case creamer against WICKETT to a action in the court of king bench if the  defendant plead another action pen for the same cause in the same court the  plaintiff may reply nul tiel record and if the entry be because domini king  hic see advisare vult super inspection record et die act of giving be c a  demurrer to it be have but the plaintiff can sign final judgement by nil to  say for want of the defendant pay for the plea S c Carth S c ld ray will in  assault and battery the defendant plead in abatement another action for the  same cause pen in this court to which nul tiel record be reply and to have  tale record rejoin and the plaintiff sign his judgement for want of a plea and  a rule grant to show cause why a writ of enquiry shall not be execute Northey  show for cause that a record of this court be plead and nul tiel record reply  there be a full issue join and therefore by the course of the court the  plaintiff can not sign his judgement till he have pay the defendant attorney  for enter his plea vide die   Ent the whole question be whether after a record  of the same court plead it be proper to plead nul tiel record and to join  issue upon it or that the defendant may demurrer to the replication Northey  urge that if a record of the same court be plead the plaintiff may immediate  crave oyer of it and if the defendant do not grant it or produce the record  there be a end of the plea quod to be concession per cur vide Henry but if it  be a record of another court the way be to reply nul tiel record and then day  be give to bring it in but that it be a doubt in ancient book whether nul tiel  a sand S c I Mod b see ditton case salk that the session may discharge a  apprentice although the master do not appear but see beg v butter Const p l  king v Gill stram c salk post d see post notorious facts e see king v Dillon  post king v Davis stram king v Heaseman Ann Rep S c stram and Mr Consts p l  vol to modern report er p record may be plead to a record of the same court  and that it may be quote the case of buck v pierce a where the question be  upon modern report such a plea plead and day give to bring in the record and  it not produce whether that be a failure vide h rot Inst and per holt chief  justice it have obtain that when a record be plead in the same court they may  reply nul tiel record but the proper way be to crave oyer and then a day be  give and he say a record may be plead by way of inducement which be not  traversable and to it nul tiel record be no plea so if record of a inferior  court be plead it be not traversable because not a good plea and the case be  again move it be hold per cur that the defendant ought not to rejoin and say  to have tale record for the entry upon plead a record of this court be because  cur domini Reg advisar vult c therefore die act of giving be c to produce the  record and if upon search the record be find then the same be show in court  and thereupon judgement or if the record be not find then there be a entry of  search and no record find and thereupon judgement of to answer ouster so there  be two way of reply when a record of the same court be plead either to reply  nul tiel record as be do here or to crave oyer of it and they rely on the case  in die and to what purpose shall one join issue upon the be of a record of  this court when we have they all before we and may present know the matter and  the difference be between a record of this court and of another court and  judgement final be enter be set aside because failure of record be not  peremptory and it be upon a doubt of practice shall not conclude