a indictment for murder against a be no justification for call he a murderer  nor that a robbery be commit and common fame charge a with it a justification  for call he thief Sews in trespass for apprehend and take he to prison whether  nut tiel record can be aver against a exemplification of one in the court of  great session at Chester under the seal of the county palatine a a action upon  the case be bring for slanderous word S for say that the plaintiff be a  murderer and a thief the the king can be restrain by no law and therefore a  plea that it ought to be sue for in the exchequer of Ireland be reject mich  and Elizabeth a b Wilkinson v Nethershall cro Elizabeth accord with the case  in dyer flaget v Hodges enter m r pound pound where a action for not serve a  apprenticeship be bring in the court of Newbury and the judgement be reverse  car cro Barrington v Keymer east Elizabeth c b action on the case by coat  against for these word S John coat be one of they that rob robbins dyer b er p  defendant justify the word of murderer by reason of a indictment against the  plaintiff for a murder commit in the county of Chester at the great session  before Sulyard justice in the time of h and as to the other word S thief he  plead that there be a robbery commit c and the common voice and fame of the  country be that the plaintiff be guilty of it and so justify and as it seem by  the opinion neither the one nor dyer the other be a good justification but if  it be a false imprisonment for arrest the plaintiff and carry he to prison to  answer to the law with suspicion of the defendant with the common report and  fame for such cause it shall be allow but the plaintiff pass over these plead  reply that as to the first he acknowledge the indictment and say that he be  acquit of it in the say county of Chester before sir Nicholas hare justice by  trial of his country and show a exemplification of it under the great seal of  the county palatine S the seal of the chancery there to which the defendant  rejoin Nell tiel record and to the other plea the plaintiff reply de son tort  demesne absolve tall catfish quaere whether nul tiel record be averrable  against the exemplification or not executor renounce the administrator appoint  bring debt and in the count suppose a intestacy of testator this may be  traverse queen memorandum that it appear m h rot in debt by the administrator  of one a b suppose by the writ that the say a b die intestate c he make a  profert of the letter of administration in his declaration enter verbatim by  which it appear that the say a make a will and three executor and that they  all refuse before the ordinary so he become in the situation of a intestate  wherefore the ordinary commit the administration to the plaintiff c and the  defendant plead in bar that the say a b make his will and his executor without  this that the say a b die intestate as by the writ be suppose et alit e contra  and so to the country note well because by the rule of the register fol the  say clause S who die intestate in a case of this sort as above may be omit c