case the queen against Blagden S c ante S c pale yellow Mr reeves for the  defendant observe that if the crown have a right to join issue upon the  traverse yet the issue be here ill join because not join in the word of the  traverse but more narrow and restrictive the information charge the defendant  with use the office liberty and privilege franchise c of portreeve of the town  of Honiton and the traverse be take in word as general and comprehensive as  the charge but the issue take upon the traverse be without hoc that he usurp  the office general now a man may usurp the office and not usurp all the  privilege c relate to that office modern report as to the main question  whether the crown be at liberty to take issue upon the traverse or not the  only precedent allege in behalf of the power of the crown be that of the queen  v Walcourt a Hilary term Elizabeth roll a and there the question never receive  any judicial determination because the defendant die as to the case of sir  gervas Clifton b Leon b he say that it appear from a large report of that case  in Godbolt c godb c that it be nothing ad remember in the writ of seize in  coke entry d   Ent d where the other entry be set forth the traverse be omit  which prove it immaterial to the objection that in a information of intrusion  the king may take issue upon the usurpation though a title be set forth he  answer that a information of intrusion be of a different nature from this  because non sequitur from his have a title that he be no intruder but it do  that he be no usurper the course of precedent be so in intrusion but otherwise  in this kind of information which be a presumptive argument that there be a  difference another difference there be that in a information of intrusion the  crown set forth its title and conclude de bring missis c then he argue that  the allow the crown to join issue upon this traverse in their replication will  be inconvenient to the crown inconvenient to the party inconvenient to the  court and argumentum ab inconventi fortissimum in lege in the first place it  be inconvenient to the crown because by this the matter be put at large the  defendant may give anything in evidence and it amount in effect to the general  issue of non to seize for use e Heydons case   Ent e modern report all the  inconvenience of allow general issue will follow upon allow this if the king  can take issue upon this he be bind to do it where the defendant set forth his  title with traverse and the king title be upon record there the king may  either traverse the defendant title or he may waive that and take issue upon  the defendant traverse but if his title do not appear upon record then the  king be bind to take issue upon the defendant traverse f brook Abr prerogative  Vaugh f as to the objection that no prerogative of the crown be here insist  upon but only a right common to every subject it be enough to answer that the  attorneygeneral will not be content in this case to be bind down by the same  rule of plead that the subject be the subject can not have avoid take the  issue but no one will say the crown be bind to do this second this will be  inconvenient to the party because it render it almost impossible for he to  prepare for his defence for the crown may upon this issue attack his title or  may give in evidence a misuser or forfeiture of his office three this will be  inconvenient to the court for the court can tell what judgement to give  without be certify from the judge that try the cause what the nature of the  evidence be for the use a office without a title and the forfeit a office by  misuse require different judgement in the last place he insist that the  defendant by set forth his title have answer the whole charge of the  information which be for he to show quo warranto c modern report er p the  court be all of opinion that the defendant shall have judgement Parker chief  justice nobody ever think that non to seize for use be a good plea and the  reason why it modern report be not evident appear from the nature of the  charge which be for he to show by what warrant or authority c to which that  plea be no answer and if this can not have be plead in bar then most certain  that replication which in effect set up that plea again must be nought if non  to seize for use be a general issue allow in this case all the rest of the  plead will be to no other purpose but to lengthen the record the difference  observe by Mr reeves between the case before we and a information for  intrusion be very just for though the defendant shall have a title yet it be  very possible he may be a intruder but impossible that he shall be a usurper  powys justice be of the same opinion the very reason of join issue be that the  party may come prepare to defend one single point in the case of barratry the  law be otherwise but then it must be tell what point will be go upon Pratt  justice I be of the same opinion for have non to seize for use be a good plea  everybody will certain have plead it because by this mean the attorneygeneral  will be keep in the dark and unacquainted with the nature of the defendant  title and the hazard of set forth a special title where the great certainty in  plead be require may be whole avoid beside the labour of plead special be  entire lose if all may be set aside by a general replication judgement be  accord give for the defendant