case chancery against win and other de in an unjust manner svan not common  with others a good replication to a justification under a statute S c holt S c  salk S c ld ray in trespass against three for take so many bushel of salt the  defendant justify as commissioner appoint accord to the statute will c S  prohibit the exportation of any rock or white salt without first weigh the  same before the commissioner and the salt in question be put on board a boy c  before deliberand into such a ship in spend the winter exportand the plaintiff  reply de in an unjust manner suit not common with others without tali causan  ware object this general traverse be ill accord to the rule of Crogates case a  for one of the rule there be that where the defendant claim a interest in the  thing or where he justify as servant to another there a general traverse of  without tali causan be not good for when the defendant claim a right the  plaintiff can aver that he be a wrongdoer without traverse the right but where  the defendant claim no right but only plead matter of excuse without modern  report which he will be plain a wrongdoer there it suffice for the plaintiff  to maintain the wrong and in such case de in an unjust manner svan not common  with others without tali causan general be a good replication the second rule  there be that it can be when a matter of record be plead for that be to put  matter of fact and of record in issue three it be not good when the a roll Rep  vent Yelv cro James cro Elizabeth salk run eject a Lutw a   modern report er p  defendant justify by authority in law for that be to involve multiplicity of  fact in one issue when every issue ought to be single and particular and our  case be within all these rule first two of the defendant justify as servant to  the three and so in his right and as his servant and second the other justify  as servant to the commissioner of excise and by all authority derive from they  three this be a justification under a Act of parliament which be a authority  in law and for these rule he further quote roll Rep hill will roll keb cro  Elizabeth roll Abr and also the proviso in the statute of Henry c of sewer  where one upon not guilty may give warrant of commissioner of sewer in  evidence and the proviso be that the plaintiff may give evidence of de in an  unjust manner svan not common with others eyres contra first he agree the  general rule that when the plea consist of a justification part depend of  matter of record the replication ought to be with a special traverse but that  rule have its exception for if matter of record be make use of by way of  inducement to the part of justification there it be not necessary to reply  special leo and that the Act of parliament here be mention by way of  inducement appear for if it have not be at all mention the plea have be as  well for be a general law the court will have take notice of it and here the  Act be not leave to the consideration of the jury nor be it involve in the  issue and the sole reason why such a general replication be nought be that the  lie gens shall not be inveigle by have matter of record involve in the issue  and here the issue be not pregnant with any matter of law as whether there be  such a Act of parliament but the sole question be whether the salt be weigh or  not second that general rule only hold place where such matter of record be  plead to which the plaintiff may have all answer as to a to know facias c but  here there can be no answer to the Act of parliament and be agree that where  one claim common by prescription rend by grant good by sale c and so justify  as have interest there the plaintiff must answer modern report direct to the  title and not with a general de in an unjust manner svan not common with  others without tali causan but when one entitle himself by Act of parliament  especial a general Act which none can traverse there be may well reply de in  an unjust manner svan not common with others without tali causan and as to the  rule that where one justify by virtue of a authority in law de in an unjust  manner svan not common with others without tali causan he say the authority  cite there do not warrant it and deny it to be law and the case that most seem  to favour that opinion be that in the yearbook of Edward the four where the  defendant justify the enter to see waste but there be a statute merchant plead  in that case which be matter of record and also Littleton give another reason  why the plea be have videlicet the traverse the intent of see waste which be  not traversable but he quote Henry where one justify by process of withernam  and the general traverse of without tali causan be good and he say the three  resolution in Crogates case do contradict the first vide roll ab defendant  justify cut of leather as a searcher appoint by all Act of parliament ray    Ent a justification under the stat de malefactor in to act sparingly and de in  an unjust manner svan not common with others without tali causan reply holt  chief justice if in trespass against a constable be justify for that he be a  constable and the plaintiff be break the peace for which he commit he may not  the plaintiff reply de in an unjust manner suit not common with others without  tali causan so if one come into my house by my consent and he will not go away  when I will have he go I may by authority in law turn he out if he bring  trespass for this and I set out all the matter special in my justification de  in an unjust manner svan not common with others general will be a good plea  and the case of enter to see waste be upon a special reason for suppose the  plaintiff be seize in fee the plead de in an unjust manner svan not common  with others will involve the seize in fee in the issue which will be hard to  have the right of the fee try in all issue in trespass if the plaintiff be  lessee the lessor may lawful enter to see waste and there to make he a  trespasser the lessee ought to show some misbehaviour in he as cut a tree  destroy the corn or stay on the land all night c and there be such a precedent  in the entry as you say of the statute of malefactor but when one justify by  virtue of a warrant of a justice of peace it be quite another modern report er  p thing because perhaps it may not be proper to involve the warrant in the  modern report issue and the Act of parliament here if it have not be plead  will have be take notice of by the court therefore its be plead be superfluous  will be no hindrance to the replication with this general traverse a