case lapworth against waste in trespass if the defendant justify by devise and  the plaintiff reply descent as cousin and heir of the devisor and traverse the  devise he need not show the line of descent ante post cro car   light cro  Elizabeth   Com dig to trespass on land in a if the defendant plead not guilty  to part and to the residue justify for tithe as rector of b within which a lie  the venire shall be award to both a and b ante post hob cro Elizabeth Yel term  Rep trespass for the take of twenty load of wheat c in eythorp the defendant  plead to all the trespass except two load not guilty and as to they he plead  that the will of eythorp be within the parish of Wapenbury and that Thomas  Lapworth be seize in fee of the rectory of Wapenbury and devise it by his will  in write to the defendant ill fee and die and that the defendant enter and  that the corn be the tithe sever and so justify the plaintiff protestand that  eythorp be not within the parish of Wapenbury for plea say that Thomas  Lapworth be seize of the rectory in fee and thereof die seize without issue  which descend to the plaintiff as his cousin and heir whereupon he enter c and  traverse the devise upon these plead they be at issue and a venire facias be  award to try those two issue de vicineto parish de Wapenbury the jury find the  issue of not guilty for the defendant and the other issue for the plaintiff  and it be hereupon allege in arrest of judgement first that the replication be  not good because he do not show how cousin and although it be but a inducement  to the traverse yet it ought to be always good in substance as Edward be say  non allocatur for it be a action of trespass be well maintainable by reason of  the possession without make any title in it and although the title which he  make in it be but ail inducement to the traverse be not formal it be not  material for it be not traversable second it be allege that this venire facias  de vicineto parish Wapenbury only be misawarded for it ought to be as well de  eythorp as of Wapenbury for where there be two issue rise from both place the  trial ought to be per vicinetum of both place and be otherwise it be a  mistrial and not aid by any statute croak throw but Nichols sergeant move that  it be good enough for although the plaintiff in the declaration suppose  eythorp to be and do not show it to be within the parish of Wapenbury yet the  defendant by his plea confess it to be within the same parish and entitle  himself thereto as parcel of the rectory wherefore it so appear to the court  and then the venire facias be well award from the vicinage of the parish the  issue also by the not guilty plead be find for the defendant wherefore if it  be not otherwise good it be good enough by the verdict for it be not prejudice  thereby Popham as to the first reason although the defendant in one part of  his plea confess that eythorp be within the parish of Wapenbury yet that shall  not help this trial for the first plea of not guilty be distinct by itself and  the issue be join upon it so there be quasi a end thereof the second part of  the plea be also distinct from the first and have not any relation thereto and  nothing which be therein shall aid the plaintiff as to the trial of the first  for they be as several plead to several action but peradventure such a  confession in one entire plea will have help he but as it be it be not good  Fenner and William be of that opinion and although the defendant be find not  guilty as to this issue yet that do not help for be a mistrial it be as a void  trial of that issue and quoad that point all the court agree but for the first  point Yelverton doubt yet notwithstanding by the assent of the whole court it  be adjudge afterward to be a mistrial and a venire facias de to make new be  award to try the same issue croak James er p