case anger against BROOKHEN on a verdict for one hundred pound damage and  sixpence cost a judgement enter quod recupere financial loss svan ad centum  libras et pro growth ten pound without take notice of the sixpence cost be bad  say queen SC ante SC vent SC Jones SC ray SC Danv error on a judgement in the  court of king bench in Ireland which be by default and writ of enquiry and the  jury assess one hundred pound and sixpence cost and judgement be quod predict  to express grief recupere financial loss svan predict ad cent libras per  inquisition predict compert et pro increment seven pound c agree that if ad  cent have be leave out it have be doubtless good and therefore it be argue  that the rest shall be surplusage or else miscount which will not vitiate the  judgement shower KB Scroggs chief justice it can be a miscount because no  notice be take of the cost assess by the jury dolben justice if it have be  five pound more than the whole come to we shall have reckon it a miscount for  financial loss will have include both cost and damage a sander urge the case  of daux v fellow in this court b to be reverse for this very reason and the  reversal enter and the case of Osbourn v Exton c reverse for this very reason  Scroggs chief justice if it have be attingent it will be a missumming  Pemberton justice it be financial loss svan predict which include all there be  urge the case of Motlock v cowl d and that attingent be all one with ad and ad  with attingent and that whether the ad do hit the sum right or no it be but  miscount for if more or less it be good Scroggs chief justice the jury here  give particular and the judgement be but for one of those particular sum Jones  justice Damna predict be enough and all the rest nought and surplusage ad be  as much as attingent for its meaning else be no sense it will be hard to make  the word ad restringent when the court ought to give judgement for the whole  ad be the usual word in all judgement and reach the whole and it be the intent  of the court to give all where they intend but part they say quoad in the  common plea they say financial loss svan predict ad then come the increment  and after that the who indeed c pollexfen they give a increment for cost which  can be if the court do not intend cost shall be give before if they have  intend to omit it they will have say nullo looking back condition de sixpence  however upon the two case which Mr sander cite the rule be quod reversetur jud  nisi c e yet quaere for financial loss be a general word for the cost and  damage it seem to be a complete judgement in that quod recupere financial loss  svan predict and the rest come after be surplusage for if they have say no  more than this quod recupere financial loss svan predict et de increment c ad  requisition c it will doubtless have be well enough