case butcher against porter Hilary term will mary roll replevin in a inferior  court if judgement be give that the plaintiff nil to take in hand per  narrative svan instead of complaint svan or that the plaintiff sit in pity  omit et pledge Himself c it be erroneous but the court above will give such  judgement on the record as ought to have be give by the court below SC Carth  in replevin judgement may be give for a return although the plaint be before  the caption error upon judgement in the court at Windsor in replevin butcher  on the nine day of June in the second year of William and mary levy a plaint  there against Thomas porter in plea a deceiving et injust detention bonor et  catallor of oneself et come upon pleg et petit process in plea pillage and  there be a precept to repleuie and deliver the good to the plaintiff and a  return of a deliberar and a summons of the defendant and he appear and the  plaintiff count for the take and unjust detain of the several good in the  plaint and the defendant plead quod pillage quer action svan pillage ind  versus the dawn to have seu manutenere non debet because elicit quod tempore a  deceiving bonor et catallor pillage become supposit quality will do you much  good et catallorum pillage to be cuidan b holt chief justice be of opinion  that the indictment will lie but dolbin and eyres justice be of a different  opinion SC Mod and therefore the indictment be quash SC Carth this point  however seem to be settle for Croftons case have be deny many time fitzg burr  and in the case of king v Pensax it be determine that where a statute create a  new offence and appoint certain particular remedy of which a indictment be not  one the particular remedy appoint by the statute can alone be pursue bar king  b SC Sess case king v wright burr and on this principle it be determine in the  case of Stephens v Watson that ail indictment will not lie on the statute of  James c and car c for keep a alehouse without licence for it be no offence at  commonlaw salk for wherever a new offence be create by statute and a special  jurisdiction out of the course of the commonlaw be prescribe it must be follow  Hartley v Hooker Cowp hawk p c but where new create offence be only prohibit  by the general prohibitory clause in a Act of parliament or where there be a  substantive prohibitory clause and also a particular provision and a  particular remedy give there a indictment will lie king v wright burr king v  Robinson burr so also where the offence be punishable by a commonlaw proceed  and a statute prescribe a particular remedy by a summary proceed then either  the method of indictment by the commonlaw or the method prescribe by the  statute may be pursue for in this case the sanction be cumulative and do not  exclude the commonlaw punishment king v Robinson burr therefore where a  statute direct a act to be do without point out any mode of punishment the  commonlaw method by indictment for disobey the direction of the legislature  dougl be not take away by a subsequent statute point out a particular  punishment for such disobedience king v Davis Sayers Rep bott poor law Mr  Consts edit king v Boyal burr king v balm Cowp see the case of cater who tam  knight term Rep shower KB er p Rogero Saubec thus far outliving et non prefat  joanni butcher et hoc a preparation be verify unde petit jud et return bonor  et catallor pillage Himself adjudicar c the plaintiff demurrer the defendant  join in demurrer et ut prius petit judgment et quod pillage John butcher ab  action svan pillage ind versus Self thomam thong precludatur the court give  judgement because to see placit pillage before sufficient therefore  considerate be per the same cur quod pillage Johannes butcher nil to take in  hand per nar svan pillage send quod ipse sit in pity pro falsely warcry his  ind et pillage Thomas eat ind without die et quod to have return bonor et  catallor pillage detinend Himself irreplegiabilia imperpetum c general error  assign by the plaintiff butcher who bring the writ c I argue for the plaintiff  that this judgement ought to be reverse first because it be not say et pleg in  manu of me as it ought to be and so be the precedent herns pleader title  second deliverance and coke Ent a second it be nil to take in hand per nar it  shall be complaint for the plaint be that which make his demand in court and  inferior court be bind strict to observe and pursue legal form but per curian  that be true and the judgement must be reverse but we must give a good  judgement shower KB as they ought to have give accord to Slocombs case cro car  but then I argue that here can be no return award because there be no avowry  make for it and so be the precedent in Rastals Ent where he plead a property  in another and for the case of Salkold v Skelton cro James it refer to a case  move before and there be no such to be find in the book in bro replevin  replevin against two of a take in p in the will of b the one say p be in c and  not in b and for a return avow as for damage pheasant in his several soil the  other plead property in another per brook he ought to crave judgement of the  writ in Plac it be Henry plea of property in another and a avowry to get a  return which avowry nest bon and there hold he shall have no return for that  always where the defendant plead in abatement he must make a avowry for to  have a return by which it seem not pleadable in bar but per curian it be  pleadable in bar and needs no avowry for per Prisot in that case I cite he  shall have a return without avowry because the plaintiff have a deliverance  without cause and for Salkolds case cro James though the case be not put there  yet it be roll Rep and both together make a good report then adjudge that  though no avowry yet notwithstanding he shall have judgement for a return for  it appear by the plaintiff declaration that the defendant take they and so he  have possession and that by the replevin sue they be deliver to the plaintiff  wherefore when the writ be abate it be reason that a return be adjudge that  the defendant may be in position quo prius in case of nonsuit before  declaration the defendant shall have a return for that there he be prevent of  his avowry and here it be no reason the plaintiff shall have the good from the  defendant possession when he have no property and by that book return shall be  award in every case where it appear that the defendant be in possession of the  beast if deliver by replevin but then I urge that here no judgement can be  give for a return because here be no replevin sue of any take nor can the  plaintiff have a delivery for the plaint be nine day before the day of caption  suppose and then the precept for delivery be illegal which be as none for it  be mandatum be ex part domini king c and then the plaint be of thing where no  replevin lie and a variance between the plaint and count and therefore there  ought to be no return for if the count abate for false Latin or other defect  of the clerk and not of the party no return roll Abr Henry but per curian your  own fault in bring a plaint before you have cause for it or add particular  shower KB which can not lie shall not prejudice he that have the possession a  the precedent as to this point be both way rastal Ent   Ent and therefore  quere if this judgement be not right for the pledge be only surety to the king  for the plaintiff amercement and ought not to be amerce themselves Inst Plowd  SC Carth notorious facts shower KB er p and at last the court give rule for  the reversal of the judgement and that a new judgement shall be enter quod nil  to take in hand per complaint c and no return award c