case the queen against carter if a indictment for perjury in recite the record  of the trial state a fact as happen between a b and c and it appear from the  record produce in evidence that the fact happen between a and b only the  variance be fatal S c holt carter be indict for a wilful and corrupt perjury  and the indictment recite the record of the trial at which it be suppose the  perjury be commit be a feign issue out of chancery set forth that there happen  a discourse between my Lord wharton modern and sir W r r S r r and I S concern  the boundary of certain land and my Lord wharton affirm a to be a boundary the  say sir W r r S and I S affirm that a be not the boundary whereupon a wager be  lie and mutual promise be make between the Lord wharton and they the say sir W  r r S r r and I S and now at the trial of the indictment this variance be  assign between the record they take upon they to recite and the indictment  that the affirmation that a be not a boundary be in the record lie to have be  by sir W r r S r r and I S whereas the indictment lie it to have be by sir W r  r S and I S omit r r so this record now produce in the court be not the record  describe in the indictment and this seem a good exception for by holt chief  justice if you bring a assumpsit against two and give evidence only of a  assumpsit by one you be go another variance be that in one of the denomination  of land in the record it be Barnap and in the indictment BarnepSee William v  Ogle stram a another word in the record be orientati and in the indictment  Easterner and all these be in the description of the record seem fatal but  another fault yet gross be that the record of the trial at which the perjury  be allege be not enter up so it do not appear that ever there be a trial  modern er p holt chief justice deny the minute of it for evidence and quote a  case where a rank perjury bad go unpunished for ever for that omission for  that he say be final so as the party can never be try thereon again but in  this case he say that by reason of the other exception the indictment be  insufficient they may indict he anew for a acquittal upon a bad indictment  will not be a plea to a good one see king v Burridge Peer wms b whereas if the  indictment have be good a acquittal upon the last fault have be peremptory  king v Fenwick side c and here the indictment be bring to trial by the  defendant if he have make it up variant from what it be upon the plea roll a  acquittal upon it will be void and beside the defendant have forfeit his  recognizance whereby he be oblige to bring down the indictment to trial and  whereas here be two indictment against the defendant and he have bring they  down both and put they into court he now to bring which he please on first  withdraw one of they holt chief justice order he to put it in again and it be  insist on that the queen bad her election to bring on which of her cause she  please and therefore they will bring that on first which the defendant will  have come on last holt chief justice it be true the queen have that election  where she bring on her cause herself but here the defendant bring it on and he  be to do the first act and therefore have his election but if you will enter a  non pro upon that which they desire to bring on you thereby enforce they to  bring on the other but to oust all modern controversy the defendant have put  in that which he will prefer first it be first call note another exception be  that the record of the original trial begin memorand quod at W in person owner  queen et John holt soldier of to head justice c et associate nest c whereas  there be no court so style but it ought to be in person owner queen only