case pell against garlic in trespass justification without show the  commencement of his estate or that freehold be in he S c Lutw S c new Lut in  trespass for break the plaintiff close and keep and impound his horse and for  break a close call old ground in such a will the defendant plead to issue as  to the way et arms and as to the take of the horse that he be possess of a  certain close call a and find the horse there damage pheasant and for that  take and impound they and quoad residuum transgression that there be many  close in that will call old York close but none without a further addition  that the locus in quo be call Yalden OldYork and that the defendant be seize  thereof in his demesne as of fee to which there be a demurrer Carthew for the  plaintiff maintain the demurrer for that the defendant justify by his  possession without show the commencement of his estate or that the freehold be  in he and it be a rule that any man who make a title to himself by a  particular estate or will justify under it ought to show the commencement of  it that the party may thereby have a opportunity to traverse it   light b mark  cro Elizabeth cro car but it be insist on that this be a exception of the say  rule and that the plaintiff can not take issue upon the commencement of the  title here if it have be set forth but against that he quote the case of  sander v Hussey a and the case of Silly v dally b both in avowry which he say  be much strong than this a avowry be in nature of a declaration another  exception be that the defendant justify in another close than where we lie the  trespass and lie the freehold in modern report himself he may have plead not  guilty and as they have plead they leave nothing for we to reply without  depart Lutwich contra the justify by a possessionat to be without more be well  in this case though I agree it will not be so in a avowry because that  comprehend a title in itself but this be in trespass for good take in d which  must be intend a will and he take this diversity if the plaintiff have declare  quare enclosed space Self quer to break in pieces this plea have not be good  because the declaration lie the possession in the plaintiff but here it be  general quare enclosed space to break in pieces in d leave it indifferent who  close it be so for any thing appear in the declaration the title be collateral  and will not come in question and for this be quote Serle v Puddian a and  Langford v well b and this diversity he insist on to be a good ingenious one  for if the defendant have possession why may be not justify by virtue of it  but to reside to resign for the patron son to be present and to keep the  premise on the live in repair partridge v Whiston term Rep see also on this  subject Mr Christian be observation black command page note black command p  note and Mr Frasiers edition of burn ecclesiastical law fol page a in the  court of common plea Trinity term will roll Lutw new Lutw Carth b in the court  of king bench will roll salk comb Carth ante holt ld ray brown case in  parliament a Serle v bunion Mod S c salk b Langford v Webber Mod S c Carth S c  salk modern report er p where the plaintiff allege it to be his as in a quare  enclosed space iTsius quer to break in pieces there the defendant must answer  that allegation and therefore must show his title and can show a possession  without show the commencement of it and the reason of the diversity be because  in the one case the title of the land come in question in the other not and he  quote cro car and as to the other point it be well enough for we say there be  several close call old ground but none without a further addition and this be  only inducement to our plea more in detinue for good bail it be plead that  after the bailment the plaintiff marry I S who release to the defendant and  hold not to be double for he can not plead the release without show the  marriage Henry a rule be lie down that when a man have two matter he may plead  either of they and if he can come at one without allege the other the allege  it will not make his plea double vide Gouldsborough Br double plea and as to  the objection that the plea be the general issue it be no more than the common  bar of book property to enforce the plaintiff to give a more precise certainty  of the place where the trespass be suppose for if he have say that the  trespass be in blackacre we can not plead that it be in WhiteAcre though  Littleton and brook in Edward be of a contrary opinion but the matter of  inducement here be consistent with the declaration of the plaintiff for the  defendant admit there be modern report many close in dale call as the  plaintiff show but he say they have all addition and then it be necessary to  give further certainty so that we may know which of they to plead to and  several of these close may be the plaintiff and we may be not guilty as to one  of they have a release as to another and plead a accord with satisfaction to a  three and this we can do without the plaintiff assign a further certainty  Edward trespass lie in two acre of land in d the defendant plead that the  place where be call by such a name and plead to it and though it be hold the  declaration have sufficient certainty prima fancy yet it be hold the defendant  may give particular name to they for great certainty and the reason be for  that the plaintiff may be seize of six acre of which two may be call by one  name two by another and two by a three name and the defendant may have commit  trespass in every one of they and he ought to know for which of they the  action be bring that he may distinguish what plea to make and here call the  place in which the trespass be lie OldGround be not so certain but it may be  more certain and such plea can be no harm to the plaintiff for if he prove  trespass in any of they beside where the defendant justify he shall recover  and if it be only where he justify be may controvert the cause of  justification vide Henry trespass in d without addition and there be no d  without addition yet if he prove trespass in d it will be for he Powell  justice in assize and trespass which be general the law allow the general plea  of book property and that be the common bar but it will not do where there be  a special assignment but the use of it be to enforce the plaintiff to make his  charge certain and it be only a favourable plea for the plaintiff may have a  title of lease suppose consistent with the plea so if he have such special  title that plea afford he a opportunity of show it and book property be  traversable and beside if the plaintiff have any other plea he may come with a  bene et yes be that it be the defendant book property and show his special  cause of action so where the defendant plead book property he give a plea  traversable but the plea here tender be not traversable and yet it put he to  make his title which ought not to be without allow he a traversable plea and  beside the title may come in question upon the take of good and one can plead  his possession in bar without more except it be in the case of battery modern  report where it may be mere collateral and the true diversity be between a  declaration and a plea for one may count upon his possession without more but  not justify by virtue of it for you can never give possession in bar without  make a title as to the other point it be very true when a trespass be lie in a  place certain it bar the other from say that it be in another place but here  be do own there be such a place but that it have a addition but why shall not  you confess the declaration and give in evidence a trespass do in old ground  with the addition Yelv and per curian judgement for the plaintiff nisi modern  report er p