ashton versus shearman ux to go into hill will b r rot but adjudge Michaelmas  a administratrix sue plead several judgement and conclude to the country when  it shall be hoc parat be verify salk comb S c debt upon a penal bill of thirty  pound against Sherman and his wife as administratrix to William field Carthew  the defendant plead in bar a judgement for l recover against he and her as  administratrix c by Robert wear and another judgement upon a bind for l  recover against they by Gilbert east another judgement upon bind for l recover  against they by Margaret Barton widow another judgement upon bind for l  recover against they by Nathaniel Axtell another judgement upon bind for by  Nathaniel Hickman and another judgement upon bind for l at the suit of Henry  Cornish and that they have not asset but of the value of l which be not  sufficient to satisfy those judgement the plaintiff reply close non c because  quoad the judgement for l recover by Gilbert east there be but thirty pound of  it a just debt which be satisfy after the say judgement obtain and that the  defendant keep that judgement on foot by fraud to deceive their creditor hoc a  preparation be verify unde petit judgment debt is owed suum predict One cum  financial loss nest occasion detention debt is owed that Himself adjudicar c  et quoad the judgement recover by Henry Cornish that only l of it be a just  debt which he be always ready and offer to accept in full satisfaction and  discharge of the judgement for l and that the defendant delay the payment  thereof and keep that judgement on foot by fraud hoc c and conclude ut above  et quoad the judgement of l recover by Margaret Barton that but of it be a  just debt which be pay since the judgement and that it be keep on foot by  fraud hoc c and conclude again ut above the like as to the judgement recover  by Hickman that it be all pay with the like conclusion c et predict Nicholas  Ashton beyond to say quod say beforehand advance Johannes maria the defendant  die exbibitionis of the plaintiff bill bad diverse good and chattel which be  the intestate S at the time of his death in their hand to be administer to the  value of the debt demand by the plaintiff except good catalla sufficient to  satisfy the say Robert wear and Nathaniel Axtell of their debt recover as  aforesaid and also to satisfy the say real debt of due to Henry Cornish sure t  at h in come W hoc petit quod to seek after per native land Carthew and upon a  demurrer to this replication it be much insist on that it be nought because of  the several conclusion et hoc c unde petit judgment c which be several make  after the plead the fraud to the several judgement for as this replication bad  but one commencement with a close non c so it ought to have be conclude with  one averment videlicet et hoc parat be verify and prayer of judgement say non  allocatur upon the authority of the case cite in the margin footnote Rep  turner S case Rep Meriell Tresham S case sand sand Carthew er p then it be  object that in this replication the plaintiff have make a ill conclusion as to  that part of it wherein he have allege that the defendant bad asset ultra the  debt due to wear and Axtell c by put that matter to be try by the country for  he ought to have conclude with a averment videlicet et hoe a preparation be  verify so as to give leave to the defendant to rejoin to this new matter to  which it be answer that the defendant in their plea have positive allege that  they have no asset but only to the value of l and therefore they can not  depart from that allegation and so here a good issue be offer b that a  affirmative to a negative and therefore the replication ought to conclude to  the country and so it be in the case of Hancock and Prowte say per holt Ch  justice who give the rule this replication be nought for the reason above for  since the plaintiff have undertake to answer those judgement to wear and  Axtell and the l to Cornish by a allegation of asset ultra those debt he ought  to have conclude with a averment so as the defendant may have rejoin and  moreover in this case it be not necessary for the plaintiff in his replication  to make a particular answer to every one of the judgement plead in bar to the  action for if the plea be falsify in one part this nought in the whole and  therefore he hold that in this case the plaintiff may have omit to give any  answer to the judgement of wear and Axtell and have rest upon the other matter  plead to the other judgement without go far judgement be give against the  plaintiff for the reason above