Bulstrode rice plaintiff against harris defendant enter Trinit James b r rot  trespass and ejectment Cr fol Benl in a action of trespass and ejectment the  defendant show that king James be seize ut in jure CoronFe of the manor of d  within which manor there be diverse copyhold demisable in fee in tail for life  or for year and that the copyholder by the custom of the say manor may make  lease for year without any licence that the king James do grant the copyhold  land in question unto a who be admit into the say copyhold estate and under  who and in who right the defendant claim derive a title under the copyholder  the plaintiff by replication set forth that long time before queen Elizabeth  what seize of the say manor of d whereof the land in question be parcel ut in  jure Coronea and that the queen Elizabeth do grant the say copyhold in fee to  one butt who be admit thereinto and die seize and that b his son and heir be  also admit and do lease the say copyhold estate to the plaintiff that  afterward by the death of Q Elizabeth the say manor do descend and come unto  king James who as before make the second grant and so conclude and demand  judgement upon this replication the defendant demurrer in law and for cause  show that the plaintiff as he ought to have do have not traverse the second  grant allege it be urge for the plaintiff that the replication be good without  any traverse as this case be for that the plaintiff by by replication have  confess and avoid the title make by the defendant the which be sufficienb  without any traverse but this ought to have come on the defendant part by way  of rejoinder and this appear to be so by Helyars case cook part fol where the  reason of this be there deliver by Popham chief justice the same be for that a  lease for year can be gain but by a lawful grant and therefore when one claim  by a lease for year and the other claim b a former grant for Bulstrode er p  year he shall not need to travers the last grant but the other be to travers  the former grant or to show how he come to the same again to enable he to make  the second grant with the difference there put between a feoff and a lease for  year and with this agree e brook title confess Bulstrode avoid plea in a  replevin the defendant say that b be seize in fee and make a lease to e for  forty year and that e h do grant his interest unto he by force whereof he be  possess and so do distrain the plaintiff cattle there damage pheasant the  plaintiff reply and say that e do grant his interest unto he h he needs not to  traverse the grant make h for that he have confess and avoid the same by a  former grant William justice in the plead of the descent from queen Elizabeth  unto king James it ought to be on this manner plead S ut kinsman hoBredi as  appear in the Lord Barkleys case in Plowdens commentary fol but never to show  here in plead comment cousin as it be to be show in the case of a common  person and so be e dyer fol plea e man secondary inform the court that the  precedent be both way and good either to say ut kinsman boaredi or without it  William justice the replication here be good without any traverse for how can  the defendant have this when as the plaintiff have it before as by his  replication appear for that his lease be flrst in time avoid the defendant  lease be the Iatter and therefore the defendant here in this case ought to  have rejoin and so to have traverse the first lease but by his demurrer to the  replication he have by this confess the lease under which the plaintiff claim  Yelverton justice the replication here be good and the plaintiff be not here  to traverse the second lease under which the defendant claim for that the law  say there be a former lease make the second be void croak justice the  plaintiff here by his replication have confess and sufficient avoid the lease  set forth by the defendant and under which he claim and therefore in this case  a traverse to be take by the plaintiff be idle and so the defendant have no  cause to demurrer for want of a traverse William justice the defendant here  ought to maintain his title for admit he have a lease yet there be a former  lease make under which the plaintiff claim which avoid the Iatter lease to the  defendant and it be one alexanders case adjudge here in point that in such a  case the plaintiff ought not to take any traverse and that be likewise in case  of a copyhold and so be Helyars case and e before remember and so the whole  court agree that the defendant have no cause to demurrer that the plaintiff  replication be good without any traverse and so by the rule of the court  judgement be give for the plaintiff