coke a bishop case pasch Elizabeth in the king bench the want of a original  writ be remedy by stat Elizabeth but where there be a original writ which in  matter of substance vary from the declaration the defect be not remedy by that  statute when the original writ be remove be it before or after in nullo be  erratum be plead and a material variance appear between the writ and the  declaration the judgement shall be reverse sc in the c b but not S p Leon cro  Elizabeth Anders Lucas Mod Matthew bishop bring a action on the case against  Michael Harecourt in the common plea by original writ set forth that the  defendant in consideration that the plaintiff have give and deliver to the  defendant a horse and that the plaintiff promise the defendant that he on to  he by the defendant to be pay will deliver to the say Michael a indenture  inter William ware ex One patle et agnetem fawkener ex alteran part fact c and  a bind by which those ware and Christopher bishop be bind to the say Agnes c  in assume and to the say plaintiff do promise to pay he boundary Trinity next  follow and the plaintiff declare and the writ and declaration agree in all but  only in this that where by the writ the say bind of be allege to be make by  those ware and Christopher bishop c in the declaration he be name George  bishop c and the defendant plead non assumpsit and find against he and  judgement give accord and the defendant bring a writ of coke b error and  assign diverse frivolous error to which the court give no regard and then  another error not assign be move sure the say variance between the original  writ and the declaration for the declaration in the common plea always recite  the writ by which it appear that the writ be Christopher bishop who be one of  the obligors in the say bind and the declaration be George bishop and on that  after in nullo erratum plead the plaintiff by certiorari out of the king bench  remove the original writ by which the variance appear to the court and it be  move that it shall be help by the statute of Elizabeth cap by which it be  enact that after verdict no judgement shall coke report a er p be reverse for  want of form c or for any want of any writ original or judicial or default in  process and here want a original writ in our case for the action on the case  consist on two part sure on consideration and promise and as to the  consideration the writ and declaration vary and so no original writ to warrant  this declaration and if that shall not be within the letter of the Act yet it  will be within the meaning and intent of it because it be in equal mischief  also it be move after in Jones Noy Styl roll Rep Bulstr Cr Elizabeth Leon side  hard palm a nullo be erratum plead no writ of diminution or certiorari shall  be award as it be agree in Bulst Leon palmer b e Fitzherbert error Br error c  b e b a b d e Fitzherbert error Br error e h b but if any shall be award by  the discretion of the court it shall be only to assure they of the truth for  the amend the record in thing amendable and to salve the former judgement  accord to the truth of the case but never to reverse the judgement as it will  be in our case Acc franklin v reeves Rep tempt Hardw Carlton v Mortagh b salk  Merrifield v Berrey bower v Maun Berkeley v Howard strange contra Ro ab cro  Elizabeth Leon cro James a but as to the first it be answer and resolve by the  whole court that this   a Bulstr roll Rep Cr James Benl roll Rep palm winch f  variance between the original writ and the declaration be not remedy by the  statute of Elizabeth nor any other statute and a difference be take by the  court when there be a Jones Cr Elizabeth Cr James Doctrin placit Yelv Bulst  side g original writ which in matter of substance vary from the declaration  that be not remedy by the say Act because casus to let go oblivion act of  giving layout law common to leave behind but when there be Bulst Doct placit  Cr car Cr James Cr Elizabeth side Jones   Candries case h no original writ  that be express remedy by the Act as to the second point they all agree that  when the original writ be remove be it before in nullo be erratum plead or  after and a material variance appear to the court between the writ and the  declaration the judgement shall be reverse and so it have be do before this  time as Wray chief justice say Vid Felton v weaver latch SC Jones Carleton v  Mortagh Mod that this case be not on a nullo be erratum but after a nil to say  remanent undefended by stat Geo c judgement after verdict shall not be stay or  reverse for any defect or fault either in form or substance in any bill writ  original or judicial or for any variance in such writ from the declaration or  other proceed this statute extend only to judgement after verdict but Vid  serjeant williams note Redman v Edolph sand that no advantage whatever can now  he have either of a defective original or of a variance between it and the  declaration and Vid de Taskett v rucker Brod bing SC b more b