ccxxxi lawson and hare case in a replevin by Lawson against hare of the temple  who avow because be himself be seize of a hundred and that he himself and all  those who estate be have in the say hundred have use to hold a leet within the  say hundred at such a place every year and that at every time such leet shall  be hold the inhabitant within the say precinct have use to pay to the lord of  the leet d for the leetfee and that they have use to distrain for the same and  show that at a leet there hold July Elizabeth c the plaintiff reply absq hoc  that they use to distrain and it be find for the defendant and it be move in  arrest of judgement because the defendant in make his title to the leet by  prescription convey the hundred to he b a and estate without show a deed of it  see h h quod to be concession per Anderson Windham periam and Rhodes contrary  but if the hundred it see if have be in question then the exception have be  material but here the defendant entitle himself to a thing by reason of the  hundred and then it be sufficient for he to say that he be seize of the  hundred be it by right or by wrong admit that by this not show the avowry be  vicious and defective it be to be consider if it be not help by the statute of  Jeofails Elizabeth and therefore it be to be consider if a avowry be within  the meaning of the say statute Anderson although that the avowant be quasi a  actor to have a return of the cattle if the distress be adjudge lawful yet in  truth he be defendant and not plaintiff and Leonard er p if the defendant will  justify the take and not avow be be mere defendant and although that be avow  to have a return yet be can be say plaintiff no more than the tenant who vouch  over another to recover in value may be say plaintiff and therefore a avowry  can be say a count or declaration but a answer to the count or declaration  Windham and periam conceive that a avowry be within the statute for it  comprehend title and a answer to a avowry be say a bar to a avowry and a  avowry be in the place of a declaration admit that a avowry be within the  statute if the not show of the deed be such a defect which may be help by the  statute Anderson conceive that it be but the plaintiff may Leonard have  demurrer upon the avowry for not show of the deed and have have judgement but  when be have traverse the prescription as to the point of the distress and the  same be find against he now it shall be intend that the avowant have a deed  although be have not show it Windham the title of the avowant to the hundred  be the foundation and ground j of the suit for if the avowant have not a deed  to make he a sufficient title to the hundred he can have the leet and if no  leet then no leetfee and then the avowant have no cause to distrain another  exception be take to the avowry because the avowant have not show any seize of  the leetfee and by periam such a seize ought to be show in some person certain  for although it needs not always to lie a seize in show by who hand the seize  be have for the inhabitant be charge and no person certain yet the seize ought  to be lie in a person in such sort as it may be lie and therefore in this case  for as much as the seize can be show by the hand of the inhabitant it ought to  be lie in the lord see h b avowry in a to think over the defendant avow  because the king be seize of the castle of c in jure leadership Himself cornub  to which he have S rend out of the town of d solvend annuatin at Michaelmas of  which rend the king and all the duke of Cornwall aforesaid have be seize time  out of memory c by the hand of the inhabitant of the same town c and the same  be hold a good avowry for although that seize ought to be lie in some person  certain by his hand yet in that case it be good enough for the seize by one of  the inhabitant be the seize of they all and in the principal case by periam  and walmesley it be agree that the seize here be well enough confess for when  the plaintiff have take issue that they have use to distrain all other matter  be hold confess because that the plaintiff have not save they to he by  protestation which Rhodes grant another exception be take to the avowry  because that the leet by it be suppose to be hold in July therefore void which  see great Charta but it be hold by Anderson Windham and Rhodes that by reason  of this prescription the court be well hold in July notwithstanding the say  statute of great Charta and it may be hold at what day he please for his  liberty and be not restrain by the say statute and such be the common  experience and note the word of the same statute ita quod who to have freedom  urge quas to have well to have to become used tempore king h out of the way  our men c well quod postea perquisivi c and Rhodes conceive that the say  statute be to be intend of turn only and not of leet which see h Br leet in  the end of the case but by periam a leet can be hold but accord to the Leonard  say statute for to that purpose be the say statute make but if a leet have be  time out of mind c hold at any other day than that which be limit by the  statute it be a good prescription and it be save by the statute the  prescription be that he and all c have use to hold a leet once in a year and  have not show when the say year begin for it may be that a leet have be hold  there in this year before July and then this be a void leet and so no leetfee  due and of that opinion be periam way that the avowant ought to have show the  beginning and end of the year videlicet that he hold the say leet pro to make  one year limit such a day for it may be he have hold two leet in one year but  it be say by the other justice that that shall Leonard er p come on the other  side for prima fancy it shall be intend that it have be but once hold in the  same year until the contrary be show and note by Anderson and Rhodes if the  king rant to one a leet to hold semel whithersoever you please year without  say at the liberty of the grantee the grant be good and the grantee may hold  it at what day he please Len cro mich Elizabeth in the king bench