case lord banbury against wood plead in abatement to a writ of nomin  replegiando London to wit Thomas wood merchant and mary his wife be attach to  answer Charles earl of Banbury and mary countess of Banbury his wife in a plea  why they take the say countess and her so take detain c and whereupon the say  earl and countess by Richard Longford their attorney complain that the say  Thomas wood and mary his wife on the twenty day of April in the second year of  the reign of our lady whether now queen of England c at London aforesaid to  wit in the parish of saint Helen in the ware of Bishopsgate the say countess  take and her so take do yet bold and detain wherefore they say they be injure  and have damage to the value of ten thousand pound and they bring this suit c  and the say Thomas wood and mary his wife by Richard ash their attorney come  and crave oyer of the original writ aforesaid and of the return of the same  writ and they be read to they in these word to wit whether by the grace of God  of England Scotland France and Ireland queen defender of the faith c to the  sheriff of London greeting whereas we have oftentimes command you that you  shall just and without delay repleuie mary the wife of Charles earl of Banbury  who Thomas wood merchant and mary his wife take and her so take do detain as  it be say unless she be take by the special command of we or of our chief  justice or for the death of any person or for our forest or for any other gild  wherefore accord to the custom of England she be not repleviable lest we shall  further hear claim thereof for defect of justice or that you will signify to  we the cause why you will not or can not execute our mandate former to you  thereupon direct and you despise our say precept as we have be inform have not  hitherto take care to repleuie the say mary the wife of the say earl or to  signify unto we the cause why you will not or can not do it in manifest  contempt of we and our mandate and to the great damage and grievance of they  the say earl and countess whereat we very much wonder and be move still we  command and firm enjoin you that you repleuie the say mary the wife of the say  earl accord to the tenor of our say mandate to you before direct for that  purpose or that you yourselves be before we from the day of saint Michael in  one month wheresoever we shall then be in England to show why our say mandate  so often to you direct you have contemptuous refuse to execute and have you  there this writ witness ourselves at Westminster the twentysecond day of June  in the second year of our reign Caesar by virtue of this writ to we direct we  do certify that no other writ or mandate of our say lady the queen of  replevying the withinnamed mary the wife of Charles earl of Banbury who the  withinnamed Thomas wood and mary his wife have take and her so take do retain  as within specify that the writ of pluries replevin of the say mary the wife  of Charles earl of Banbury come to our hand or be deliver to we and further we  do certify to the say lady the queen that the say mary the wife of Charles  earl of Banbury be remove afar off to place to we unknown by the say Thomas  wood and mary his wife wherefore we can repleuie the say mary the wife of the  say Charles earl of Banbury as we be within command the answer of sir Gilbert  Heathcote and Joseph wolf esquire sheriff which be read and hear the say  Thomas wood and mary his wife demand judgement of the say writ because they  say that by the form of the statute the addition of the village or hamlet or  place and county of the residence of the say Thomas ought to be contain in the  say original writ of the say Charles earl of Banbury and mary countess of  Banbury his wife and this they be ready to verify wherefore because such  addition be not contain in the say writ the say Thomas and mary pray judgement  of the say writ and that the say writ be quash c and the say Charles earl of  Banbury and the say mary countess of Banbury his wife say that notwithstanding  any matter by the say Thomas and mary his wife above plead in abatement of the  writ the writ of the say earl and countess modern er p ought not to be quash  because they say that the plea aforesaid by the say Thomas and mary his wife  plead in manner and form aforesaid and the matter in the same contain be not  sufficient in law to quash the say writ of they the say earl and countess to  which say plea they the say earl and countess need not neither be they in any  manner bind by the law of the land to answer and this they be ready to verify  wherefore for want of a sufficient plea in this behalf of they the say Thomas  and mary his wife they the say earl and countess demand judgement and that the  writ of they the say earl and countess may be adjudge good and that the say  Thomas and mary may further answer to the say writ c and the say Thomas wood  and mary his wife say that the say plea by they the say Thomas and mary in  manner and form aforesaid plead and the matter therein contain be good and  sufficient in the law to quash the say writ of they the say earl and countess  which say plea and the matter therein contain they the say Thomas and mary be  ready to verify as the court c and because the say earl and countess have not  answer to the say plea nor have hitherto any way gainsay it they the say  Thomas and mary as before pray judgement of the aforesaid writ and that the  same writ be quash c but because the court of the say lady the queen now here  be not yet advice of give their judgement of and concern the premise day be  therefore give to the say party before the lady the queen until wheresoever c  of hear their judgement of and concern the say premise because the court of  the say lady the queen now here be not yet thereof c