Bulstrode the Spanish ambassador by the name of do DEGOE servient de acuno  plaintiff against captain Gifford defendant Ro Rep in a action upon the case  for a promise upon non assumpsit plead a verdict be find for the plaintiff the  case appear to be this the king of Spain do give unto captain Gifford ten  mille leadership money for to go for he in war against the barbarian before  such a day the defendant do assume and promise that if he do not go before the  day he will then repay the money he do not go nor yet pay Bulstrode er p the  money accord to his promise upon this the Spanish ambassador for the king of  Spain his master bring the action upon the case and a verdict find for the  plaintiff it be move for the defendant in arrest of judgement by Harris  sergeant touch the consideration be in consideration of ten mille leadership  money of the value of S d every ducat and do not show when they shall be of  such a value for they may be more or they may be less dodderidge justice they  be to be of this value at the time of the payment the whole court agree in  this that the jury may give more or less than the value in damage if they will  coke chief justice if one de assume to pay to another ten mille leadership  money and every one of they to be of the value of S d this ought special to be  aver here the promise be that if he do not go before the last day of June for  the Spaniard against the barbarian then he will repay the money if he go not  this ought then to be repay within a convenient time after the day pass and he  go not no request be to be make of this neither ought the plaintiff to seek he  but at his peril he ought to pay this without any request if one de promise to  pay so much at his come from Rome to another he shall have a convenient time  to pay this after his return from Rome and this payment be to be without any  request here the case be upon non assumpsit plead and a verdict against he  that he do assume One law stranger native and therefore by the rule of the  court judgement be give for the plaintiff and a capias grant to take the  defendant cook v Matthew Lancaster Bustrode er report date Bulstrode boundary  paschae James banc king randal cook plaintiff against Matthew lancaster  defendant enter Termin Trin James b r rot Ro Rep Ro Abr in a action upon the  case upon a assumpsit for the delivery of corn upon non assumpsit plead a  trial be have and a verdict give for the plaintiff Richardson sergeant move  the court for the defendant in arrest of judgement for a variance between the  writ of nisi prius and the record in matter of substance and not amendable be  the day of the assumpsit which be such a day James in the writ of nisi prius  and in the declaration upon the record lie to be such a day James and the  party that make the promise be dead and this action be bring against the  executor this mistake be matter of substance and so not amendable for by this  mistake the very matter be alter and to this purpose be the case in h fol l in  debt against I S husbandman there they be at issue whether he be husbandman or  mercer jour de brief purchase in the writ of nisi prius for trial of this jour  de brief purchase be omit and not amendable because matter of substance and  therefore a venire facias de no to make new be there award and this be not  like the case that be in Elizabeth dyer fol plea in a writ of partition by  Wotton against Anthony cook and temple who appear temple confess the partition  cook convey title in several to the whole land there in the record of nisi  prius this word Antonius by negligence of the clerk of the treasury be omit in  the joinder of the issue this be there amend be but a mere misprision coke  chief justice if the nisi prius vary from the roll in a thing which do alter  and change the issue it be plain that this shall not be amend but time be not  always matter of substance but in the principal case here the same be matter  of substance and so not amendable pasch e Fitzherbert title amendment plea a  good case upon the same difference where it be matter of substance and where  not if matter of substance then the same be not to be amend Bulstrode er p it  have be take that if one de bring a action of trespass for a trespass do maii  and this be do maii that this have be a material matter to make Bulstrode all  to be bad but as to this I think that in this case the day be not material as  matter of substance but the same shall be good if it be so that in such case  he have good cause of action before his action bring and so it have be often  time adjudge here in this principal case there be another matter which be  material and make the matter bad here it be randulpho for Randall where there  be not any English name for randulpho there be ranulfus for Randall and  Randulphus for Ralph but Randulphus be not good and when I be a pleader in a  action of debt upon a bind in such a case here non be milk plead and avoid for  this cause only of Randulphus for Randall here in this principal case the day  be a material part and make a alteration of the verdict and therefore by the  opinion of the whole court this be not to be amend and for this cause by the  rule of the court the plaintiff judgement be stay