case beak against ken Trinity term William mary roll in a action against a  executrix if the defendant plead several judgement the plaintiff may reply to  each several or to all general or to one only or to part that they be continue  by fraud and the defendant may rejoin that they be all for just debt and  traverse the fraud joint and several SC Carth SC Mod SC holt Indebitatus  assumpsit for ware sell against defendant as executor of c the defendant plead  three judgement and no asset ultra the plaintiff reply that there be so much  due on each judgement and no more and that he have asset ultra these sum et  such encounter per fraud the defendant rejoin that they be all for just debt  without hoc that he permit they or any of they to be keep on foot by fraud the  plaintiff demurrer because the traverse be to all or any whereas it shall have  be several to each judgement Tremain this be a ill rejoinder and so be the  case of Wakehouse v Symonds a where five judgement plead and a replication  that such a one be pay so much of his debt and so several replication to each  and that they be several continue by fraud rejoinder that the judgement  aforesaid be unsatisfy and do not say several that they be not keep on foot by  fraud he cite the case of Croyden v Atwall b where he several answer and the  case of Sams v mercer c where several judgement be plead and conclude prout to  stand open per think over breed and hold ill for he ought to have conclude so  to each Mr do you e contra if this plead be faulty the replication commit the  first fault for they may have reply shower KB fraud to any one in particular  and that will have do their business as in Hancock v proud d this be well  enough e and our rejoinder be well enough f for we traverse without hoc that  he keep they well some the dawn c holt chief justice the plaintiff have the  liberty of reply to they all several as in Treshams case g but you need not  aver fraud to every one if to any it be enough to avoid their bar or you may  general have say judaic separalia breed be keep on foot by fraud the cause of  the exception in the case of Wakehouse v Symond be because he do not say nec  the dawn some and I think that hard enough for in a general issue you must say  nec the dawn some but in a special bar you need not for if false in part it be  so in the whole in the case of waste for cut twenty oak h you must plead that  you do not cut they or any of they but in debt on bind if breach be that he do  cut twenty oak it be enough to say he do not cut they modus et form I  Adjornatur king