case WELTALE against glover in debt on bind if the defendant plead a release  and the plaintiff reply that the release be not by deed a conclusion et de hoc  to put down see super native land be good action of debt upon a bind the  defendant plead a release the plaintiff reply that the release be not by deed  et de hoc to put down see super native land the defendant demurrer special  because he ought not to have conclude et de hoc to put down see super native  land but et hoc petit quod to seek after per native land joinder in demurrer  Mr do you for the defendant argue that though indeed both form of speech bear  the same sense yet that the form of entry be always so that de hoc to put down  see super native land be the conclusion of the defendant bar and hoc petit  quod to seek after per native land of the plaintiff replication that know and  receive form be to be observe and that to depart or vary from they be a  obstinacy not to be encourage particular when special demurrer to it be say in  the yearbook of Henry the six a yearbook Henry pl a that every plea must have  its proper conclusion Plowden b in the case of dive v manningham Plowd Com fol  b say that after plead the special matter the conclusion of the plea must be  et such non estfactum which can be only for form sake for the matter of  special plead show the bind to be void without the conclusion in a second  deliverance et de tali position his to go ind seisitus be a form always  observe and therefore the word de tali position his be omit though other word  of the same modern report import be put in it be hold nought and order to be  amend c dyer c and if form of law unsupported by any necessity nor find in the  reason of the thing be to be strict adhere to the plaintiff ought not to be  allow the liberty of vary the receive and know conclusion of his plea though  he have use expression it must be own equivalent in sense Mr agar for the  plaintiff argue that this way of plead occasion no inconvenience or alteration  of law and that the law do not always tie up man to any certain form provide  they use other word as proper when the plea be in the negative as the  plaintiff replication here be et de hoc to put down c be a more proper  conclusion than et hoc petit c for a negative be not to be prove and the  reason why most common the plaintiff conclude one way and the defendant  another may perhaps be thus account for that most of the general plead be in  the negative it will be somewhat absurd for a man who conclude his plea in the  negative to desire that his plea may be inquire of per native land he confess  that the general course of entry be against he and that   light say it be so  but not that it must be so then he quote rastall a Rastals entry a and the  case of jefferies v do you b lev b where the precedent be all with he Parker  chief justice the difference take by Mr agar between negative and affirmative  plead seem to I very reasonable and I think it high probable that modern  report er p the original reason why the entry for the defendant have be et de  hoc to put down c and that for the plaintiff et hoc petit c may be that for  the most part general issue be in the negative and replication in the  affirmative the question be not which way the stream and current of precedent  run for that Mr agar give up and he modern report must do so but whether it be  a form so necessary that a small variation and that not in sense from ft will  be erroneous and upon a special demurrer prevent the plaintiff have his  judgement not one authority have be cite to prove this Mr agar have mention  four or five precedent not to overthrow or alter the general form of precedent  but only to prove that this form of word be not essential necessary beside it  be to be consider that these word now object to be legal word not fanciful  word of the party own invention for the writ of venire recite of both party  quod to put down see super native land and then the entry predictus similiter  the plaintiff c import that he too to put down see super native land the very  word here be object to as improper for the plaintiff so again when the  plaintiff conclude et hoc petit quod to seek after per native land c the entry  be et predictus defendens similiter c videlicet hoc event c from whence it  manifest appear that neither of these expression be improper for either of the  party to use the rest of the judge be of the same opinion judgement nisi be  give for the plaintiff