barley plaintiff against Moreton defendant enter mich James b r rot a writ of  error to reverse a judgement Yel Cr Ro ante Bronl in a writ of error for to  reverse a judgement give at Durham where the judgement be there give by force  of a commission direct unto nine the same execute by eight this appear here to  the court upon certify remove of the record and then question whether this  record be well remove or not the record be here in court thus certify it be  question what the court here shall do in this case whether they shall now  proceed upon this and take it for the same record and so to examine the error  assign the court be of opinion that the best way will be the record be in  court for the party plaintiff to have a new writ of error de think over quod  in person thou to sit back and upon this writ of error the court may proceed  to examine the error upon this record as well as if the same have be well  remove so this new writ of error be now accord bring and accord to the former  direction of the court and this be assign for error first a error en fait  because he appear by his guardian where he ought to have appear by his  attorney second the judgement erroneous be give at Durham by force of a  commission direct unto nine and the same execute by this assign for error for  that nine contain but do not contain minus non to hold together majus William  justice what record ought they for to send and certify unto we here that which  be take before they all nine and not before for that there be no such record  Fenner justice a writ be direct unto three coroner the one of they die before  the return the other two may well make the return and this have be so agree to  be ood Yelverton justice if the writ be direct general crowner and nor  nominati to such and such there if one die before the return the other which  do survive may well return the writ for they be coroner in the case of  authority to be joint execute before eight seven of they can undertake to  execute this nor yet for to certify the execution of this by allege that one  of they die before they can certifier and they ought not to certify the nayne  of one which be dead for that this be but a bare allegation notam that  afterward this matter be move again terrain Trin James b r the error then  insist upon be this the suit at Durham be against a infant who appear by a  attorney and judgement there be give against he upon this judgement a writ of  error be bring and the record remove hither in b r and this assign for error  that he be a infant within age appear by his attorney whereas he ought for to  have appear by his guardian and be at issue upon this point of infancy it be  find that he be within age this writ of error be discontinue and a new writ of  error bring the record be here de think over quod in person thou to sit back  and the same error be plead and a matter of fact that June James he be within  age at Westminster the other say that he be then at f will age this be the  issue between they he be upon trial find to be within age and the entry upon  the roll be Bulstrode in person we wherever take f uerimus in England at  westmonasterium c the first error that here be no good trial of this infancy  but that this be a mistrial Henry Yelverton urge that this court deal b b have  no original conusance of this matter and therefore they be not to meddle with  it the same be touch a matter do at Durham Haughton justice the error en fait  be find c we may well proceed here to give our judgement goldsmith at the bar  urge that the trial here be good the issue infancy at Westminster or not the  other say that at full age at Westminster this the issue this be a good issue  well try so be it hold in Elizabeth in one throgmortons case that a trial at  the place where infancy be allege to be be good davenport that this be a  mistrial more the trial be so have by the advice and direction of the court it  be afterward move again that this be a mistrial by Henery Yelverton that the  jury be to try the age where the state of the land be allege for to be but  Bulstrode er p otherwise it be where there be nothing else in question but  only the age which be mere to be try and this may well e try in any place the  venire facias dvodecim book regales man c in person we wherever tunc to be in  England at Westmonasterinni this be not good this venire facias be vicious and  this be not help by any of the statute of Jeofayles b which statute want of a  venire facias be aid but not a vicious venire facias this be not help by any  statute coke pa foe a the case of the abbot de Strata Marcelia where the  several kind of trial and the manner how be mention and there it be say that  in a writ of error to reverse a fine for nona ge or in a hearing complaint to  reverse a recognizance or statute for nonage in thesecases the age shall be  try by inspection of the judge and not per pais the reason be this because  that what judge of record do as judge the same be not to be try per pais but  by inspection of the judge but where a infant appear by attourney this be  error and shall be try per pais and not by the judge diverse authority there  cite to this purpose and coke pa foe Dowdales case where several difference be  put as touch trial where the place be local and material and where not it be  also urge here that the age here be not matter of necessity but matter of  conformity and like unto asset which may be well allege to be in any place and  the like of a release and may be there try where the same be allege for to be  and so of nonage which may be lie and try in any place and so it be cite to be  resolve in thetxchequerChamber in a case there between row plaintiff and  Martin defendant Haughton justice Orde be here plaintiff in a writ of error to  reverse a judgement give against he at Durham for Moreton in a ejection strong  it be a writ of error de think over quod coro thou to sit back the error in  fact before aMigDed and now new again assign for error be that he be a infant  within age do appear by his attorney whereas he shall have appear by his  garden and for the trial of this it be allege that he be at Westminster  commorant and within age there the other say that he be at full age and this  issue be there try accord first as to the matter the point in issue be infancy  this issue be well try at Westminster a second objection make against this  trial that the suit be in a ejection strong in which the realty be to be  recover and therefore the trial of the age ought for to be where the land be  notwithstanding this objection the trial of the infant here at Westminster be  clear good and that by direct authority although the suit at Durham be in a  action concern the realty the same be to be try where the age be allege for to  be also the age here have no manner of dependence at all upon the land in  Durham and therefore the difference will be this where the age that be to be  try have dependency upon the land recover and where not c and so be the  opinion of Prisot to be understand in e foe in a action of debt bring upon a  bind against I S nonage aver to be in Essex the trial of this grape at  Westminster where the action be bring the defendant Bulstrode confess his bind  and his entry into it but say that he be bear in Essex and within age at the  time of enter into the bind and this be try at Westminster because the nonage  here have reference unto the deed S the bind which be confess by he but seek  to be avoid by his nonage so that the difference will be where the nonage have  reference to the deed upon which the action be bring and where not so where  the nonage have dependency upon the land there trial shall be where the land  be otherwise not here in this principal case the nonage have no dependency  upon the land at Durham but rest only upon the person and his be within age  which be only now the issue and the trial of this issue at Westminster be good  e foe a action of debt bring against I S of London yeoman in Middlesex the  defendant say he be a draper and not yeoman and demand judgement of the writ  where this shall be try be the question and by the opinion of the court this  shall be try in London and not in Middlesex where the action be bring and here  it be but in a personal action and so it shall be be it in a real as to the  venire facias the roll be well as the error for the award of the venire facias  by thevenire facias at westmonasterium wherever tunc to be in England if  Westminster be out in the last place as here it be yet this be good enough  this be only matter of form if this be not good and the trial have accord to  the verity of the matter this be error only in form and therefore the same be  well amendable if the venire facias be Bulstrode er p de dale and the trial be  at sale this be not good nor yet amendable but it be amendable here in this  principal case the error here assign be very clear and apparent that be within  age and appear by attorney whereas he ought to have appear by his guardian and  this be find to be so the judgement for this cause give at burhani be  erroneous and ought for to be reverse dodderidge justice a writ of error be  bring to reverse the judgement give at Durham the record be remove hither the  error assign that be within age he appear by attorney whereas he ought to have  appear by his guardian and be at issue upon the point of nonage the same be  find that he be within age this writ of error be discontinue and a new writ of  error bring upon the record here in court quod in person thou to sit back and  the same error here now plead be a error en fait S and that June James he be  within age at Westminster the other allege that he be then at full age issue  join upon this and find that he be then within age the roll be for to be in  person we wherever tunc to be in England at westmonasterium as to the first  matter move whether this be a mistrial here of the nonage or not that this  trial be well have and no mistrial as to the trial of age if within age in  some case the same be to be try by the inspection of the court without trouble  of the country and there be a special writ to this purpose for to make he come  into the court to be there inspect and this appear so to be by many book and  direct authority in point as e Fitzherbert title account plan in account  defendant plead deins age and demand judgement si action he be view by the  court and find to be of full age and so award to make answer accord to this be  the book of ass plan e foe coke pa foe in the case of abbot de Strata Marcelia  and if upon the inspection by the court the judge be in doubt of the age what  be then to be do be to be consider and for that by e foe the court can adjudge  of this if it be doubtful but then the same ought to come to be try per pais  and herein the question will be as touch the place where this trial of the age  shall be and as to this the difference will be whereit be in a real and where  in a personal action where it be in a real action and infancy plead and the  same at issue to be try this shall be try where the land be and not where the  birth be allege for to be and thisappears to be so by e foe a en lib ass foe  plan and e foe b a h foe foe a if a release be plead Bulstrode against I S of  all his right and he say that at the time of the make of the same release he  be within age and bear in another county yet the same shall be try where the  land be and so in a recently to go or in a writ de partition to make between  parceners if the one say that the other be not the daualiter to the other from  who the claim be and the other do rejoin and say that she be the daughter and  bear in a other county yet this shall be try where the land be but otherwise  it be in personal matter for there the trial shall be where the writ be bring  and so be the book of e foe b a in a writ of account and h foe in a action of  debt upon a bind in which for the defendant it be plead that at the time of  the seal of the bind he be within age this to be try there where the action be  bring so that in action personal where infancy be plead the trial be to be  where the writ be bring and so in other matter which do mere concern the  person of a man here in this principal case the action be a ejection strong  where a verdict and judgement be have a writ of error bring to reverse the  judgement and for error assign that be within age appear by a attorney whereas  he shall have appear by his guardian the Agnage be the matter in question and  issuable this to be try where the same be allege for to be S at Westminster  the trial be to be where though commorancy be allege for to be so that this  trial as it be be well have as to the other matter insist upon be the venire  facias c in person we wherever tunc to be in England at westmonasterium c the  king bench be where the person of the king be otherwise it be of the court of  common plea as appear by the statute great Charta foe cap communia placita non  to follow curian our men send to hold in to some place loco certainly the roll  here be well but the writ be not so if there be no venire facias this be aid  by the statute but not a defective venire facias and so a mistrial follow upon  this the same be well amendable and so diverse of the Bulstrode er p same  nature have be here amend in the earl of Harlfwds case in the common bench in  the roll it be de community westmonast and the writ be county and this be writ  with come and a dash and in the common bench this be amend and make for to  agree with the paper book which be right civita and this make comitat c minim  turn into a the venire facias there at the first do agree with the roll  afterward the roll be corrupt and yet they do there amend the roll a strong  here in this case we may amend the venire facias there be only in the roll a  default of the clerk and no mistrial follow thereupon so here in this  principal case the error assign be a error apparent and for this cause the  judgement be erroneous and so the same ought for to be reverse croak justice  agree in opinion that the trial be good agree the difference well put between  real and personal action so that a action can be bring for land but where the  land be otherwise it be personal action the same may well be in a foreign  county as for nonage plead the same be mere personal sequitur mask agree the  case before remember as to the point of inspection here in this case there be  a fit and a proper trial if in a action the party be at issue upon a to send  down or non dernisit this shall be try where the lease be make and not where  the land be and yet this sub modus do concern land as to the writ here the  same ought to be amend be but matter of form agree the difference before put  where there be a mistrial and where not and also where it be matter only of  form fault clergyman the same be to be amend and so be it do in one Kirlons  case in the c b here in this principal case the original be well and the trial  good and this default be only in matter of form the same be to be amend as to  the error assign for the reverse of the judgement this now appear to the court  to be so be a very clear error and so the judgement give at Durham be  erroneous and ought to be reverse and so the whole court agree in this that  for this error assign and so now by a legal trial find to be so the judgement  be erroneous and ought to be reverse and accord Bulstrode the same be so  pronounce in court S that for the error assign and for other error apparent in  the record the former judgement give at Durham in the ejection strong be  reverse and the party restore unto all which he have lose thereby quod notam