case the king against tucker S c in h l show p c indictment for treason not  say contra ligeantice sum debt is owed S c lev S c Mod S c salk S c comb S c  skin S c Carth S c show p c S c holt error to reverse a attainder of high  treason in which there be two exception take first the omission of amputation  of secret second of contra ligeantice sum debt is owed in the conclusion of  the indictment holt chief justice and Eyre justice hold that the cut out of  the member be not a fatal fault for though it be part of the judgement yet it  be not find in a precedent before the twelve year of Charles the second and  therefore if we shall reverse it on this account it will let in a great  confusion on man inheritance who purchase under attainder but Samuel Eyre  justice in this will give no opinion say per totan curium the other of  ligeantice sum debt is owed be fatal though a few record be show where they be  omit as the record mention in Bensteds case a sir harry vane v Lambert in the  fourteenth year of Charles the second cotton v messenger in the twenty year of  Charles the second Samuel Eyre justice these word be necessary in the  conclusion of the indictment because be who owe no allegiance be not  indictable as a alien enemy   b Inst Inst dyer hob Giles Eyre accord every  indictment ought to contain sufficient form and matter and a apt conclusion  and as to the two first of these and that the fullness and certainty can be  supply by argument or implication be cite cro cro   and to the apt conclusion  and that without they they be erroneous be cite cro roll Abr where contra  peace be hold a necessary conclusion on indictment and contra form stat have  be hold necessary upon modern report indictment on a statute and want of they  error cro and no word will supply this holt chief justice send for a alien  enemy can commit treason and therefore these word be necessary and can be  supply by any other word no not by debt is owed ligeanti too little ponderan  because be may not well consider allegiance and yet not act against it nor by  the word contra owner king yes et unquestionable owner sum because these be  not word of necessity but put in late for in former time be only contra owner  king cro and word unnecessary shall never supply word necessary and requisite  but I do not think these word necessary in the conclusion but ought to be aver  somewhere I have see several precedent which have they in the beginning contra  physical scientist owner will not supply it and the omission of contra peace  be error though breach of peace appear plain in the indictment Samuel Eyre  justice deliver justice Gregory opinion to be the same