Carthew THERMOLIN versus sand libel in the admiralty but do not set forth that  the ship be take upon the high sea comb SC Danv p the case sacred scripture  the defendant bad seize a ship by virtue of a process out of the admiralty and  upon that seizure the plaintiff libel in the court of admiralty set forth that  they be proprietor of the say ship and that she be take out of their  possession by violence but this be not lie to be super deeply mare thereupon  Thermolin come in and claim property set forth that the say ship be take as  prize in the French war by one Dubart a French captain of who he buy her at  Bergen and that she be take upon the high sea near Norway upon this they  proceed to proof and such take upon the high sea be prove but because there be  no sentence of condemnation by the court of admiralty in France against this  ship as prize or at least no such sentence can be make out our court of  admiralty decree the ship to the defendant sand c the old owner from which  decree Thermolin appeal to the delegate and now move for a prohibition upon a  suggestion that the suit there be but in nature of a trover or detinue and be  rely on the case of Radley and egglesfield but on the other side it be say  that there be a difference between the old proprietor and be who be vendee of  a prize under a sentence of the admiralty for the vendee may well pursue there  upon the seizure of such ship because this but a appendix to the precedent  sentence under which he claim and in this case a prohibition ought to go  because upon the face of the libel it do not appear that the capture from the  defendant be super deeply mare to which it be answer that in those general  libel against a ship this not the course of the admiralty to lie the capture  to be super deeply mare beside if it be the course this defect be help by the  plea of Thermolin in the admiraltycourt and by the proof take there by which  the take be confess and prove to be upon the high sea c and the court be  divide videlicet holt Ch justice and rokesby be for the prohibition because of  that defect in Carthew the libel but Turton and Eyre contra Inst Bulst hob Rep  cro palm roll Rep Yelv style hetl cro style vent SC lev SC sand SC side roll  Abr lev cro car Carthew er p for they hold that the plead and proof have  supply that defect so no rule for a prohibition