CHICHLY against and other commoner witbin the manor of c the plaintiff as lord  of the manor by Englishbill pray a decree against the defendant to have they  conclude by a former decree make in this court concern improvement and  apportionment by which decree all the tenant be bind upon the answer of ten  only and the consent of the rest do not appear and the defendant in this suit  answer that they and all those who estate they have in such message land and  tenement have time out of mind have common of pasture turbary and liberty to  dig gravel in the say common c which the plaintiff by replication deny and  upon examination and hear the cause the court be of opinion that the former  decree to which the tenant be not party do not Hardres conclude they and that  it ought to be try at law whether they have such a common as they claim to  have or not and that the common as allege in the answer be void in law because  common sans number can be appendant to any thing but land and that it be call  common sans number because it be only for beast levant and couchant and it be  incertain how many those be there be more in some year than in other but it be  a common certain in its nature for id that which is fixed be quod that which  is fixed To give back to be able and that they ought to go to law to prove the  prescription that they have lie in their answer which seem hard upon the  defendant for want of form in their answer especial since the title to the  common be not the scope of the bill but the improvement by which it be admit  that they have right of common olive v Gwin Hatdres er report date henry olive  plaintiff george gwin defendant report side ejectment for land in  brecknockshire in Wales upon not guilty plead and a trial there the defendant  give in evidence a recovery in a writ of quod ei deforce which be their writ  of right at the great session there and issue be tender thereupon the  defendant produce a exemplification of the record under the seal of the great  session but not the record itself and the plaintiff demurrer to the evidence  and the question now be whether the exemplification maintain the issue for the  defendant or not Trever pro quer that it be no evidence he say that  ledgerbooks and such paperbooks can be exemplify but when offer in evidence  must be themselves produce but yet that exemplification of pope bull under the  bishop seal have be admit in evidence in sir Thomas read case hill James b r  but the commonlaw take no notice of exemplification till the statute of and  Edward and Hardres er p Elizabeth cap which statute concern letter patent only  as be resolve in page case Rep and in r parliament roll num there be a answer  in parliament that the law admit of no exemplification of process or plead Obj  by the act of h concern Wales and the government thereof it be enact that  exemplification of record shall be allow Hardres resp there be but two  repertories of record in Wales the one in Northwales the other in Southwales  and this statute extend to the welshmen only as appear blow Com Obj Elizabeth  cap resp that act extend only to fine and common recovery and the court here  can take notice of the exemplification of a record there where the  jurisdiction be limit as appear cro car upon a record remove hither and hill  car b r in Piices case the judge cite authority that if the record of a  judgement there be remove hither a action of debt will not lie upon it nor be  any such evidence ever offer since h and a law discuss be as it be become nul  vide Littleton upon the statute of mert concern disparagement hob Rep saint  John case Rep gateway case and Edward rot parliament num the baron and  sergeant at law be yearly to make enquiry what law be use and what not also  the exemplification be only of the enrolment of the record and not of the  record itself and Elizabeth dyer bro record   Inst and dyer to know fac do not  lie upon the tenor of a record and by ass a record in Wales can be vouch here  and in a case try at lend assize such a exemplification be not admit for  evidence upon issue of nul tiel record in ejectment and so conclude pro quer  but it be say on the other side that here the issue be not upon nul tiel  record but the general issue and the exemplification come in upon evidence  only to the jury and may be sufficient ground for they to find for the  defendant et adjornatur at another day Atkins argue pro to ward off he cite  news and scholasticas case blow Com where the own handwriting of a fine be  give in evidence to the jury upon a general issue in assize dyer b the jury  find a private act of parliament dyer constat of a patent Rep page S case bro  monstrance de faits the difference be betwixt a plea of record and evidence  upon a general issue in whitehead case tempt of wile chief baron the court  hold a exemplification of a recovery under the seal of the mayor of Bristol to  be good evidence to a jury and the statute of Elizabeth seem direct in the  point Vid h dyer bro record upon a debate in Michaelmas term after it be agree  that a swear copy of a record in Wales may be give in evidence but it be say  that a exemplification can not because Hardres the court here ought not to  take notice of any such inferior seal but if it be exemplify under the great  seal then it will be evidence and proof although the record itself be lose but  while the record itself be in be no exemplification under any other seal shall  be admit but it be say on the other side that it be hold by the judge at  sergeantsinn upon a demurrer to evidence in whitehead case that a  exemplification under the seal of the mayor of Bristol of a recovery there  shall be give in evidence though the record itself can not be find and so it  be at the next assize and per cur trial in the next adjoin country to Wales be  not by any statute law but by prescription and they be tantamount to trial  within Wales where it be admit that such evidence be good be within the same  jurisdiction adjornatur at another day Baldwin argue for the plaintiff that it  be no evidence because the effect of the record only be express whereas the  record itself ought to be set forth in haec word h mich car b r rot wright and  sir Paul pinner in evidence to a jury to prove a they to shut extremum out of  the exchequer the record itself can not be find but a warrant for it and a  entry of it in the docketbook be prove and upon a demurrer it be adjudge to be  no evidence because a record can be prove but by itself vide raze entry and Ph  and mark rot b r John versus Langley the recital of a lease without show it  rule to be no evidence upon a demurrer vide bro record n b ass h dyer blow Com  dyer No exemplification be evidence but in the same court to prove a record  upon nul tiel record plead but it must be under the great seal vide bro record    I Inst Edward and the statute of Elizabeth cap extend to common recovery  only it must be give in Hardres er p evidence by the late act in like manner  as if it be to be plead and that must be under the great seal and so conclude  pro quer