case Davenant against rafter in error on a judgement in debt if the defendant  plead a release of error the plaintiff can reply that the release be of error  in another judgement and traverse its application to the judgement in question  SC ld ray SC salk error of a judgement in the court of common plea upon nil to  say in debt upon a bind for want of a original the defendant plead a release  oh error the plaintiff reply that there be another judgement between the party  for the same sum and of the same term and that the release be of that  judgement of which the writ of error be not bring without hoc that it be of  this now in question to which the defendant demurrer Eyre maintain the  demurrer for by this traverse the defendant be exclude from save that there be  but one judgement for it be only make a inducement to the traverse per curian  the question be whether there ought to be a traverse in this replication for  then you will cut out the plaintiff from plead nul tiel record but your way  seem to have be to have show one judgement special and then to have aver the  release to have be of that judgement and so have rest as suppose a man have  two manor of dale and levy a fine of his manor of dale be shall by averment  ascertain of which of they it be if debt be bring upon a sheriff bind  condition for a appearance in this court die loveliness prox post man mich and  the defendant plead a writ of latitat take out against the party at the suit  of the same plaintiff returnable die Mercury and that the party be upon that  writ arrest and the bind be give for his appearance at another day than the  returnday of the writ and so the bind be void by the statute of Henry c the  plaintiff may come and say that he take out a writ returnable die loveliness  and that a arrest be upon that and the bind for appearance to it without  traverse the other writ and if a thing which may in process of plead become  material and traversable be traverse before such time it be nought as my Lord  Hobart say now you have not show how this matter be material modern another  objection be that the release plead recite a judgement in which the plaintiff  recover six hundred pound pro debt is owed et financial loss ultra misis et  custagiis the error in which the plaintiff release and the judgement of which  this writ be now bring be pro debt is owed et financial loss only without any  thing of cost and so a plain variance between the judgement release and that  now in question for at commonlaw before modern er p any cost be give the form  of enter judgement in debt be pro debt is owed et financial loss as this be  and therefore the judgement recite in the release and that of which this error  be now bring be not the same but per curian in the court of common plea they  always in case of judgement by nothing to say enter judgement pro debt is owed  et financial loss without more though in this court the manner be tam pro debt  is owed et financial loss how pro misis et custagiis and damage include cost  and beside in the judgement recite in the release it do not say that any cost  be recover but ultra misis et custagiis he recover six hundred pound for his  debt and damage it be also object that judgement ought not to be affirm  without a certiorari to ascertain to the court how the matter stand below but  the court take this difference if the defendant upon error assign will not  come in and plead there the plaintiff must have a to know facias against he ad  to hear wandering and a certiorari to certify the want of a original that be  the error assign but where the defendant come in gratis and plead in nullo be  erratum or other plea which be ill it be a confession of the error and the  judgement be nil to take in hand per breve because here be error upon the  record but it be release note at another day it be object that the conclusion  of the defendant plea be nought for it be quod quer c to shut out et quod  judgment affirme when by law the judgement be to be affirm but this objection  be overrule for quod quer praecluda be enough and the rest surplusage and here  holt chief justice take this diversity as to conclusion that if a dilatory be  plead and the plaintiff take issue upon it be may conclude with a petit  judgment et financial loss because there final judgement shall be but if a  dilatory be plead which the plaintiff do not deny but confess and avoid he  must conclude in maintenance of his writ as if a defendant plead attainder in  disability of the plaintiff and be reply a pardon he must not conclude with a  petit judgment et financial loss but in maintenance of his writ