case matthews against carry easter term James roll in trespass for take a cup  under process from a court leet it be sufficient to justify the officer that  there be a presentment upon which the process issue for the presentment be not  traversable SC Mod SC Carth SC salk SC holt SC comb trespass for break and  enter his house and take a silver tankard and detain it till he pay five pound  the defendant plead that the plaintiff be present for a nuisance and upon that  presentment be amerce five pound and that the defendant take it by warrant  from the dean and chapter of Westminster who the leet be c the plaintiff reply  de in an unjust manner svan not common with others without hoc that he be  guilty of the nuisance the defendant demurrer the presentment be not  traversable a and so be Henry Edward bro title presentment en court Edward it  be enough to justify the officer from be guilty of a trespass that there be a  presentment and amerciament and whether true or not be not for the officer to  consider the court in trespass it be sufficient to justify the officer that  there be such a presentment because this action try the authority whereas in  replevin the suit be not so much for damage as to try the right and there it  be not enough to set out a authority as to make out the right Thompson they  have not say per mandatum of the steward for in trespass they can justify  without a good authority and that the steward only can give in Wilson v  Hardingham hob it be by precept cro Elizabeth per Popham a bailiff can  distrain without a warrant but by gaudy he may but that be in replevin but  here the defendant be not say to be the lord bailiff vide more per mandatum of  the constable necessary more a precept be necessary Bonython e contra good  without a warrant from the steward it be a duty for which the lord may  distrain shower KB or bring debt if it be lawful for the lord to distrain it  will be good when his servant do it here be a interest vest and sure the lord  may distrain without leave from the steward in the earl of Bedford case b in a  avowry be no precept in Henry no need of a precept in Gresleys case c no  mention of any warrant in Godfrey case d be none court in a avowry as bailiff  to the lord you need not but in trespass you be there to justify your  authority and that must be by warrant from the steward upon the presumption  that all person be present in the leet be the old reason why it be not  traversable e vide cro Elizabeth Leon more he must allege the truth of the  fact and the estreat draw out or warrant the steward can amerce ancient two be  swear to affere now the same jury do both but the jury may not amerce certain  without any afferement the judgement be quod amerciatur then the jury  ascertain it f dolbin justice you ought to say there be such a offence commit  and a presentment holt chief justice you need not in trespass where you do  justify Stephens v hay c b car g dolbin justice if you justify out of the  admiralty court must you not say it be infra jurisdiction holt chief justice  No you need not because perhaps there be no cause of action they must allege  that it be not h but avowry go to the right whereas a king v Roupel Cowp b cro  Elizabeth c   Ent   d   e king v Roupel Cowp f f n b roll Abr lev andr stram  Com dig g see the case of Stephens v Haughton stram h see the case of Roland v  veil Cowper and Trevor v wall term Rep shower KB er p trespass do not I in a  avowry the command be not traversable but where you justify a trespass you  need not aver the thing but the authority king holt chief justice and eyres  justice the amerciament ought to be the act of the court and the affeering to  be by the jury the jury can amerce the case of Wilton v Hardingham in Hobert  be not law dolbin justice the jury do amerce and there be affeerors particular  for that purpose appoint if the jury amerce say holt to a particular sum then  there be no need of a afferement dolbin justice for want of a warrant the plea  be ill and so per curian judgement for the plaintiff