case sir george Savile against richard Thornton if a quare hinder be bring  against the incumbent alone without name the patron and it be aver that the  patron be alive the omission must be plead in abatement and can be take  advantage of on a writ of error c Jones Bulst Brownl palm roll Rep roll Abr  roll Rep side stram Com dig nothing shall be assign for error concern the writ  but that which prove it abateable and not abate in quare hinder a traverse  ought to be of the most material point quare hinder against the bishop of  Lincoln and Richard Thornton for disturb he to present to the church of  Barroughly in the county of Lincoln for that he be seize in fee of the  advowson of the say church as in gross and present James Thornton who be admit  institute and induct and by his death the church be void it belong to he to  present the bishop plead that he claim nothing but as ordinary and judgement  be give against he Richard Thornton plead that he be parson imparsonee of the  say presentiment of John Thornton who be yet alive at Barroughly aforesaid and  that the plaintiff ought not to maintain this action for he say that long time  before the plaintiff have any thing to do with the say advowson the prior of  okey be seize thereof in fee and present thereto Thomas gooding and after that  grant the next avoidance to r m and afterward surrender his possession to king  Henry the eight who be seize thereof in fee and afterward the church become  void and r n the grantee of the next avoidance present thereto one Dickenson  that king Henry the eight die seize and it descend to king Edward the six and  from he to queen mary and from her to queen Elizabeth who be seize thereof in  fee in jure coronae and the church become void by the death of Dickenson and  she present one buttery and that the church become void by his resignation and  the queen thereupon present John king who be admit and institute and by his  death the church be void the plaintiff present by usurpation the say James  Thornton who be admit institute and induct that the say queen Elizabeth die  seize and it descend to the king who now be who by his letter patent grant the  next croak James er p avoidance to John Thornton who by the death of James  Thornton present he and that he be admit institute and induct the plaintiff  reply and take protestation of the seize in fee of queen mary queen Elizabeth  and the king who now be and for plea confess the seize of the plaintiff and  the grant of the next avoidance by he and the presentment thereby and the  seize of king Henry the eight and king Edward the six and that king Edward the  six by his letter patent in the four year of his reign grant that advowson to  sir Thomas Wyatt in fee who grant it to the plaintiff and that queen Elizabeth  make the several presentment allege in the count by lapse and afterward the  church be void the plaintiff present the say James Thornton by who death the  church be again void it belong to he to present and traverse the die seize of  king Edward the six croak throw thereupon the defendant demurrer first because  the protestation be ill and repugnant second the traverse be not good for he  traverse the die seize of king Edward the six and do not traverse the seize of  queen mary and queen Elizabeth and their die seize nor traverse the  presentment allege by reason of their seize in fee but answer they by reason  of the presentation by lapse upon these point it be argue in the common plea  and judgement give for the plaintiff and thereupon a writ of error be bring  and the error be here assign in the matter of law it be now this term agree  that this quare hinder be bring against the incumbent without name the patron  and it be aver that the patron be alive and therefore the declaration not be  good judgement ought to have be against the plaintiff and in proof hereof be  cite Henry pl Edward pl   b but it be thereto answer that this peradventure  may have be a good plea if he have plead it in the common plea and have rely  upon it without plead over so as the plaintiff may have answer thereto but  this can never be assign for error for it be only to the writ and prove the  writ abateable and it be not abate in facto and nothing shall be assign for  error concern the writ but that which prove it to be abate in facto also this  be not plead after the imparlance and for that he in his plea do not rely  thereupon but have plead another in bar and so have relinquish his plea to the  writ and the plaintiff have not answer thereto and then in fact his plea in  bar be not answer when he do not rely upon it but plead over in bar and  therefore it can be assign for error vide Henry pl Henry pl Edward pl Edward  pl second it be strong argue that the traverse be not good because he traverse  the die seize of king Edward the six and do not traverse the seize of queen  mary and queen Elizabeth nor the presentment allege in the bar by reason of  the seize in fee it be the principal matter of the bar but the court hold the  replication to be well enough for the die seize be the principal matter  traversable the other matter be but consequent thereof and the plaintiff have  liberty to traverse any part of the defendant plea and the presentment allege  be well confess and avoid when he show that they be presentation by lapse and  not by reason of any seize ill fee and of necessity he be to answer to they  and although it be object that presentation can be answer by collation make  and that presentment by lapse in the king case be not any collation but a  presentation and so always have be plead for he present as supreme patron vide  Henry pl Edward pl therefore rule be give that judgement shall be affirm but  because it be allege that sir George Savile plaintiff in the first action be  dead pendent the plea the entry of the judgement be stay croak James er p