case ashton against shearman and his wife administrator of field plead six  judgement confess asset for about five and if the plaintiff in his replication  conclude to the country it be ill S c comb S c Carth S c salk S c lily Ent S c  holt S c ld ray debt on a bind of the intestate the defendant plead that field  the intestate on the five of July in the five year of the reign of king  William and queen mary a Yelv cro James modern report er p become indebt in  one hundred pound to Richard Wareing for which Wareing have a judgement of one  hundred pound and thirty shilling cost and also a judgement to one Axtell and  they set forth several other judgement and bind and that they have not asset  ultra the plaintiff reply several to every of the say judgement and as to six  of they plead they be keep on foot per fraud and as to the two judgement of  Wareing and Axtell that the defendant have asset to satisfy he beside good to  satisfy Wareing and Axtell de separalibus debt is owed et financial loss nest  predictis versus Self Johan Sherman et Mariam modern report wife he as  prfertur regain et hoc petit quid to seek after per native land whereupon the  defendant demurrer special because the replication be double the plaintiff  join in demurrer a holt chief justice deliver the opinion of the court and say  in this the defendant executor have plead in bar several judgement the  plaintiff have reply to they several which he may well do for he may at his  election reply to one some or all but then the plaintiff have not do well in  this he have plead to some judgement that they be keep on foot by fraud and as  to the other that he have asset ultra et hoc petit quid to seek after per  native land and conclude to the country be nought because the defendant have  confess by his plea already that he have asset ultra those judgement as for  instance a man plead three judgement the plaintiff reply as to two that they  be keep on foot by fraud as to the three that the defendant have asset ultra  et hoc petit quid to seek after per native land in this case first say asset  ultra be not good because it be only a allegation of that which he have  already confess for by plead three judgement he confess asset above two and  then drive he on to a issue be ill for the same reason therefore you shall  have omit the asset ultra and the conclusion to the country and rely on the  other judgement that they be keep on foot by fraud or you shall have say  general asset ultra et hoc a preparation be verify it may have be reject as  surplusage but here you have drive they to a ill issue which can be good but  because the precedent have be this way as in the case of Hancock v proud a we  will give the plaintiff leave to discontinue pay cost after which by consent  of party a rule be give that the plaintiff shall have leave to amend pay cost