ccclxv box and MOUNSLOWES case Thomas box bring a action upon the case against  John Mounslowe that the defendant slander he in say that the say Thomas box be  a perjure knave and that he will prove the say Thomas box have forswear  himself in the exchequer Leonard er p c and suppose the say word to be speak  in London Feb Elizabeth et predict Johannes Mounslowe per Johan Lutrich  Attornatum suum go for sale make practice of defending vim in an unjust manner  when c et to say quod predict though box act svan versus the dawn to have non  debet because to say quod predict Thomas box be one of the collector of the  subsidy before the speak of the say word videlicet Elizabeth n curian  scaccarii Leonard at Westminster do exhibit a bill against the say John  Mounslowe contain that the say John be assess in ten pound in good the say  Thomas box come to he and demand of he sixteen shilling eight penny which the  say John Mounslowe do refuse to pay and that demand and refusal be suppose to  be in London in Breadstreet et pro verificatione praemissor adtunc ibidem  sacrament corporate per baron say beforehand advance thomae box predict the  say Thomax box swear the say bill in substance be true where in fact the say  John Mounslowe do not refuse per quod the say John Mounslowe postea videlicet  predict tempore quo c dixit de preafat Thoma box predict word c prout ei bene  to be for sale I the plaintiff reply that the defendant speak the word de in  an unjust manner svan not common with others without causan per preafat Johan  Mounslowe superius instigation et hoc petit quod to seek after per curian  predict defendens similiter and a venire facias be award to the sheriff of  London and it be find for the plaintiff and damage l and now it be move in  arrest of judgement that there be no good trial nor the issue well join for  the issue do consist upon point triable in several county videlicet the oath  which be in the exchequer and that ought to have be try in Middlesex and the  matter which he affirm by the oath videlicet the demand and the refusal to pay  the subsidy and that be allege to be in London and be there to be try and the  issue videlicet de in an unjust manner svan not common with others go to both  for the where in fact will not amend the case as periam justice say and both  be material for the defendant ought to prove that the plaintiff make such oath  and also that the substance and matter of the oath be not true for otherwise  the plaintiff can be prove perjure and therefore the county here if they may  shall have join in the trial and the opinion of the court be against the  plaintiff for Anderson and Windham say that if this issue can have be try by  any one of the county without the other it shall most proper and natural have  be try in Middlesex where the oath be make for the perjury if any be be in the  exchequer but they say the issue here be ill join because it do arise upon two  point triable in several county which can not join whereas the plaintiff may  have take issue upon one of they well enough for each of they do go to the  whole and if any of they be find for the plaintiff that he have sufficient  cause to recover gawdy move that it shall be help by the statute of jeofail  which speak of misjoyning of issue Anderson the issue here be not misjoyned  for if the county can join the issue be good but because that the county can  join it can be well try but the issue it self be well enough Windham and  Rhodes be of the same opinion but periam doubt it Anderson say that Leonard if  a issue tryable in one court be try in another and judgement give upon it it  be error and afterward Lutrich the attorney say that it be award that they  shall replead notam quod admire for first the statute of h cap speak of  misjoyning of process and not misjoyning of issue and admit that this case be  not within any of those clause each of they be consider by it self yet I  conceive it be contain within the substance and effect of they be consider  together also I conceive it be within the meaning of both statute videlicet h  cap Elizabeth cap for I conceive the meaning of both statute be to waste delay  circuit of action and molestation and that the party may have his judgement  notwithstanding any defect if it be so that notwithstanding that defect  sufficient title and cause do appear to the court and here the plaintiff have  sufficient cause to recover if any of the point of the issue be find for he  for if it be find that the matter and substance of the oath be find true which  may be try well enough by those in London the plaintiff have cause to recover  wherefore I conceive that the verdict in London be good enough and effectual  and note that Rhodes say that he be of counsel in such a case in the king  bench betwixt Nevi and dent Leonard er p