case lyndsey against sir thomas clerk the entry of a to take in hand in  ejectment will render the record erroneous S c salk S c Carth S c comb S c Mod  in ejectment there be a verdict for the plaintiff in the court of king bench  and a writ of error bring in the house of peer a motion be afterward make for  the direction of the court whether a to take in hand shall be award against  the defendant which be usual do ex duty for a fine to the king for a breach of  the peace but now by a late statute will c it be enact that no capias pro fine  shall be prosecute against the defendant either in trespass ejectment assault  or false imprisonment in lieu whereof the plaintiff be to pay the proper  officer upon sign the judgement six shilling and eightpence over and above the  usual fee so that now it will be error to have a capias award since the Act  prohibit its execution by remit the fine the court therefore be of opinion  that the copy shall be whole omit modern er p modern case Blackwell against  eales the allege of the trespass in a declaration of assault and false  imprisonment on a impossible day or on a day subsequent to the trial be aid by  the verdict S c salk S c salk S c Carth S c Mod S c comy Rep dougl in trespass  assault and false imprisonment the plaintiff declare that the defendant on the  first day of February in the eight year of the reign of the Lord William the  three now king of England c with force and arm c upon not guilty plead the  plaintiff have a verdict and the postea be stay the question be whether the  plaintiff shall have his judgement for the declaration be of easter term last  and he have declare of a trespass on the first day of February in the eight  year of William the three which time be not yet come it be argue for the  judgement that a impossible time be no time at all and that this mistake shall  be help by the verdict that the plaintiff can never have have a verdict unless  the trespass have be prove to have be do before the bill file and that he can  give nothing in evidence after the action bring so where the plaintiff declare  cro James a that the defendant return he in such a parish quod to adapt et to  make together a suit of clothes for he and do not show the day or place this  be hold good after a verdict but on the other side it be say that the  plaintiff can not have judgement in this case for as it be certain true that  he shall never recover where the cause of action appear to be after the suit  commence so the reason be the same where the day be not come at the time of  the judgement give as where the cause appear to be after the action commence  and the reason why it be erroneous be because the plaintiff have sue when it  appear he have no cause for such suit when the defendant have plead not guilty  he then deny the charge in the declaration and it be impossible that the jury  shall find he guilty of a fact which never be commit therefore it must certain  be wrong to give a judgement for that which upon the face of the record appear  to be impossible the want of allege a place can be help even after a verdict  as in a action on the case in nature of a conspiracy bring against two Leon  more b set forth that they be joint merchant of a stock of ware and do not  show where the modern plaintiff have judgement but it be reverse in the  exchequerchamber for that very reason now if the want of allege a place be not  help after a verdict no reason can be give why want of time shall the case of  Hambleton v Veer lev sand keb see also comy Rep c be a express authority that  the plaintiff can recover damage for a time to come after the action bring it  be a action on the case wherein the plaintiff declare that one Veer become his  apprentice on the twentyninth of September in the sixteenth year of Charles  the second and be to serve he nine year that he serve he five year and the  defendant on the last day of October in the twentyfirst year of Charles the  second have procure the say apprentice to depart out of his service per quod  the plaintiff lose the profit of his servant per totum residuum termini  pillage venture and it be adjudge that the plaintiff can not recover damage  for so much of the term which be to come it be true that too much time be lie  in that declaration and the reason why the plaintiff can not recover damage be  because the apprentice may return but in this case the jury can not have any  consideration of a time which be not come as to the objection that a  impossible time be no time and if so the want of allege a time be help after  verdict that may be true and yet not to this purpose because here be a certain  time set forth in the declaration which will come time and place be such  material circumstance that they require certainty in a declaration and some  day must be lie before the action bring which be not do here for to make this  to be in the eight year of king William you must reject twenty day which will  never be allow curian there must be evidence give of a fact do before the  action bring modern er p the time be but a circumstance of a thing do for when  by a traverse it be make part of the issue such traverse be never good so the  plaintiff have judgement