case arundel against arundel a fine be valid though the dedimus bear testae  the same day with the writ of covenant Yelv roll ab   b cro Elizabeth cruise  will a fine of a manor of land and a rend be good although the concord omit to  mention the rend post Cowp if the conusance of a fine be take by a judge of  assize in which he be style knight when in fact he be not a knight yet can be  assign for error to reverse the fine for it will be a averment express against  the record post roll ab Yelv dyer cro car hob Mod vent Com dig Mod Bac Abr  will term Rep error to reverse a fine levy in Hilary term the saint Elizabeth  the first error assign be because the writ of covenant bear testae the d  January in the saint Elizabeth returnable octab Hilar Elizabeth and the  dedimus power bear testae the d January Elizabeth and mention quod cum breve  de convention to hang which be not so because it can be say quod to hang until  the return thereof and therefore erroneous say non allocatur for it may be  well say to he pendant immediate after the purchase thereof a second error  assign be for that the writ of covenant and dedimus power be that a fine shall  be de manor de p and twenty acre of land and forty shilling To give back in p  and the concord of the fine be quod to know again manor et property prediction  cum appurtenance be law c omit the rend so it vary from the writ and the  warrant of the dedimus say non allocatur for as Popham chief justice say the  usual course of the fineoffice be when a fine be levy of a manor and rend if  the rend be under the value of five pound they never use to make mention  thereof in the fine but if the rend amount to five pound or more then they use  to mention it in the concord of the fine and therefore this error assign be  disallow a three error be move because the dedimus power be make per Rogerum  manwood soldier and Roger manwood who take this fine be not then a knight for  in truth this conusance be take by Roger manwood in the circuit in lend  vacation and at that time he be not make knight but be only one of the justice  of the common plea but afterward upon the death of croak throw jefferies chief  baron Roger manwood be make chief baron and knight and for this cause it be  say that the say writ be not any warrant to he to take this conusance  wherefore the fine be take by one who be not knight as be confess by the plead  for by plead in nullo be erratum this matter in fait be confess it be  therefore error But it be thereto answer that this be a error direct against  the record and therefore not receivable for the record upon the dedimus power  be an answer infra naming rogeri manwood and his name subscribe which be  intend the same Roger manwood to who the writ be direct and it be against the  record to say the contrary also in the entry of the queen silver the record be  to have peace admission in person Rogero manwood soldier so to aver that he  who take the conusance be no croak James er p knight be express against the  record and against that which he do as judge which be not receivable and of  that opinion be all the court who all agree and several deliver their opinion  open that for this cause such a error may not be assign express against that  which he do as a judge and against that which be record and as he may not say  nul tiel rogerus manwood unques in a thing naturan or that Roger manwood do  not take that conusance so he can say but that he be a knight for it be record  as a fine take by he and as in Verneys case a a error be not suffer to be  assign that the conusor be dead before the time of the conusance certify to be  take because it be express against the judge certificate and mark dyer when a  record of nisi prius be certify in the name of a justice of assize it can be  assign for error that the judge be dead before for it be against the record  and against that which be do judicial so here to aver against that which be  return on record be not receivable and if it shall great inconvenience will  ensue as well to draw in question by such averment this fine which be levy  twenty year since as also to question any fine which be levy a hundred year  pass upon such a pretence which be not sufferable Popham therefore say there  be a great difference betwixt act ministerial and act judicial for against act  which a sheriff or any other officer do as ministerial a averment may be but  not against that which be do judicial and by one as judge vide Henry pl and  nat short catalog and whereas it be say that by in nullo be erratum plead the  matter indeed be confess that be not so but it be quasi a demurrer upon the  error assign that it be not receivable as it have be adjudge that where a  error have be assign because the record be that he appear per I S attornatum  suum whereas there be not any such I S in a thing naturan in nullo be erratum  be plead thereto it be hold that it be not a error to be assign and that the  plea be good for a demurrer in law be never a confession of a thing against  the record but only of that which may stand with the record for otherwise his  confession will be vain and shall not bind the court wherefore the fine be  affirm