case LONGVILL against the hundred OF thistleworth in a action of hue and cry  if the defendant plead in abatement that the robber be take and on demurrer a  to answer ouster be award the defendant can pray oyer of the writ although in  the same term for after a plea in abatement there can be oyer of the original  S c salk S c holt S c ld ray the defendant appear and take a declaration in  Trinity term and the atorneys of both side discourse about the original the  plaintiff attorney tell the defendant attorney that the original be file but  he have a copy of it whereof he give the defendant attorney a copy the  defendant attorney plead in abatement and after a responders ouster award by  the court he give the plaintiff attorney a plea set forth a oyer of the  original therein the question be whether the plaintiff shall be oblige to  receive this plea all this have be transact in one term ware for the plaintiff  after plea the party can never be entitle to pray oyer of the writ in dower  you can do it after view indeed if they bad demand oyer though they bad no  right to it and we have grant it to they they may perhaps take advantage of it  as to oyer of writ see Mod lev   post note to former edition a Montague contra  one may have two sort of plead to abate the writ first to the action of it  second that though it be well as to the action of it yet it may be faulty in  its frame for want of legal form or agreeableness with the register and  therefore though we first plead to the action of the writ and that be judge  against we modern why can we have oyer of the writ in order to plead to it for  a fault in itself or to demurrer to it and after a plea in abatement the  defendant may demurrer general quod curian to go away for the demurrer then be  in chief and he do agree the rule to be that one shall plead but one dilatory  but he insist upon it much that be in the same term they may crave oyer of the  writ special in order to plead in bar or to demurrer and now holt chief  justice to stick fast for these reason first he agree that after imparlance  one can not demand oyer for imparlance be always unto another term second he  agree that after plea in abatement one can not have oyer even in the same term  to plead another dilatory but what stick with he be whether this be in the  same term see king v amery term Rep b they may not crave oyer in order to  demurrer to the count and show a variance between it and the writ or have it  on record before the court in order to move it in arrest of judgement or to  take advantage of it upon writ of error without be put to the charge of a  certiorari and he say that after plea in abatement to a bind you may have oyer  and if you insist upon it you must enter your prayer of it on record and they  shall counterplead or demurrer to your prayer that if we give judgement  against you you may have your writ of error for though grant oyer where it  ought not to be be no error yet deny it be darnel quote the case of London v  bury where the plaintiff be force to counterplead the oyer but at another day  per totan curian there shall be no oyer after a plea in abatement for the true  reason of oyer be that the defendant may demurrer and show some cause as a  variance between it and the register c and that amount to a plea in abatement  or to plead some matter in abatement see   Ent that after plea in abatement  overrule that a plea to a bind for misnomer must be before oyer for by oyer  you admit the name vide hob note to former edition a the defendant have no  more to do with the original and as to what occur to the chief justice that it  may furnish matter in arrest of judgement the court all agree now that such  motion be not act of record modern er p but be in nature of information to the  court as from clothe curiae to prevent erroneous judgement Powell justice in  this case say that former all demand of oyer be in court as it be now in case  of appeal but that now it be demand and grant between the atorneys and where  there ought to be oyer one be not bind to plead without it and if one attorney  in time demand oyer of the other and he tell he the writ be file and that he  may take it it be well but sure he can without such consent enter a demand and  a give of oyer for if atorneys be admit so to do they will set forth the  matter false which though it can not ensnare the other side because they may  produce the right writ c and have it enter yet it will be very tedious and  inconvenient as if a deed be plead it remain in court all that term yet one  can go to the officer and take oyer of it without leave of court or of the  attorney and the very form of plead show that it must be upon demand and oyer  of a writ be in order to object to it and after you have plead your dilatory  modern without oyer to what purpose shall you have it now it can be to plead  it in bar and to plead a dilatory it can be because that will be to let you  plead a dilatory after a dilatory and to assign a variance between the writ  and the count will be a dilatory so per totan curian they be deny the oyer