agree vers roll and Newell Intr hill will B R rot the entry of beneficiary and  trust be sufficient to avoid the statute of limitation in a action against  several defendant though they plead joint yet if their plea be in its nature  severable the plaintiff may enter a nolle attendance as to one and proceed  against the rest S C Mod vide Carth this entry may be make at nisi prius  before the trial of the cause S C salk Mod v and the judge of nisi prius may  record it S C Mod the plaintiff bring a ejectment against the defendant sir  John roll and Newell for land of Devonshire the defendant appear and enter  into the Lord Raymond er p common rule in ejectment and plead joint not guilty  the cause be bring to trial at the assize at Exeter sir John roll appear and  confess lease entry and ouster but Newell do not appear upon which the  plaintiff enter a non pro against Newell at the say assize and as to sir John  roll the jury find a special verdict upon which the single question be whether  the entry of beneficiary and trust will be sufficient to avoid the statute of  limitation James c and it be hold clear by the whole court that such entry be  sufficient to avoid the statute and they will not hear a argument upon the  point and a rule be make Lord Raymond that the plaintiff shall have judgement  unless the defendant show cause to the contrary before the end of Trinity term  last pass upon which Mr Broderick move to set aside the say rule because by he  the retraxit be irregular enter and the plaintiff after the entry of it ought  not to have proceed suppose that it have be regular enter because by his  declaration be suppose that he have right only against both joint which  supposal he have falsify by the entry of the retraxit confess thereby that he  have no right at all against Newell side curian contra as to this last matter  for if a ejectment be bring against two and issue be join and then one of they  die and a venire be award as to the two defendant and a verdict against two  yet upon suggestion of the death of one of they upon the roll the plaintiff  shall have judgement for the whole against the other cro James keb because  this action be ground upon tort which be several in their nature and one may  be find guilty and the other acquit then Mr Broderick argue that this retraxit  be enter irregular for by he the non pro must be interpret a retraxit or  nothing for it can be a nonsuit for if it be a nonsuit then the plaintiff be  nonsuit against one shall be nonsuit against both and as a retraxit it can be  good because the defendant have join in plea and therefore neither the  plaintiff nor the judge of assize can sever they and all the case where  retraxits have be adjudge good be where the plead be several and not joint  long Edward bro judgement in trespass against several if the plaintiff enter a  non pro against one he can proceed against the rest unless they sever in plea  the judge of nisi prius can not enter a retraxit to be good because upon the  entry of it judgement ought to be immediate that the defendant against who the  retraxit be enter eat ind without die which the judge of nisi prius can do and  so this retraxit be irregular the consequence of which be that Newell continue  defendant notwithstanding this retraxit and nevertheless the judge try the  issue only against one of the defendant he cite also vent fag v Robert that  the plaintiff ought to have be nonsuit because both the defendant do not  confess lease entry and ouster and side bolter v ford e contra it be argue for  the plaintiff by Mr sergeant Darnall that a retraxit may be enter before the  judge of nisi prius because the party be all amendable there and have day and  their appearance be at the beginning record that such a judge may record a  protection   man chart Edward the same law of a receipt prior that he may  receive a plea rain darrein continuance Yelv but can give judgement upon it  that he may record a demurrer to the evidence or a plea to the challenge of  the jury and for the same reason he may record a non Lord Raymond pro in    Entr a relict verification with a cognovit act be enter at nisi prius and  judgement give upon it in c b in dower which be strong in point if in this  case the defendant have sever in plea a nolle attendance may have be well  enter cro car now this plea be severable in its nature see h per Keble and he  cite Assis roll Abr title trial pi hob keb but per holt chief justice upon the  non pro enter against one of the defendant judgement ought to have be enter  for he which can not be do at nisi prius and before such entry he be not  discharge and the plaintiff ought not to have proceed against the other he  have never see such a retraxit as this and he be of opinion that a retraxit  can be enter against one of the defendant where they join in plea beside that  before the statute of York Edward saint c the plaintiff can not have be  nonsuit at nisi prius because he be not demandable there and therefore now he  can enter a non pro there and therefore he hold that this retraxit be  irregular enter and that the plaintiff ought not to have his judgement but  powys and gold justice hold the contrary because Lord Raymond er p the plea be  in its nature severable and therefore a retraxit may be well enter as to one  of the defendant that the judge of nisi prius may receive such entry and  judgement be give for the plaintiff and afterward error be bring upon this  judgement in parliament and the judgement of the king bench be affirm Saturday  April and cost give to the defendant in error