case William Stonehouse against sir thomas read and other Trinity term James  roll in debt on the Edward c under a grant of all the tithe in the parish of a  except those in the tenure of b after oyer of the deed and demurrer a  declaration state that the tithe of so many acre in the parish of a and that  the tithe aforesaid be grant be good without aver that the land be those  mention in the grant or that they be not there except for the over and  demurrer thereon confess they to be the tithe mention in the grant ante SC  roll ab SC roll Rep debt upon the statute Edward c for not set forth of tithe  and show that the defendant in the year and be occupier of one hundred and  twentyeight acre of meadow in Radley and Thorp and that Robert abbot of  Abingdon be seize in fee de Decimus prediction crescent upon the say land and  in the Henry surrender they to king Henry the eight which descend to king  Edward the six and from he to queen mary and so to queen Elizabeth who in the  thirtysixth year of her reign by her letter patent here show b demise Decimus  croak throw prediction to the plaintiff for life and that the defendant cut  down the hay grow thereupon to the value of twenty mark and carry it away  without pay the tithe and so in the year wherefore he demand the Triple value  be forty pound the defendant demand oyer of the letter patent which be enter  in haec word that the queen demise to he all men that Decimus urge super quand  parcellam terrae peremptory or urgent call Bremere in parochica de Radley  recently in tenure though Harison ac all men that Decimus crescent super quand  parcel terrae peremptory or urgent call BartonBremere recently in tenure a  read in parochian de Radley pillage et such de thirteen several parcel who  recently to be parcellae possession monast de Abingdon To take out omnibus  strike against Decimus in Radley in tenure John Tyndal for To give back  sixtyseven pound upon this declaration the defendant demurrer in law because  the plaintiff in his declaration have not sufficient entitle himself to the  tithe of the one hundred and twentyeight acre of the meadow in the declaration  mention for by the patent show which be now as part of the declaration it be  not express that the queen grant those tithe by any the name in the letter  patent nor be it aver that those land be any of the land mention in the letter  patent nor that those land be in the tenure of any of the person mention  therein for it be not a general grant of all the tithe in Radley but of the  tithe of such land in the tenure of such person nor be it aver that they be in  the tenure of such person otherwise they do not pass and in proof hereof the  book of Edward dyer blow   and   be urge second for that it be not show that  these be any of the tithe except which ought to be show when he plead a patent  wherein there be a exception as it be in dyer and Edward pl but  notwithstanding these exception the court upon the first argument adjudge the  declaration to be good for the plaintiff declare that the queen grant  prediction Decimus it be a sufficient allegation that those tithe pass by that  patent and if they have not pass the defendant may have say non to go away and  if it be not in the tenure of those person or except therein it may well have  be show in evidence but when the plaintiff say quod to go away predict Decimus  without more it be a sufficient averment in itself that she grant they and  when the defendant demand oyer of the patent and then demurrer it be a  confession of the declaration and that the declaration well stand with the  patent that she grant those tithe in question Doderidge hold that if she have  grant those tithe by those name in the patent he need not to have aver that  they be in the tenure of such a one name in the patent and be not except for  that have be more prolix than need but b see   b barn dougl term Rep croak  James er p prediction Decimus imply as much and it may be better intend by the  patent show that they be tithe grant in the patent wherefore the declaration  be good and in proof thereof be cite Henry bro plea Henry pl beauchamp case  and thereupon without further argument it be adjudge for the plaintiff  although upon former motion in James when the demurrer be first argue they be  very strong against the plaintiff but no rule then be enter now upon motion  judgement be give against the defendant