case the king against Walcot attainder of treason reverse for want of Self to  live or in view Self as to the those S c salk S c Mod S c comb S c Carth S c  show p c S c holt S c saint Tr S c saint Tr App error to reverse a attainder  of Walcot for compass the death of the king the error insist on be the  omission of Self to live or in conspectus law in that part of the judgement  which be those svan extra stomach suum to take in hand et in fire to put down  the court give their opinion seriatim that the judgement be erroneous Eyre  justice there be multitude of precedent where Self to live be mention in  Humphrey Stafford case a mention by bro cor there be some a see gregg case  salk Anonymous will and the case of Hallett v the east India company burr in  which last case Lord Mansfield say in motion of this kind the true and  sensible distinction be that where the sum demand be a sum certain or capable  of be ascertain by mere computation without leave any other sort of discretion  to be exercise by the jury it be right and reasonable to admit the defendant  to pay the money into court and have so much of the plaintiff demand upon he  strike out of the declaration and that if the plaintiff will not accept it be  shall proceed at his peril see also term Rep a Henry pl modern report er p  omission in that judgement as report but on the roll it be full in every  particular so be Edward Bohuns case b so be John be case c so be that of rob  Dudley d the same in stamford plea of the crown e so I Littleton case f and  ply Lord Stafford case by the advice of all the judge it be object that live  prosternetar be enough but to that it may be answer both one and the other be  in the precedent it be object that there be some precedent without it as that  of David prince of Wales a but that be a judgement in parliament and if we  look into cotton record they increase or lessen the punishment in all the  judgement in parliament accord to the greatness or heinousness of the offence  beside all attainder before the twentyninth year of queen Elizabeth be not to  be regard there be a Act of parliament on purpose to confirm they Rokeby  justice send for that it be not in the power of the judge to add to or  diminish any part of the punishment by make it severe or mild modern report  and if this judgement shall be affirm with this omission we must say in effect  that all those judgement wherein this be be erroneous and by consequence must  be reverse holt chief justice send for though the omission of this part of the  judgement be for the benefit of the party attaint yet still it be error it be  a necessary part of the judgement and this be agreeable with the rule of law  in other case as in debt on bind the plaintiff declare to his damage and  judgement give that the plaintiff shall recover his debt but no notice take of  the damage though this omission be for the advantage of the defendant be may  assign it for error because it be a necessary part of the judgement I be  confirm by the vast number of precedent in all king reign except one old  obsolete one and a few in king Charles the second time which be of no great  consequence and if this be not good all the judgement that have these word  must be reverse for then those judgement be more severe than the law allow and  if they be good this be less severe and judgement in all capital case be state  and settle by the commonlaw which no court can alter wherefore the attainder  be reverse this judgement of reversal be affirm in parliament