BILFORD and DODDINGTONS case a writ of error be bring by Richard Bilford  against Robert Doddington to reverse a common recovery in the city of  Worcester upon a writ of right patent and for error it be assign that no  warrant of attorney be enter but that such a one to put down loco his W h and  do not write the name at length but in the plea roll it be at length the  second error be that the writ be de three messuagiis sive property and that do  contain no certainty for sive be a word uncertain the three error it be in the  time Philippi nariae and petit process domini king Regin and it be eorundum  king and that be in the default of voucher that the recovery be have but if it  be in the recovery in which he do appear and plead it be otherwise the counsel  of the other side as to the first say that all the record of the city be of  the same form videlicet that such a one to put down loco his IV h c and if it  be not good they shall he all overthrow and avoid and if it shall he otherwise  it shall he contrary to the ancient custom of the city as to the second quod  petit process eorundum king the same be the misrecitall of the clark for the  writ upon which it be ground be well and as to the process the party do appear  gratis as to the word sive the same be good for property be but surplusage as  in a action of waste if the party do express some thing which be not waste and  some thing which be those which be not waste be but surplusage also he say  that the writ of error by which the record be remove be insufficient for the  writ be that there be error manefestus and do not sa ut to say and therefore  it be not good for otherwise the king shall forejudge we and also in the writ  it do not say wandering siquis to be and it ought not precise to say that  there be error also the writ of error be to certify a record de three  messuagiis property and the record be de three messuagiis sive property and  therefore the record be not well remove for it be not such record as Godbolt  ass in attaint exception be take that the writ of attaint do not agree with  the first original but because it do agree with the record it be good although  it do not agree with the first original for the first original be of the manor  of anesti and the attaint be of anesti and so be the whole record but if the  attaint have disarm with the record it have be error also the writ be good  although property be out of the writ for it be but surplusage and also  property be not a thing demandable as h it be say that property be not a name  to demand a message by but in trespass of nuisance to it there property be  sufficient suit justice the record be now before we and therefore the writ of  error be not material for if my Lord Anderson bring before we a record  although no writ of error he award yet we may proceed to examine whether there  he error in it or not also he say that the warrant of attorney be not good  although it be usual for that they ought to follow the course of the commonlaw  clench justice there ought to be a writ of error before that and Godbolt er p  judgement upon the error can he give for to reverse the first record the  reason wherefore the certain name of the attorney ought to be put be because  if on appear be my attorney without my authority I may have my action of the  case against he which I can have against W h it be adjourn mich Elizabeth in  the king?s bench