition be grant where a woman be sue for fee  in a cause modern report carry on by her against her husband in order to bring  the matter judicial before the court as to the case of extortion no weight be  to be lie upon it because no favour be show to so odious a crime as to the  argument from the reason of the thing if they prove anything they prove too  much videlicet that a proctor can sue at commonlaw modern report er p Parker  chief justice whether the fee may be sue for in the spiritual court be a  matter much litigate and there be resolution both way Eyre justice there be no  sue in the court of admiralty or court of honour for fee in the case of  Donvill v oldish a shower case parliament a a prohibition be grant by all the  judge of England Pratt justice I see no reason why fee in the spiritual court  may not be recover at commonlaw as well as fee in chancery Adjournatur b see  pollard v Gerrard ld ray and stram dougl b