Barnardiston king b lewis and lewis vide ante Mr fazakerly now argue for the  plaintiff in error and say he shall submit it for a general rule that no  action will lie for what be do in a course of judicial Barnardiston king b er  p proceed unless there be special damage attend it and the reason for that he  say be because the court will take upon themselves to correct those  misdemeanour but in the present case he submit it that there can be no colour  for this action for if the verdict in the original action be right the party  be not injure and if the verdict be wrong he have a good remedy by attaint  beside he say it do not appear upon this declaration that the judgement be  give in the former and then it be certain this action be bring too soon to  support this general learning he say many case may be cite particular he  mention that in cro and Hatton in which last book it be hold that a action  will not lie for give false evidence so neither will it lie for put in false  bail accord to the case cite by Doderidge in the same place in cro  beforementioned he say likewise it be know and certain that no action will lie  for a malicious prosecution till the judgement give in the original action but  beside he say there be a fault in the declaration which make the action clear  bad the declaration set forth the proceed in the former cause and the verdict  be give for the plaintiff and then go on and say that the plaintiff there  praemissor non ignorant embrace the jury ration who indeed sollicitation the  jury give a verdict for the plaintiff now he observe that the praemissor  include the verdict as well as the other part of the proceed and if a verdict  be give before the imbracery the imbracery can be no offence whatsoever Mr  Filmer on the other side argue and say that on the last argument the court be  of opinion with Mr fazakerly on the same point which he now argue but the  matter which stick with the court at that time be whether the ration c be a  sufficient averment of special damage and therefore he shall confine himself  to that he say if a action be bring by a young woman for word per quod  maritagium to send away the per quod be a sufficient averment and that though  the per quod be the jit of the action so that the action will not lie without  it he say too this be the same of a army pron  interrog  or a pretense quorum  and in general he say he do not know that there be any particular word which  the law require as necessary to describe a averment by he say he do not know  there be any occasion for he to say any thing far but if it be doubt whether  this action will lie though there be not special damage he say many case may  be cite to this purpose he quote Edward cite in Rep where it be hold that if a  man forge a note a action will lie even before a conviction of the forgery so  likewise it be hold that if a attorney enter judgement for the plaintiff where  the court order a non pro a action Barnardiston king b will lie the court say  that they be in no doubt but the action will lie if the special damage be  sufficient aver and at present they think the averment be sufficient especial  after verdict however order this matter far to stand over