case the king against Brereton a information for a libel lie in the city of  Chester shall be try in the county of the city by the mayor a information for  a libel be lie in the city of Chester which be a local offence and issue be  join in this court can not be try there but in the county of the city  therefore it be send by mittimus direct to the chamberlain of the county  palatine of Chester with direction that he shall transmit it to the mayor of  the city of Chester in order to have it try in the county of the city before  he modern report the chamberlain accord transmit the record to the mayor who  have the cause try and a verdict be give against the defendant and then the  mayor who be the judge of the court return the record which return be certify  by the chamberlain the writ from the chamberlain to the mayor after issue try  command the mayor to send the record back to the chamberlain for he to appoint  a day for the appearance of the party in order for their receive judgement  note to the former edition a fazakerly now move in arrest of judgement the  first exception be that it appear by the record that the day be appoint by the  mayor which be therefore void because do without authority sir Philip York  attorneygeneral on the other side the mayor be judge have a right to appoint  the day all the precedent warrant it beside shall this objection prevail we  may have a new mittimus or a venire facias de to make new roll Abr pl b and  this record be well return and the day give by the modern report er p mayor  who be the judge that try the cause to hear the judgement of this court and if  no day have be appoint on the roll the court may appoint a day in enter the  continuances until a plea or demurrer the court if the precedent be so we can  vary now the city be part of the countypalatine the second exception be that  it do not appear that the chamberlain of the countypalatine of Chester be  chamberlain of the city of Chester sir Philip York answer the chamberlain of  the countypalatine be chamberlain of the city of Chester for the city of  Chester be part of the countypalatine and he have jurisdiction within the city  of Chester by Henry c c   light c there be but two precedent of action lie in  the county of the city of Chester and in both these precedent the mandamus be  direct as here d Trinity term will merchanttailors company v Bainton  Michaelmas term whether Henshaw v tickel d this court will take judicial  notice of the ministerial officer of all county modern report and if the  chamberlain have a command over the whole countypalatine as certain he have  the court will intend that this return be make by he as chamberlain of the  countypalatine and no other shall be intend the three exception be that the  fact be lie very uncertain for it be that the defendant to scratch fecit et to  make public seu scribe fecit et that makes public causavi which be very  uncertain and no proper defence can be make because it be in the disjunctive  therefore where a indictment be for make or cause to be make a bill of lade it  be hold ill because in the disjunctive a a indictment for a forcible entry  into two close of meadow or pasture be void for uncertainty Mod salk a sir  Philip York answer that it be true a man ought not to be punish where there be  any uncertainty in the crime commit but a disjunctive do not always make a  different crime but sometime it be explanatory b more b and therefore write a  libel or cause it to be writ be the same offence and if so this information be  good it be like a indictment on the statute Elizabeth c that a man exercise  arm sive mysterium and that be hold no fault there be no uncertainty in the  fact for to write or cause to be write be the same offence the court write and  cause to be write be two different act there be no information like this a  indictment for erect cottagium sive property be ill as to the indictment on  Elizabeth c it be good because that be not the charge if the crime be the same  yet the indictment ought to be certain the four exception be that the  information set forth that the defendant make a certain little book in quo to  hold together hoec scandalosa word c set forth some word but not the whole  pamphlet which he shall have do or aver that there be no word in it to qualify  those which be uncertain sir Philip York as to set forth the whole libel or  the content thereof it be not material so to do for if it shall most  information will be set aside for that reason all precedent warrant this form  of set out the libel for if there be any other part of the libel which may  excuse the defendant he may take advantage thereof upon the trial the court  the information be good notwithstanding this exception Adjournatur