case HAINSWORTH against wilson variance between the record and the writ of  error motion to quash a writ of error for that the record be Wilson recently  de castle de Ebor and the writ recently de Leeds in come Ebor chapel contra  there be no necessity for the addition in the writ of error a dyer a the  commorancy may be recently it be a word of relation and must refer to the  different time of serve out the writ of error and original he may be late of  the castle of York at the sue out of one and late of Leeds at the sue out of  the other on the other side in sider the writ of error be abate for a variance  in the addition of the place it be not there show that the commorancy be with  a recently but it may be suppose that it be so because the constant form in  the court of common plea have be always with a recently and this court must  judicial take notice of the form of that court cro James a writ of error be to  remove and defeat a record therefore must not be favour that the law can  incline to intend this the same person be plain for that in other case it  require a modern report averment of the identity of the person intent be that  which be take more strong than the other and not that which stand indifferent  godb III Mod it therefore must incline more strong that they be the same  person than that they be differ person or it can maintain this writ fazakerly  though the addition of the place of commorancy be not necessary in a writ of  error yet if it be insert and that insertion be wrong it be a variance the  judge upon the delivery of this writ to he be to see if there be a record that  answer the description and not to inquire whether the party be remove from  York to Leeds on the other side in keb the court incline that there be no  variance but be divide the party take out another by consent chapel in reply  the writ of error be to describe the record that show the defendant to be  recently of one place that can be a description of the record which be  recently of another place Pratt chief justice it be not necessary that the  writ shall set forth the place of commorancy but if put in it must be the same  that be in the record or we can take notice that the record describe be remove  the difference be if there be more in the record than in the writ and that not  a necessary part of the description the writ be good but if there be more in  the writ than in the record it be have modern report er p powys justice be of  the same opinion Eyre justice every thing that be in the writ must be in the  record though not e contra and although the description in the writ be in part  not necessary yet the record must answer that description there be no case  against this rule fortescue justice I be not satisfy with this distinction  however the case be there be no difference in the reason of one or the other  the single question be only whether there be a variance or not and why not in  one as well as in the other case the rule as I take it be if the court can  suppose that the writ describe another record than what be before we it must  be take to be the same we ought to go as far as we can to support the writ in  sand the writ be to the mayor alderman c and every of they and the record be  before they joint Pratt chief justice I do not think this can be make good by  intendment it be sufficient to quash the writ if it do not appear to be the  record describe in the writ the case in siderfin be authority for this rule  Eyre justice the case in sander be to they and every of they for the sake of  the several direction modern report fortescue justice the case in siderfin be  not authority in this for they be de not recently then they be in different  county Pratt chief justice recently de must be verify as well as de powys  justice if the distinction be not in the book it natural arise out of the  nature of the thing the court quash the writ of error against the opinion of  fortescue justice