case furlong against THORNIGOLD if only part of a award be set forth and  conclude with a profert if the defendant crave oyer and demurrer it be ill for  the variance debt upon a bind for the performance of a award nul award plead  the plaintiff set forth part of the award but not all and conclude with a  profert the defendant crave oyer and the award be set forth at large demurrer  general for the variance between the award reply and that set forth on the  oyer and smith v yeoman sand be quote where the plaintiff in such case ought  not only to set forth the award but a also to assign a breach but it be object  that it be enough to show so much of the award as to give himself cause of  action and to show the award good that be mutual and if there be anything more  in it it ought to come of the defendant side as in case of a action upon a Act  of parliament vide leo in debt upon a award nothing be set forth but the  modern report submission to the award of I S and that he award the defendant  to pay the plaintiff ten pound and hold the action do lie and that the  plaintiff be bind to show no more than do for he and the rest ought to come of  the defendant side vide Lewis v student in blow that one need say no more than  be for his purpose palmer that in order of good plead that when the defendant  plead no one to make arbitration and the plaintiff show a award and breach the  defendant ought to rejoin no one tale to make arbitration holt chief justice  you set out too little or too much for you do not set out the whole award but  you say profert as if you have set it out but the question will be whether it  will not be well on a general demurrer Richard the issue be non to make hoc  arbitration but suppose part of the award be well and another part a see  foreland v Marygold salk S c ld ray and very v Nicholson burr modern report er  p void and so have that it avoid even the whole award and the plaintiff set  out only the good part et no one tale jecerunt arbitration be plead and then  the whole award be set out Edward bro abrutus tree but in those day they hold  a award void in part to be so in all as award that there shall be mutual  release for the purpose and that one of the party shall get a three person to  be security for the payment of ten pound to the other such award will have be  hold void in toto in those day and so be the law hold all along until king  James the first be time when as appear in Hobart and Hutton it be hold a award  may be good in part and void in part but here it be say that the plaintiff  ought to set forth all the thing award to be do by he though perhaps he need  not set out everything to be do of the other side and the omission hereof in  the declaration and set it out in the other part be a substantial variance but  if a void part of the award be omit so it be such a void part as do not avoid  the whole award that may be well enough for where a award contain several  matter to be do on the plaintiff side all which be well award and to be  perform by the plaintiff and he only set out enough to entitle himself to a  action and they come and plead no award and upon oyer of the award it appear  the plaintiff be to do more than be set forth and that those thing be well  award that be that the award be legal as to they the question be whether he  ought not to show all those thing that he be to perform or if the omit any of  they be not a substantial variance it be say that in debt upon a award be need  only set out modern report enough to entitle himself to action but that he  ought to show so much of the award as be necessary to make it good and holt  chief justice seem to approve of the case in leo with style side that debt lie  upon a award without set it all out but here the variance be hold material and  judgement be give for the defendant