case tempt Hardwicke Humphreys versus churchman where by one part of a  replication matter that go to the whole action be put in issue and then the  replication go on to reply de in an unjust manner it be have for duplicity and  not for be immaterial or departure and it be ground of special demurrer where  the plea allege a certain act to have be a consequence of another act and the  replication traverse it as be previous to that act the replication not be ad  idem be have on demurrer trespass for break and enter the plaintiff stable and  cut asunder a beam and throw down the tile of the roof defendant plead not  guilty as to the force and as to the residue of the trespass he justify as  servant to sir h g and plead that sir h g be seize of a wall in his demesne as  of fee and because the beam be place in the wall of the say sir h g without  his consent the defendant as his servant in order to remove the nuisance do  enter the stable and cut the beam as near to the wall as he can do as little  damage as he can and the thereby the title be throw down plaintiff reply and  traverse that wall be sir h g whereupon issue be take and he go on protestand  that the wall be not his he say that the defendant of his own wrong do throw  down the tile for the cut the beam as aforesaid defendant rejoin that the wall  be h g freehold and as to the rest of the replication he demurrer and show for  cause that the replication be a departure and immaterial and plaintiff join in  demurrer this be argue last term by sergeant chapel for defendant and Mr agar  for plaintiff and again this term by sergeant wright for defendant and  sergeant Parker for plaintiff for defendant it be argue that this replication  be have for when plaintiff have traverse sir h g seize that go to the whole  trespass and yet he then case tempt Hardwicke er p traverse the particular  which be have for a man shall not plead two plead which go to the whole salk  comb and Talbot the replication be likewise ill and the traverse not well take  for it do not pursue the defendant plea either in word or sense for the  defendant plea be that he cut the beam and thereby necessary break the tile  and plaintiff traverse that he throw down the tile for the cut asunder the  beam which be make the break the tile to be previous to the cut the beam  whereas in defendant plea it be a consequence thereof and therefore the  traverse do not deny what be allege by defendant that accord to Yelv bedell  and lull cro James Brownl S c the traverse ought to pursue the very word of  the plea traverse but however to be sure it can depart from it in sense  because it must be a direct denial for plaintiff it be answer and admit that  the rule of traverse be so where it relate to the same matter but not where it  relate case tempt Hardwicke to different matter that if the replication be  have for duplicity there shall have be a special demurrer even at commonlaw  that the party may take one traverse as to one part and another traverse as to  another part and it be not duplicity sand sand Lord Hardwicke c j you need not  cite case for that for defendant it be reply that this be not insist on as  double plead but as have and unprecedented and a traverse of what be  immaterial and not insist on in the plea and therefore cause of demurrer be  sufficient assign Lord Hardwicke c j a plaintiff may no more reply two matter  one whereof go to the whole than a defendant may plead they indeed if the  defendant plead a entire qualification and the plaintiff have several excuse  which he can plead entire be may plead they several but if he have one matter  which go to the whole be must plead it entire and rely upon it suppose in this  case the defendant have take issue on both part of the replication and there  have be a verdict for the plaintiff on the first part that it be not the  defendant freehold and on the second part a verdict for defendant the  defendant notwithstanding can never have judgement for the find it not his  freehold will have cut up his whole defence and that show that the first  traverse go to the whole this be not proper a departure for that be when the  defendant in his plea insist upon one matter and then in his rejoinder he  insist on a different matter but here the party be in the same plea in one  part of it insist on what he do not in another part therefore it rather seem  to I to be duplicity and if so it shall have be show for cause of demurrer and  therefore can now be take advantage of but however the traverse be not to my  satisfaction at all for the plea allege the break the tile to have be in  consequence of cut the beam and the replication traverse its be previous which  be not ad idem if the rule in Yelv be not too strict yet certain the traverse  must be the same in effect and substance which it be not here by any mean so I  think the replication be ill in that respect and will be so in the other if  that have be sufficient assign for cause of demurrer page I to be sure the  replication must be double for there can be but one plea that go to the whole  lee I in lev adney and Vernon the plaintiff reply be agree to be ill for a  double traverse and this I think amount to the same for if the seize of the  wall be find against the defendant it will make a end of his whole defence but  that shall case tempt Hardwicke be assign for cause I do not think it be  necessary that the traverse shall follow the word of the plea exact though  there have be case where the replication in follow the word where they be  impertinent have be hold good judgement for defendant see Crogates case Rep  will Bos pull t r they be case in point to show that where a plea set up a  title in the defendant or in another the plaintiff can put that in issue and  also to reply de in an unjust manner because that put other fact in issue case  tempt Hardwicke er p