case Stratford against neal Friday November this case be argue once before  videlicet Friday January and five more exception be take which see in fortesc  Rep the case at large with both the argument and the opinion of the court be  in stram note to former edition a easter term Geo roll if a parson libel in  the spiritual court for two three part of the tithe of dry cattle and on a  declaration in prohibition the defendant plead a right to two integral part of  the tithe of dry cattle the variance between the libel and the declaration be  not material Yelv b Com dig prohibition king Mod Writ of error on a judgement  give in the court of king bench in Ireland the writ of error to the king bench  in England on judgement give in the court in Ireland be take away by Geo see  Mr Christian be edit vol Bl Com and Mr sergeant Runningtons five edit of hale  Com law vol two page to note a b the case be thus one neal libel in the  spiritual court there for two three part of the tithe due to he for dry cattle  feed in such a parish c the defendant suggest for a prohibition that the  cattle for which those tithe be demand be beast of the plough and other dry  cattle feed in the say parish with hay and stubble of corn for which tithe  have already be pay a prohibition be thereupon grant and that the right may  come in question Stratford be order to declare upon the prohibition which he  do and in the same manner as before he have suggest and conclude his  declaration that the defendant modern report er p have proceed in the  spiritual court after a prohibition deliver c et contra prohibition c the  defendant plead that the cattle for which he have demand the say tithe be not  such as the plaintiff have set forth in his declaration nor feed with such hay  and stubble for which tithe have already be pay and then plead that he have a  right to two integral part of the tithe of all dry cattle feed in that parish  and that he have not proceed contra form prohibition c upon this they be at  issue and the defendant have a verdict and judgement for a consultation which  be award modern report on this judgement the now plaintiff bring a writ of  error it be insist for he that there be a variance in the plead and that the  verdict will not support this judgement first as to the variance in the plead  videlicet the plaintiff in the spiritual court have by his libel demand two  three part of the tithe due to he for dry cattle c and be defendant in the  action be claim a right to two integral part of the tithe c so that his plea  vary from his libel and therefore a consultation shall not be award because  that give he a power to sue for any thing not in the libel therefore he have  make no sufficient title to which it be answer that the award a consultation  be no more than give the defendant liberty to proceed on his former libel in  the spiritual court and consequent if there be any variance between the libel  and the plea it be no cause to reverse the judgement because the consultation  give he no new power to sue for any thing but only to proceed on that very  libel which he have already exhibit that it be a matter of appeal not of  prohibition but however that there can be but one part remain the court be of  opinion that the award a consultation be no more than set aside the  prohibition and give the plaintiff in the spiritual court liberty to proceed  on his libel and that the variance between his libel and his plea be not  material for though in the one two three part be demand and in the other two  integral part yet that must be understand secundum to throw under materia  second as to the verdict it be object that the jury find that the cattle for  which the say tithe be demand be not feed with hay and stubble for which tithe  have be already pay but they do not find that there be any proceed in the  spiritual court after a prohibition deliver it be insist for the plaintiff in  this action that if all the issue be not find this judgement can be support  and it be part of this issue that the defendant have proceed in the spiritual  court after a prohibition deliver and if this have be find then the plaintiff  will have be entitle to damage it be true if a issue be join on part of a  thing in suit and that part be find by the jury such a find will support the  judgement but when several issue be join as in this case they be and some be  find and some not find the verdict be insufficient lev W Jones roll Abr Plowd  t Jones a quod cur to go away it be certain that the plaintiff will have be  entitle to damage if this matter have be find for the case of anger v bower  vent b be a authority in point where it be find and the plaintiff have  judgement for his damage it be true that judgement be reverse but it be  because the plaintiff have not lie a venue where the proceed be c after the  prohibition deliver to which it be answer that this objection be only to  matter of form which be cure by the verdict sand show Cas parliament bishop v  needler Plowd c for the not find modern report any proceed by the defendant  after a prohibition deliver and contra prohibition be mere formal and like the  not find the break and entry way et arms in a action of trespass raze Ent  townsend table Leon d the court it be true that where several issue be join a  verdict which find one and not the other be not good but in this case the not  find any proceed in the spiritual court contra form prohibition be but matter  of form however modern report er p this verdict have find all the material  part in issue and therefore it be sufficient to support this judgement the  allege in the declaration that the plaintiff in the spiritual court proceed  there contra form prohibition be but a suppose contempt and suggest by the  plaintiff in the action as a ground for a prohibition and the not find this  contempt be altogether immaterial it be the same with not find way et arms in  a action of trespass it be true that there be precedent both way but in such  case the judge always follow that which be least prejudicial as to the case of  anger v bower there be actual a proceed after a prohibition grant and this be  find by the jury and damage assess but the venue be lie in a wrong county the  jury can not subject the defendant to pay the damage and therefore that  judgement be set aside so it be out of this case beside if the plaintiff will  have any advantage by the defendant proceed after a prohibition this be matter  of evidence he shall have prove it at the trial and insist on his damage which  he have not do the judgement therefore be affirm by the whole court