box and MOUNSLOWES case Thomas box bring a action upon the case against John  Mounslowe that the defendant have slander he in say that the say Thomas box be  a perjure knave and that he will prove that he the say Thomas box have  forswear himself in the exchequer c and suppose the say word to he speak in  London Feb Elizabeth et predict Johan Mounslowe per Johan Lutrich atturnat  suum go for sale make practice of defending vim in an unjust manner when c et  to say quod predict Thomas box act svan versus the dawn hahere non dehet  because to say quod predict Thomas box be ne of the collector of the subsidy  before the speak of the say word videlicet V and Elizabeth n curian scaccarii  at westminst do exhibit a bill against the say John Mounslow contain that the  say John be assess Godbolt in ten pound in good the say Thomas box come to he  and demand sixteen shilling eight penny which the say John Mounslow do refuse  to pay c and that demand and refusal be suppose to he in London in bread  street et pro verification prmissorum ad tunc ibidem sacrament corporal per  baron prfat Thomas box prstito the say Thomas box swear the say bill in  substance be true where revere the say John Mounslow do not refuse c per quod  the say John Mounslow postea videlicet Prdicto tempore quo c dixit de prfato  Thoma box predicta word c prout ei be to be for sale the plaintiff reply that  the defendant speak the word de in an unjust manner svan not common with  others without causan per prfat Johan Mounslow superius instigation c et hoc  petit quod to seek after per curian el predict defendens similiter and a  venire facias be award to the sheriff of London and it be find for the  plaintiff and damage four hundred pound and now it be move in arrest of  judgement that there be no good trial nor the issue well join for the issue do  consist upon two point tryable in several I county videlicet the oath which be  in the exchequer and that ought to have be try in Middlesex and the matter  which he affirm by his oath to he videlicet the demand and refusal to pay the  subsidy c and that be allege to he in London and therefore be there to he try  and the issue videlicet de in an unjust manner svan not common with others  without tali causan go to both for the where in fact will not amend the case  as periam justice say and both be material for the defendant ought to prove  that the plaintiff make such oath and also that the substance and matter of  the oath be not true for otherwise the plaintiff can be prove perjure and  therefore the county here if they may shall have join in the trial and the  opinion of the court be against the plaintiff for Anderson and Windham say the  if this issue can have be try by any one of the county without the other it  shall he most proper and natural try in Middlesex where the oath be make for  the perjury if any be be in the exchequer but they say that the issue here be  ill join because it do arise upon two point triable in several county which  can not join whereas the plaintiff may have take issue upon one of they well  enough for each of they do go to the whole and if any of they be find for the  plaintiff that he have sufficient cause to recover gaudy move that it shall he  help by the statute of jeofails which speak of misjoyning of issue Anderson  the issue here be not misjoyned for if the county c Id join the issue be good  but because that the county can join it can be well try but the issue it self  be well enough Windham and road be of the same opinion that it be not help by  the statute but periam doubt it Anderson say that if a issue triable in one  county he try in another and judgement give upon it it be error Godbolt and  afterward Lutrich the attorney say that it be award that they shall replead  notam because admire for the statute of h cap speak of misjoining of process  and misjoyning of issue and admit that this case be not within any of those  clause each of they be consider by it self yet I conceive it be contain within  the substance and effect of they be consider together also I conceive that it  be within the meaning of both statute videlicet h cap and Elizabeth cap for I  conceive the meaning of both the statute be to oust delay circuit of action  and molestation and that the party may have his judgement Godbolt er p  notwithstanding any defect if it be so that notwithstanding that defect  sufficient title and cause do appear to the court and here the plaintive have  sufficient cause to recover if any of the point of the issue he find for he  for if it he find that the matter and substance of the oath he find true which  may he try well enough by those in London the plaintive have cause to recover  wherefore I conceive that the verdict in London be good enough and effectual  and note that road say that he be of council in such a case in the king bench  betwixt nevell and dent