case STANYON against davis error of judgement in the marshal court c post see  Danv Abr title error post SC salk SC Mod S c holt SC ld ray error of a  judgement in the Marshalsea court wherein the plaintiff declare that at such a  day in such a parish in the county of Middlesex be deliver into the stable of  the defendant thus pillage Davis come be a guest adtunc et ibidem existen in  inn to weigh well a certain gelding to be by he safe keep at a reasonable rate  and to be safe redeliver by he to the plaintiff that the defendant adtunc  ibidem tam negligent the say gelding do keep that through his defect it be  take out of his inn and so immoderate rid and whip that he be quite spoil  verdict and damage for the plaintiff and judgement for he below Raymond and  Cheshire upon a writ of error be bring at several time except first that the  horse for aught that appear be put into the defendant stable without his  privity and if so he be not bind to take any care of it for as the declaration  be word it be to be understand that it be deliver into his stable be be a  common innkeeper for pillage d come a lodger existen must be take in the  ablative case but the word be indifferent to a ablative or dative and take  they in a modern er p dative make the declaration good and the other bad per  Powell powys and gold justice absent holt chief justice it shall be take in  that which make it good second that no place be lie where the immoderate ride  be nor that it be within the jurisdiction of the inferior court and it be lie  down for a rule and agree to by the court that whatever be essential necessary  to maintain a action if the action be bring in a inferior court that matter  must be aver to have be within their jurisdiction otherwise they have no  modern jurisdiction for whatever be not aver to be within their jurisdiction  shall be intend out of it it be also agree clear that if that which be the get  of the action and the complete cause of it be lie within the jurisdiction and  the declaration show further matter which be only aggravation or consequential  damage without which the action will have lie such matter need not be aver to  be within the jurisdiction as in a action on the case for call a woman a whore  whereby she lose a marriage there not only the word but also the loss of  marriage must be allege to be within the jurisdiction because the one without  the other will not maintain the action and there one may confess the word and  traverse the damage side ray lev a so in trespass by a master for the battery  of his servant whereby he lose his service the loss of service as well as the  battery must be lie within the jurisdiction so a declaration in a assumpsit in  a inferior court for money have and receive must not only allege that the  defendant promise to pay within the jurisdiction but that the money be bad and  receive within the jurisdiction Trevor v wall term Rep see also Waldock v  Cooper will fitzg Mod stram ld ray b but in a action by a tradesman for call  he a cheat in his trade whereby be lose his customer there the loss of  customer need not be allege within the jurisdiction because the word be  actionable without it and it be only aggravation roll Abr cro c in a action  for arrest one in another man name without consent of the other per quod his  creditor come all and arrest he it be not needful to allege that the creditor  come upon he within their jurisdiction because the arrest in another name  without the other consent be in itself actionable Jones d three the doubt be  whether the defendant neglect in suffer the gelding to go out of his custody  be a complete cause of action without any regard to the ride c ware urge that  the sole cause of action be the not keep the gelding safe accord to the  contract and for this he quote the register and raze Ent and then it be a  nonfeasance no venue need be where the nonfeasance be see and and the case of  walker v Ashwood Michaelmas term will in the king bench a and in easter term  last upon the argue of this case holt chief justice ask the counsel for the  plaintiff in error whether if the original declaration have be in this court  they will venture to demurrer to it for not show the place the horse be  immoderate rid in and he say sure they will not and then if this be a good  declaration in a superior court without that it will not be necessary to aver  it within the jurisdiction of a inferior court in a action bring there  Cheshire answer that the inference do not follow for if indebitatus assumpsit  be in a superior court for good sell and deliver though no place be lie where  the sale or delivery be yet it be no cause of demurrer but the not allege it  to be within the jurisdiction of a inferior court will be fatal see the case  of Paston v Ledham yearbook mich term Henry page b pl b but per totan curian  the judgement be affirm for the neglect of not keep accord to the contract be  the sole get of the action for if the declaration have be that the defendant  do so negligent keep the horse that he be take out of his stable and rid into  modern somersetshire to his damage c the action will lie or modern er p that  he so negligent keep he that through his neglect he be beat or abuse or want  reasonable provender in his inn and the sole cause of action be his neglect of  due care of he the judgement be affirm