case jones against BODINHAM in trespass if the defendant justify tinder a  impossible writ and there be a verdict for the plaintiff the judgement shall  be enter on the confession and not upon the verdict S c post S c salk S c ld  ray S c comb S c Carth S c holt S c comy in trespass for take cattle the  defendant plead that in Hilary term in the six year of William and mary a writ  issue out of this court recite that such a one be outlaw whereupon the sheriff  be command to levy the good into the king hand c that this writ be deliver to  the sheriff who make a warrant direct to a officer to levy the good c who by  virtue of that warrant take the cattle upon part of the land contain in the  outlawry the plaintiff reply that he do not take the good upon those land upon  which issue be join and there be a verdict for the plaintiff and now it be  move in arrest of judgement that the justification of the defendant consist in  three part a writ modern and a warrant and take the cattle upon the land now  there can be no such writ for there be no such term as the six of William and  mary for the queen die before the question therefore be whether this ill plead  of the writ have make the whole plea void if so then it be say that issue be  take upon a void plea which contain no matter of bar the verdict therein be  void also it be say for the plaintiff that issue be not take upon the bad part  of the plea but upon the take of the cattle upon the land now the defendant  have admit the take but avoid it by say that it be in such a place which prima  fancy be a good defence and justification and though the issue be join upon a  thing not material yet after verdict it be aid by the statute Henry c of  Jeofails which help mispleading insufficient plead and misjoin of issue after  a issue try but it be say for the defendant that this plea contain no matter  of bar because there can be no such writ under which he justify and if there  be no bar there can be no issue and so not aid by the statute if the defendant  plead a proper modern er p plea though it be not full it be aid by the statute  and therefore in all case where issue be take upon a insufficient plea in bar  and which will have be ill upon demurrer it be hold that after a verdict the  defendant shall not take advantage thereof Bac Abr a but here be no plea at  all for it be mere void therefore in trespassBartholomew v Dighton cro  Elizabeth roll Abr more b where the defendant plead a concord in bar but not  with satisfaction issue be take upon the concord the plea be ill for want of  satisfaction be plead yet it be not whole void because concord be a good plea  to such a action though not so full plead as it may so in debt upon a single  bill payment without a acquittance be a ill plea yet it be a proper plea to  such a action and the issue be find for the plaintiff he shall have judgement  so in debt for rend upon a lease for yearsReynolds v buckle hob roll Abr b  entry be a proper plea but not good without say that he do expel and hold he  out yet if issue be take upon non to go into and find for the defendant he  shall have judgement but here be no matter of bar in this plea and therefore a  issue join upon it be void modern to this purpose there be a case in this  court Lovelass v Grimsden cro Elizabeth d in trespass for take his cattle the  defendant justify for a amerciament in a court leet for which he prescribe to  distrain the cattle of any which come within the manor and be in the  possession of any amerce and say that they be in the possession of such a  person who be amerce c and issue be take that they be not in his possession  and there be a verdict for the plaintiff and a writ of error bring and the  error assign that the issue be join upon a thing mere void for the  prescription be void there be no matter of bar to the action and the judgement  be traverse the plaintiff can have judgement upon this verdict for the damage  find because issue be join upon a void plea and therefore the court may award  a judgement against he Lacy v Reynolds cro Elizabeth roll Abr e as by nil to  say and so the plaintiff may have a new writ of enquiry of damage there be a  case in Michaelmas term in the first year of Charles the first knight v Harvey  cro car f in this court which be debt upon a bind against a administrator date  the twenty of may in the twenty of James the first the action be commence in  Hilary term in the last year of king James and enter in easter term in the  first of Charles the first and then the defendant plead a judgement upon  another bind date year quarto king nunc which be impossible it be the first  year of the king ultra quod c the plaintiff reply that recovery be by fraud  and issue thereupon which be find for the plaintiff and the defendant move in  arrest of judgement for that it be impossible in the first of the king that a  recovery shall be in the five year and therefore no judgement can be give upon  this issue yet the plaintiff have judgement but this be no authority against  this case because that be debt against a administrator who have plead a false  plea which be find against he and have not confess asset but only to satisfy  that judgement curian when issue be join upon a ill plea and a verdict for the  plaintiff yet he shall have judgement for the defendant shall not take  advantage after a verdict of his ill plead as in ejectmentJohns v ridler cro  throw g the defendant plead that one ridler be seize in fee and make a lease  to he for five year by virtue whereof he be possess until the lessor of the  plaintiff enter and seize he and make a lease to the plaintiff that thereupon  he reenter and eject he prout ei bene to be for sale the plaintiff reply that  his lessor be seize in fee and lease modern to he and the defendant oust he  without hoc that he do seize the defendant upon which issue be join and find  for the plaintiff now this be a very vain issue for it be impossible that a  lessee for year shall be seize but the defendant shall not take advantage of  such a ill plea but have confess a lease make to the plaintiff and it be that  he do not seize the defendant the judgement be well give for it stand with the  law that the plaintiff do not seize he but if there have be a modern er p  verdict for the defendant he can not have judgement for then the jury will  have find against the law that a termor be seize the verdict be set aside and  a writ of enquiry award because the issue be immaterial the jury have no power  to inquire the damage and judgement be enter for the plaintiff on the  confession S c salk S c ld ray S c comb see Lacy v Reynolds cro Elizabeth peel  v polehampton ld ray king v Philips burr craven v Hanley comy Rep a