case wine against rider and other in trespass against five for fish in a  several and free fishery one of the defendant may plead property in his master  and that he do it by his command and traverse the right of freefishery state  in the declaration and the defendant may reply de in an unjust manner suit not  common with others trespass against five quare enclosed space fregeru and take  fish out of the plaintiff several and free fishery four of they plead not  guilty and the five justify for that one of the other defendant be seize in  fee of a close adjoin to the plaintiff close and that he and all those c have  have the sole and separate fish in the river which run by the say close with  liberty to enter into the plaintiff close to beat the water for the better  carry on of the fish and that he as servant to the other defendant and by his  command do enter and so justify the take without hoc that he be guilty aliter  well elsewhere modus the plaintiff reply that he do enter modern er p de in an  unjust manner svan not common with others without hoc that the defendant  master have the sole fish the defendant demurrer Newdigate sergeant argue for  the defendant that the justification be good for when he have make a modern  local justification he must traverse both before and after as he have do in  this case second the plaintiff replication be ill for he ought not to have  waive the defendant traverse and force he to accept of another from he because  the first be material to the plaintiff title and he be bind up to it hob  Thirdl V there be no occasion of a traverse in the replication for where a  servant be defendant de in an unjust manner svan not common with others be  good with a traverse of the command Baldwin sergeant on the plaintiff side  ield the defendant traverse to be immaterial for have answer the declaration  full in allege a right to the sole fish and a entry into the plaintiff close  it be insignificant afterward to traverse that he be auiltv aliter well  elsewhere modus then the matter of the plea be not good because the defendant  j tifies by a command from one of the other defendant who have all plead not  guilty and they must be guilty they do command he for a command will make a  man a trespasser the court be all of opinion that judgement shall be give for  the plaintiff for as to the last thing mention which be the matter of the plea  they hold it to be well enough for the servant shall not be oust of the  advantage which the law give he by pleadin his master command a mire v solebay  post a then as to the replication it be good and the plea be nought with the  traverse for where the justification go to a time and place not allege by the  plaintiff there must be a traverse of both in this case the defendant ought to  have traverse the plaintiff freefishing as allege by he in his declaration  which he have omit the plea for that reason also be ill and so judgement be  give for the plaintiff easter term the twentyeighth of Charles the second in  the common plea sir Francis north Knt chief justice sir Hugh Wyndham Knt sir  Robert Atkins Knt sir William Scroggs Knt justice sir William Jones Knt  attorneygeneral sir Francis winnington Knt solicitor general