carter against Calthorpe S c Mod Adhitc in the declaration refer to the time  of the plaint ante error of a judgement in HullCourt where the case appear on  the record to be this the plaint be enter there the that of December W m and  process be return at the next court hold Jan at which court the plaintiff  declare that the defendant erect a edifice there whereby the light in a  ancient message of the plaintiff be obstupat obstruct until the levy of the  plaint et thus far to step out the defendant there plead not guilty and the  cause continue here till may and then it be remove by hab Cory and certiorari  into b r and thereupon all further proceed in that court cease but afterward  it be there enter v ill postea ad cur villce prod tent in person mayor c not  save at what day v bring forth the plaintiff and bring a procedendo and pray  it to be big toe ved which to he be grant wherefore at the plaintiff petition  prcecepl be per mayor c ad the same cur bailiff to return a jury and thereupon  a trial be have for the plaintiff general and S damage and d cost and  judgement there enter for the plaintiff on which error be bring in b r and  assign that it appear by the record that the action I September levinz er p  commence the that of December when the plaint be levy and the declaration be  not till Jan and then he declare of the continuance of a nuisance thus far and  so declare for damage since the suit commence and so be they give by the jury  I e general and so for a long time than they ought to have do and at first  holt Ch justice seem to incline to this opinion but dolben and Eyre be always  contrary who hold that the thus far in the declaration refer to the time in  the plaint for the declaration refer to the plaint and the declaration and the  plaint as to that levinz purpose be all one and like the day of nisi prius and  the day in bank and the case of Hent against Burton mich I James c b rot be  cite where in case for a nuisance as here and the plaintiff there declare as  here thus far darken step forth and after verdict it be move in arrest of  judgement and after diverse motion rule to be good but thereto the Ch justice  answer that it do not appear upon the record that there be a writ bring at one  time and the count at another time as here it so appear and perhaps there be  no original sue at all whereto it be reply that that can not be intend for  they always there I e in c b proceed upon a original which be also cite in the  count videlicet such a person summon or attachiat to be ad respondend c which  suppose that the defendant bas be summon or attach before he come into court  and yet all the precedent there be adhu c debet thus far to hold off not yet  to loosen c and for authority in point be cite   Ent in error on thus far to  speak against and there though it do appear that the writ be bring may  Elizabeth and the count be not till Trin Elizabeth the judgement be affirm and  ibidem in NorwichCourt a count septemb on a plaint levy septemb raze Entr the  like upon error of a judgement in the TowerCourt and I sand in BristolCourt a  count Jun on a plaint levy mark and judgement affirm   Entr b and a in case  for stop his way whereby adtunc thus far be lose his way   Entr holland  against Lovel in case for disturb his foldage although in the writ the  disturbance be lie thus far and in the count he lie it usq impetration  brevisand adhucperdidit yetaver dict and entire daniages be for the plaintiff  whereupon the whole court now incline for the defendant in the writ of error  but adjourn it atote it do not appear at what day the court be hold when the  procedendo be bring and allow and the award of the venirefacias be ad this  curian also the venire facias be award by the mayor c and say not per cur nor  when the court be hold but of these matter no notice be take levinz of counsel  for the defendant in the writ of error levinz hilary term in the five year OF  the reign OF William and mary in the common plead