airy and Alcock the case be argue again between Airie and Alcock concern the  misnaming of corporation which be argue before as appear foe and Thomas  Stephens the prince attorney argue that the lease be void by the reason of the  misnomer and he observe the misnomer to be principal in these two material  thing first where the foundation be by the name of the hall or the college of  the queen lane er p c the presentation of the parson and also the confirmation  of the lease make by the name of the queen college c omit the word scholar  which shall immediate precede the word canopy queen which he hold a material  variance the second variance he observe to be thus that lane where the  foundation be by the name of the hall or college of the queen in Oxford the  presentation and confirmation of the lease be by the name of provost of queen  college in the university of Oxford so that the word university be add which  be not in the foundation and to prove that these variances be material for the  avoid of lease he cite the case often remember in the argument before which  conceive Merton college in Oxford and the party to this case be fish and boy  which be in Trin Elizabeth banc r rot wherein the case be that the say college  be incorporate by the name of warden and scholar of the house or college of  scholar of Merton in the university of Oxford and that they make a lease by  the name of the warden and scholar of the house or college of Merton college  in Oxford so that the word scholar which do immediate precede the word Merton  in the foundation be omit in the lease as in the principal case also where the  word university be add in their corporation the same be omit in the lease  whereas on the other side this be not mention in Airies case to be contain in  the foundation but add in the lease and be say that for these variances in  Merton college case the lease be hold to be void which he hold to be all one  with our case but he agree that in diverse case variances in addition of  surplusage shall not be hurtful in a lease as appear by and e and therefore  though in the principal case the word fellow be add in the lease which be not  in the foundation he will not argue that this shall be any variance to hurt  the lease Hern baron seem that the verdict be not sufficient to move he to  give judgement for the plaintiff for he say although it be admit that the  lease by reason of the variance be not good yet the verdict noth not  sufficient find that doctor Airie be a person who may take advantage of the  invalidity thereof for it appear not of who presentation doctor Airie come to  have the parsonage for although that it shall be admit as it be say in heckers  case h that here may be parson of his own presentment yet it be not find that  he do so here and be say that in every quare hinder it ought to be express  what person make the presentation to the variance he think the lease to be  good notwithstanding that for he say that the word scholar be not add in the  foundation as a part of the name of a corporation but only to express what  kind of college this shall be videlicet to distinguish it from a merchant hall  or college and therefore though the word scholar be put in yet we proper call  it the queen college and not the queen scholar college for it be not of  necessity that the scholar of the say college shall be the queen scholar but  that they be scholar of the queen college and he vouch h Fitzherbert title  grant and as to the case of Merton college cite by Stephens he say that in  that case there be a main imperfection in the verdict which as be think may  move the say judgement to be give as it be and not the matter in law for they  do not find that the lessor be warden of the college at the time of the lease  make also he vouch cook lib sir moil finch case and be vouch sir Peter Seawels  case where in a lease make by a corporation that these word ex foundation king  e which be part of their foundation be omit and yet the lease good and he cite  also the case the bishop of Peter borough where the corporation be by the name  of Episcopi de Burgo consecrated Petri and a lease be make by the name of the  bishop of Peter borough and the lease good and that no difference in substance  and if a corporation be make by the name of scholar and fellow and in a lease  the word follow be omit yet it be good and therefore in the principal case it  seem that the emission of the word fellow be not material also he say that the  addition of the word university which be no part of the corporation be not  fatal to the lease for in the Lord norths case Elizabeth the addition of the  word university or the emission thereof be hold of no force to avoid the lease  Altham baron contra for the matter in law but for lane the insufficiency of  the verdict he think that there ought to be a new venire facias for no  judgement may be give for any party for the insufficiency of the verdict for  it be not find that doctor Airie be present and therefore he can have a action  for it can be intend that his presentation be by a better name then the other  presentation be and he cite the h foe and e title quare hinder he who will  avoid a presentation ought to entitle himself second it be not find here that  the church be void lane er p sufficient he say that if a provost present  himself this be void mere and he cite heckers case it be not find here that  doctor Airie enter post leading or bringing in for it be say that he enter  ante prediction time quo c but not that he enter after induction and therefore  it may be he enter before and then it be not good but for the matter of  misnomer it seem that this avoid the lease contrary to baron herns opinion  wherefore the chief baron Tanfield advice the party to agree to have the true  case rightful find by a new special verdict for be say to doctor Airie that no  judgement can be give for he what opinion soever himself and baron Snig shall  hold the which they will not deliver for Snig baron say that by assize that if  a man be indebt to the king and devise all his good to a and the executor  assent and after this debt be demand the legatee in this case shall be charge  for this debt and so be it order by he and Tanfield as reasonable and equal  but Hern and Altham contrary for it be the folly of the executor to assent to  the legacy and they say that it be so adjudge and resolve in sir William  Filzwilliams case in the exchequer Chamber by a English bill upon a motion  make by Walter it be show by he out of a record in the tower that in the e I a  statute be make to discharge merchant stranger from the payment of prisage of  wine and allow by the court that no merchant shall be Chargeable for the  prisage of wine see more of this case in the title of doublin in Ireland