case Hanbury against Ireland attorney of the king bench easter term James roll  trespass on a bill file in Hilary term James for assault the plaintiff servant  on that January James per quod slavery to make away with videlicet from the  aforesaid that march to the saint march then next follow can neither be amend  nor aid by intendment for the loss of service be the gift of the action and  must be show with certainty hob vent sand sand Mod strange Bac ab salk ld ray  Bl Rep do gl trespass by bill file in Hilary term James for that the defendant  on the that January James a certain Johan Howfield servant to the plaintiff do  assault beat and wound per quod Le plaint slavery pillage Johan per magnum  time scilicet a prediction mark say in addition to usque prim of Mars ex tunc  prox sequent to make away with ac One horse of the plaintiff adtunc et ibidem  to take in hand et to carry away et alian irregular c croak throw judgement be  give by nothing to say and damage find and return to ten pound upon a writ of  enquiry it be now move that the plaintiff shall not recover but the bill shall  abate for the bill be bring in Hilary term James and the battery be suppose on  the that January James and the loss of the service to be per magnum time sure  a prediction of Mars James usque prim of Mars follow which be in march James  which be to the time after the action bring and damage be give for the time  after the action bring but it be move by calthrop that it be a misprision for  it ought to have be from the foresay that January unto the first of march  follow which be in year James and before the action bring but as it be he move  that it be well enough for the battery be allege to be on the that January  James which be good and before the action bring and the allegation per quod  slavery to send away per magnum time be good enough then the scilicet a  prediction die of Mars which be a misprision for January be idle and void and  compare it to the case Henry pl where a trespass be suppose with a continuando  from the day of the writ scilicet such a day which be mistake yet it be well  enough and to the case of tesmond v Johnson a where the loss be that may and  the trover the that may et quod postea scilicet primo die maii year prediction  he convert which can be and it be adjudge that the word after the scilicet be  void and the postea be sufficient so here c but all the court hold that in  this case it be not good nor be it aid by intendment nor amendable nor like  the case cite for there in the first case the continuance unto the day of the  writ be sufficient and that appear upon record and the scilicet be not  material so the allegation quod postea to turn round be sufficient and the  scilicet which be repugnant be idle and not material but here the point of the  action be in the loss of his service which ought to be show certain for that  only enable he to the action and if the time certain be not express therein  the count be not good and therefore the scilicet and what come after it be  material which be ill adjudge the count be not good wherefore it be adjudge  for the defendant a ante croak James er p