case tempt Hardwicke street versus Hopkinson where in cognizant fa against two  executor upon a judgement against their testator one lead ne unques executor  and the other payment by the testator and a verdict be find for the plaintiff  upon the first plea and no find as to the second but judgement be enter and  execution award against both executor and upon error bring upon such judgement  the defendant plead the statute of limitation in error Viz W c the plea be  allow and it be rule that on such plea the judgement be that the plaintiff may  be bar of his writ of error and hold that if a improper judgement be pray the  court of error may give the proper judgement but as to the award of execution  where no find appear the court deny a venire facias de to make new on the  ground that such writ can not be award in error and therefore reverse the  judgement stram SC but not so full judgement in debt in the common plea by non  sum shape of Michaelmas term Q whether against one Langton Trin g two  cognizant fa against the two executor of say Langton to revive the say  judgement one of the executor plead ne unques executor and street the other  executor plead that his testator in his lifetime pay the debt and damage issue  take upon both those plead and a we fa award for a jury to try both the issue  and after several continuances there be a verdict find that testator do not  pay the debt and damage and a award of execution but no find as to the other  issue upon this a writ of error be bring in this court and error assign tam in  reddition judgment as in the award of the execution upon the cognizant fa see  Tid defendant in error plead that plaintiff ought not to have his writ of  error because not prosecute within year after enter the judgement accord to  the stat W III c and pray judgement if plaintiff shall maintain his writ of  error and as to the award of execution he plead in nullo be erratum and then  pray that as well the say judgement as the award of execution may be affirm to  which plea there be a demurrer and joinder in demurrer sergeant Parker for  plaintiff in error if we be in time as they have not call on we to verify our  error the want of original c be confess so then the question be whether the  statute of W III be well plead and the conclusion of the plea be wrong for it  ought not to pray that the judgement be affirm but shall case tempt Hardwicke  er p pray that plaintiff be bar of his writ of error as when a release of  error be plead as in shower and Carth then as to the judgement upon the  cognizant fa that be wrong too and must be reverse for if a verdict find but  part of the issue it be a have verdict I Inst a and salk cattle and Andrews  sergeant draper for defendant it appear upon this record sufficient to the  court by the testae of the writ of error and the record of the original  judgement that there be above twenty year go before the writ of error bring if  there be a proper prayer in any part of the plea the court will reject the  improper conclusion as surplusage so in the case of down and Emlyn Trin g and  I g two defendant plead a release of error and conclude unde petit judaic et  quod in omnibus affirme and the same objection be make as be now make and the  case tempt Hardwicke court hold the prayer of affirmance to be wrong but as  there be there a prayer of judgement they hold the rest to be surplusage and  that they be bind to give the proper judgement upon the petit judgment and  they go upon the authority of Alford and turner Comberbach and cross and  Bilson I salk the want of original c be error in law and error in law can be  confess as to the verdict upon one issue only it resemble the case of croak  and Ellis devastavit as to one executor only return and hold to be aid by the  verdict but if the verdict be have we be entitle to have a new venire facias  Parker in reply say there may be a confession of any error in law which be  extraneous to the record to which Lord Hardwicke agree Lord Hardwicke c j this  be in nature of a writ of error upon two judgement and therefore one of these  judgement may be reverse and the other affirm see Bac Abr cite Tid or the writ  of error may be bar as to one of the judgement and the other may be reverse  for this proceed not be a action but a commission to examine error it be to be  apply to each judgement accord to the nature of each case Bac Abr Str ld raym  SC Tid as to the first judgement error be assign and the statute of limitation  plead and it be no answer to say that it appear upon the face of the record  that the judgement be above year stand for it must be plead as well as other  statute of limitation because there be a save of right of the person mention  in the Act as infancy c which may be reply to take off the effect of the plea  and therefore the court can take notice of it mere as it appear upon the  record itself but here it be plead and the question be then whether right  plead the plea conclude with a prayer that judgement be affirm I think it  ought to be plead in be same manner as a release of error and pray that the  plaintiff may be bar of his writ of error for the statute do not intend to  direct the court to affirm a erroneous judgement but only that after year a  judgement shall not be reverse for error which shall be construe accord to the  commonlaw that the plaintiff after that time be bar of this writ of error cite  Tid if that be the proper conclusion then be this plea take altogether  sufficient and I think it be well enough for though it be true that state of  siege compose placitum and therefore if the plea begin in abatement and case  tempt Hardwicke conclude in bar it be a discontinuance yet as in the case of  cross and Bilson salk if there be once a proper prayer of judgement the rest  will be reject as surplusage now here the plea be that plaintiff ought not to  have his writ of error because c and then pray judgement if he shall have his  writ and then it go on that there be no error in the award of the execution  and then pray the judgement may be affirm whereas it shall have pray only that  the award of execution be affirm which be repugnant to the other prayer  therefore I think we shall give judgement that plaintiff be bar of his writ of  error as to the saint part cite arguendo t r Tid then as to the other here be  two executor one plead ne unques executor and the other plead payment by  testator upon both which issue be take and a venire to try both but a verdict  give as to the first issue only I think the verdict be imperfect and will be a  jeofail and if it have come before the court in arrest of judgement they must  have award a we fa de to make new but be before we by writ of case tempt  Hardwicke er p error upon the judgement it must be reverse so Yelv Drury and  Dennis and roll Abr pi as to the case of the devastavit that do not come up to  this at all for there be a verdict upon issue subsequent but here the defect  be in the verdict itself and it have be often determine that a have verdict  will riot help itself but there be another answer that a devastavit be to  affect the executor personal and therefore they may be several proceed against  but here it remain undetermined for want of try the first issue whether one of  the person be executor or not upon the confession of the other as his plea be  find against he judgement must be against both as to the we fa I can find no  case where it have be award upon a writ of error and it will be little  inconsistent for that will be for we to continue and transfer the proceed into  this court therefore I think as to the award of execution judgement ought to  be reverse and that we can award a venire de to make new page I if we be to  issue a we fa all the proceed thereupon must be in this court and so there may  happen to be a verdict record here contrary to one in the common plea in the  same cause lee I here be a right prayer of judgement in this plea for he have  first pray that the plaintiff in error be bar though be go on afterward to  pray that judgement may be affirm but that be repugnant and can be if the writ  of error be bar for thereby the proceed be out of court and therefore it must  be reject I take it that where there be several issue join the jury be bind to  give a verdict upon all the issue or else it be error and in case tempt  Hardwicke roll Abr title error there be numberless instance put thereof and  say roll ib pi the jury must inquire of all the issue join otherwise they do  not perform the command of the we fa per cur judgement that plaintiff be bar  of writ of error upon the first judgement but the award of execution upon the  cognizant fa must be reverse that the court have not power to award a venire  facias de to make new in error seem very questionable see the case where that  writ have be award in error one of which videlicet Str be decide in the  Trinity term immediate precede the present case see Str cook b l t r t r in  these case the writ be direct in dom pro to be award by king b in the follow  case king b award the venire facias de to make new upon judgement remove from  c p to king b by writ of error videlicet Cowp Doug t r see also I t r n b the  principle upon which the venire facias de to make new in error have be deny do  not seem even late to have be through recognize for in one case it be refuse  on the ground that the proceed upon which error be bring originate in a  inferior court t r but soon after error be bring on a action originate in the  court of great session in Wales and a venire de to make new be award t r see  also h Bl new Rep