case cook against the duchess OF hamilton in what case a variance between a  writ of error and the record return be immaterial this be a writ of error upon  a judgement in the court of common plea and the court be about to give their  opinion for the affirmance of the judgement the counsel for the plaintiff  modern report in error move that the record be not remove there be a plain  variance between the record describe by the writ of error and the record  return by the court of common plea the case as to this point stand thus the  writ of error run thus because in think over et process acetiam in reddition  judgment loquel queen to be in cur our men in person thou et associate you  justice our men de banc per breve nostrum inter I S and thirtyone defendant  there name error come between c and by the record return it appear that the  original action be between I S and the thirtyone defendant before name and one  defendant more and that the verdict be likewise have against the thirtytwo  defendant but that the thirtysecond defendant die before judgement and that  notice be take by a entry upon the record of his death and the judgement be  give only against the thirtyone name in the writ of error first this be urge  to be a variance between the writ in the record describe by the writ of error  and the writ in the record return second it be insist that the offence or  trespass mention in the writ of error which be a trespass by thirtyone  defendant must be a different trespass from that in the record return which be  a trespass by thirtytwo defendant Parker chief justice deliver the resolution  of the court to the follow effect we be all of opinion that this writ of error  be well bring and the record well remove notwithstanding both these objection  the first objection be capable of three answer first that the word inter do  not refer to breve but loquel it be true it may refer to either so that the  court will since the rule of language will admit of it refer it to that which  will uphold the writ of error if there be a comma put between per breve  nostrum modern report and the word inter then the word inter will plain refer  not to breve but loquel the word breve be only use to show what way the suit  be commence by writ or bill if the writ of error have be without shorten then  it have be impossible from the nature of the thing that the word inter can  refer to breve second suppose the chief justice of the court of common plea  may be make by writ as well as the chief justice of the king bench then the  word per breve may refer to the chief justice three when any one of the  defendant die it be no long a writ against he and then the case be all the  same as if he have never be name in the writ to this purpose be quote the case  of Oliver v Hunning a Trinity term will a where it be resolve that a original  writ be determine by outlawry a strong it will be so in the present case by  death to the second objection we answer that the identity of the trespass do  not depend upon the number of the person that commit it for modern report er p  the trespass may be the same be it commit by five or ten person and to this  purpose the case of hunt v Rawson b Trinity term will b be rely upon as be a  case full in point a court of justice ought to endeavour to expound thing so  that they may be bring to some end the judgement give in the court of common  plea be affirm