Barnardiston king b Bidwell and LETHBRIDGE how far a deed must be plead accord  to the operation of the law the plaintiff bring a action of covenant and  declare upon a deed wherein one ham and the defendant have covenant to do  certain act to the plaintiff and far set forth certain act that he have  covenant to do to they and in the end of the declaration conclude quod profert  in cur factum predict pron  interrog  indeed alteran pars seal Self Lethbridge  to be adorned with small figures the defendant have plead to this a sham plea  and upon a summons be take out before a judge the judge order the plea to be  set aside and that the defendant shall plead a issuable plea upon this the  defendant plead quod prediction ham Lethbridge non sigillarunt factum predict  and upon that the plaintiff sign his judgement upon the master report the  whole of this matter come before the court and now sergeant Belfield argue  that the judgement be irregular sign he observe that the plaintiff have  declare upon a joint deed and by that mean give the defendant a liberty to  traverse the sign of this deed by one of the party for he say that it be a  establish rule that every deed must be plead accord to the legal effect of it  and not accord to the word it be form in for this reason he say he hope the  plea of the defendant be strict right but if it be so bad as that the fault in  it may have be take advantage of upon a demurrer he think there be no  foundation for the plaintiff to sign his judgement as if it be no plea at all  but Mr draper on the other side argue that the plaintiff can not have declare  in any other way than he do the word of the deed be joint and if the plaintiff  have declare upon a deed make by Lethbridge only it will have be bad but he  say the plaintiff have take the true method he have declare upon a deed joint  in word but such as in fact be only single the deed be sign by one of the  Barnardiston king b er p party only and this he say be declare accord to the  legal effect of it and he observe that roll be in point and quote likewise the  case in Rep then as to the second objection he say the fact state by the  master give a answer to it the judge order a issuable plea to be give the  present plea be as no plea because it be of a matter by no mean material and  therefore not at all accord to the design of the judge and consequent the  plaintiff may sign his judgement for want of one the court accord say that  these answer to the objection be sufficient and therefore think the judgement  be regular