coke a edward Savels case mich James ejectment do not lie of a close although  it have a certain name it must be of a certain number of acre show the nature  of they neither writ nor count shall abate for want of order in the nature of  the acre demand SC roll Rep hughes Abr n roll Rep Cr Elizabeth contra hard  Bridgm more march Jones Cr James godb Hardr Owen style roll Rep roll before b  buist Allen Yelv Poph Brownl Owen Syd Cr Elizabeth Leon palmer Doct pl style  Edward Haymond bring ejection firm against Edward savel and W bow pro eastern  videlicet quod cum dam jacobus smith primo die April year royal power king  James England I who at Leeds in come Ebor to send different ways prfat Edward  Haymond One messuag cum pertinin Leeds prd et One clause vocal dovecote close  content sharp eiden messitag spectan seu perlin in Leeds prd for terin of  three year c and declare of a ejectment c the defendant plead non culp and the  jury find as to the house that the defendant be not guilty and as to the say  close call dovecote close the defendant be find guilty in arrest of judgement  it be move that a ejection firm do not lie of a close although it have a  certain name but it ought to be of so many acre and although he say in this  case contain three acre yet he do not show of what nature the acre be as land  meadow pasture wood c and the certainty ought to be comprise in the  declaration because he shall recover the possession by to have fac possession  and that shall pursue the form of other writ of the like nature as right of  ware or ejectment of ware or the like shall not be bring of a close by certain  name but it ought to be by the certainty of the acre contain the quality of  the land as of land meadow pasture wood c coke b and although by good order  the most worthy shall have the precedency and shall be prefer before the less  worthy and a thing entire shall be prefer before a part c yet if the say order  be not precise treasurer chief justice of either bench or three of they or by  the justice of assize in their circuit as the statute speak but leave they to  be affirm as good or disaffirmed as have and unlawful by the law and that the  sole benefit the corporation gain by such affirmance be that they shall not  incur the penalty of mention in the Act if they put in use such ordinance this  detract much from the power of corporation and will be a occasion to make the  young and inferior sort among they to insult their governor it take much also  from the honour of the Lord chancellor and the other great person who the  statute trust with the allowance or disallowance of such ordinance that what  in their judgement they shall approve to be good and wholesome for the  corporation shall yet be subject to the censure of every particular judge to  be overthrow whereby the great lord shall bestow their pain in vain and the  corporation be put to vain expense in sue for such allowance whereas the true  meaning of the statute of h be that such ordinance make by corporation and  allow by the great judge of the realm shall stand confirm by Act of parliament  Lord Ellesmeres observation p Vid Norris v Trussell Brownl SC hob hut where  the same point arise but as the defendant have judgement on another point the  court give no opinion upon it f n b f c coke report a er p follow the judge  will not abate the writ or count for it t vide Edward Edward and for the  aforesaid a exception judgement be arrest ejectment for five close of land  arable meadow and pasture not good without distinguish how much of each  Carthew note to former edition Vid Fitzgerald v martial Mod ejectment for acre  of gorze and furze without specify the particular quantity of each hold good  so aIso for acre of furze and heath and acre of more and marsh Connor v west  burr