case put against royston Michaelmas term car roll a recovery in a action of  trespass can be plead in bar to a action of trover though for the same take  except the property be determine in the action of trespass SC raym SC Mod SC  Pollexf SC skin SC Mod trover and conversion for good the defendant plead in  bar trespass bring for the same good and that upon not guilty plead there be a  verdict for the defendant the plaintiff demurrer there be urge coke entry a  and Ferrer case b that if the plea be to the action and he be bar by judgement  upon demurrer confession or verdict in a personal action it be a bar for ever  c Maynard sergeant for the plaintiff in Ferrer case the property be bar  because of the jurisdiction and therefore the judgement be that the defendant  may justify the take as a heriot so that it appear plain that he have a right  and so there be a right adjudge to he which be as much as a recovery and that  be a bar in any action of no high nature but here be only the dint of the  action mistake Lord chief justice as to the case of Lacon v Barnard d I  dislike the plead in that case and I believe there be none like it now to dome  and aver that the reason why the jury give a penny damage be c which be a  thing not triable and Yelverton justice be against it in Michaelmas term  follow it be argue again sander for the plaintiff a recovery in trespass be a  bar in detinue or trover for the same thing and the reason be because by the  damage give the property of the good be alter and out of the plaintiff the  recompense be give to he for they in damage but otherwise where a man mistake  his action and in the case of Lacon v Barnard where a man bring trespass for  take and drive and recover twopence he may yet bring trover so if trespass be  bring quare to take in hand et to lead away and upon not guilty there be a  verdict for the defendant shower KB that be only that he do not take they by  way of trespass and it may be he do not so but have they of the plaintiff own  delivery and sure then the plaintiff may demand his good again in the case of  sir Humphrey Ferrer v Arden e it be say that if I deliver good to keep and be  bar in trespass I may bring detinue and if he may bring detinue then he may  bring trover beside the trover and conversion be lie to be a year after But to  that it be answer by the court that that be not material Mr pollexfen for the  defendant if another action of trespass have be bring and the former trespass  plead in bar that will be agree a good plea then suppose it so the question be  if it be a good bar in trover when one be bar by judgement confession or  verdict he be bar not only in that action but in every action of that nature f  as to the case of Lacon v Barnard that be not much to the purpose for that a    Ent b   c Noy d cro car Hutton style e cro Elizabeth f see bro Abr title  action sur Le case and the rule in sparries case   pro to make one debt is  owed no one debet his to punish well to shake see also the yearbook Edward pl  and bro Abr title bar     light hard Wingate shower KB er p be in case of a  recovery by the plaintiff now these action be of the same nature and the  variance be only nominal and the come of the good to the defendant hand be the  main matter in both for damage be to be recover in both they be more of the  same nature than any two action in the world if a action of trespass be bring  and then trover in this court and the trespass pen be plead in abatement I  conceive that this will be a good plea show I one case where trover will lie  and trespass will not g I may bring trespass against a man for good come to  his hand by my own delivery when trespass be bring and verdict for the  defendant I conceive that the property be thereby for ever affirm in the  defendant the judgement be nil to take in hand per billam et defendens eat ind  without die which discharge the party from all action by higgins case h  transit in remember judge and Finis a strife be the end of the law and that  seem to be the reason that always govern the judge in this shower KB point and  why shall not in all common justice a verdict for the defendant be as final  and conclusive as when for the plaintiff in the case of brown v Wootton I  judgement upon a demurrer be conclusive and what reason of difference between  a demurrer and a verdict a verdict be a thing of the high nature for the  ascertain of truth here be the case of Turberville v savage king assault and  battery and son assault demesne plead and verdict and judgement for the  plaintiff savage go into the common plea and bring his action against  Turberville and he plead the former action plea and verdict Lord chief justice  I take Ferrer case to be good law and not at all to be shake and I reckon the  difference and reason to be this where the same evidence will maintain one or  the other there without question a bar in the one will be so in the other as  in Ferrer case but where the evidence will not it be otherwise you say that  trespass will lie wherever trover will it be a manifest mistake l for trespass  lie not on a bare denial as trover will on a demand and denial m in a action  on the case and in a action of detinue the same evidence will maintain both  action so that it be not the action in its own nature but the evidence that do  specificate they when a man mistake his action it be unreasonable to oust he  of any other in Ferrer case the evidence be discover but here it be general  not guilty where the verdict be for the plaintiff there the property be alter  because of the recompense give in damage and you know a accord with  satisfaction be a good bar which be not so high as a judgement so that the  chief business be the satisfaction but this verdict for the defendant do not  alter the property so that I think it no bar for we must intend it a mistake  of the action and that trespass will not lie nothing appear to the contrary  judgement for the plaintiff by Pemberton chief justice Jones and Raymond  justice dolben justice to stick fast Lord chief justice suppose I bring  assumpsit on a bind will a verdict for the defendant bar I in debt n shower KB  dolben justice answer that will be all nought oh Lord chief justice I agree  when the original action be a tortuous conversion there either trespass or  trover will lie and such matter be disclose a verdict for the defendant in the  one will be a bar to the other