case carey against hinton a informal issue be aid by verdict SC Keil SC stram  SC bar trespass quare enclosed space to break in pieces c the defendant plead  that the locus in quo c be his own proper land the plaintiff reply that it be  his estate of inheritance and his proper land and traverse that they be the  proper land of the defendant and issue join thereon and verdict for the  plaintiff Mr Kettleby move for a repleader this be a immaterial issue the word  proper land not imply any possession in the plaintiff without which this  action be a possessory one can be maintain and they will as proper signify a  reversion or remainder in fee Mr Dennison this be a informal issue only and  not a immaterial one and so cure by verdict   nichols case Bulst more Syd n b  the meaning of the plea book property be that the defendant be seize in fee  and have a right to enter and the possession of the plaintiff be admit by such  plea Mr strange at another day this defect if any be cure by the verdict    salk Yelv and the case of yateman v Muston Mod pale yellow a in trespass the  defendant plead that a be seize and demise to he and then prescribe for a way  and upon a modern motion in arrest of judgement after verdict it be object  that the word seisitus may as well mean a estate for life as in fee and if it  be construe for life only it will be bad as a prescription can be annex to  such a estate but this defect be hold to be aid by the verdict he cite also  cro cro sand hob Lord Hardwicke chief justice the question be whether this be  a immaterial modern er p issue or only a informal one if immaterial though the  fault lie in the defendant plea yet the court can give judgement but there  must be a repleader but here seem to be only a defect in form the defendant  here plead that they be his proper land by which he claim some kind of  property in they or other the plaintiff reply and say they be his estate of  inheritance and his proper land and not the proper land of the defendant and  it be find by verdict that they be not the proper land of the defendant his  plea be satisfy and it appear that now he have not any property whatsoever in  he and therefore the substance and merit of the case seem to have be in issue  and determine by the verdict page and probin justice be of the same opinion  but lee justice seem to think it a defect not cure by the verdict for though  it do now appear that the defendant bad no property in the land yet it do not  appear that the plaintiff have such a immediate interest in the estate under  which he can maintain a action of trespass at another day Lord Hardwicke chief  justice give the resolution of the court the verdict find that the close c be  and at the time c be the estate of inheritance and proper land of the  plaintiff and not the proper land of the defendant we be all of opinion that  this defect be aid by the verdict though it will be fatal on demurrer perhaps  it may not have be sufficient to find that these be the proper land of the  plaintiff but the verdict go further and find that they be the estate of  inheritance of the plaintiff which in construction be the same thing as if the  party bad allege he be seize in fee or in tail the word book property do not  by their natural force express a freehold in possession but they have obtain  that meaning by construction because a precedent interest shall not be intend  and the same rule hold in construe the word estate of inheritance the case of  yateman v Buston be a very strong one to support this verdict and in that case  vent be cite by which it appear that the court will intend in favour of  verdict but to make this bad there must be a intendment of a prior interest in  some other person in order to destroy this verdict the rule be discharge