case birt against stride in a action for disturbance of common it be not  necessary for the plaintiff to show title to the common it be sufficient to  state that he be possess of a tenement c and have right of common in the place  where c S c Mod S c skin S c salk S c comb error of a judgement in the court  of common plea in a action on the case where the plaintiff declare that he be  lawful possess of a tenement and that he ought to have common of pasture in  one thousand acre in a place call c for all commonable beast levant et  couchant on the tenement aforesaid that the defendant make coneyburrows  whereby the plaintiff can not enjoy his common in tam opportunity et  beneficiali modus the defendant demurrer holt chief justice deliver the  opinion of the court that judgement ought to a see hedge v Sandon term Rep b  see James v folk post Hallet v Birt post Harrison v cage post paramour v  Johnston post c but now by whether c S all note bill bind judgement mortgage  or other security or conveyance whatsoever give grant draw or enter into or  execute by any person for money or other valuable thing win by game or by bet  on such as do game or for reimburse or repay any money know lend or advance  for game or bet or lend or advance at the time and place of play to any person  game or bet be void and it have be decide that a endorsee of a promissory note  give for money know advance by the payee to the drawer to game with be not  recoverable against the drawer although the endorsee pay a full and valuable  consideration for it to the payee and be not privy to or have any notice that  the money be lend to game with bowyer v Bampton stram see also low v Waller  dougl but this statute only render such security as be therein mention void  and do not destroy the validity of a contract for money lend to play with and  therefore money so lend be recoverable in a action of assumpsit if no security  be take for it Barjeau v Walmsley stram and it have be hold that such contract  be divisible and that if a win l and afterward lend l to the loser and take a  note for the whole l yet though the note be void as be a security he may  recover the l which be lend Robinson v Bland burr S c Bl Rep see also  Alcinbroke v hall will jefferies v Walter will modern report er p be affirm  and that the declaration be good without set out a title to the common either  by grant or prescription first because the action be bring upon the possession  and be find upon a wrong do upon the possession and not to the title second it  be not necessary that it appear whether the defendant be owner of the land or  not and therefore no need of set forth a title but if it have appear by plead  that the defendant be owner of the land there it be necessary to set out a  title but here it stand modern report indifferent whether he be owner or a  stranger but when it come on special plead as in trespass for take and chase  his cattle if the defendant justify as in his freehold and that be take they  damagefeasant there the plaintiff must show forth some title in his  replication in answer to that of the defendant in his bar but in a declaration  where the defendant may be as well suppose a stranger as a owner there no  title be necessary to be show three this matter be not traversable for all the  right of the common must be give in evidence upon not guilty or else the  plaintiff can recover and if so it be to no purpose to set it forth in the  declaration and he say the case principal to be rely on be that of saint John  v moody in hale time a where the plaintiff declare in a action on the case  that he be seize of twenty acre of wood and use to have a way over such a  place to that wood and be disturb in it by the defendant he say it be true the  plaintiff declare on a seize in fee but that be not necessary for a seize in  fee be not necessary to be set forth but where a prescription be to be make  and therefore a declaration on the possession where no prescription be make be  as good as upon a seize in fee the exception to the declaration in that case  be take after verdict but the whole court be of opinion that though there have  be no verdict yet the declaration have be good and there be several precedent  since of this kind and the judgement be affirm