case stroud against the bishop OF bath and well and sir george Horner in quare  hinder a declaration that a be seize in fee of the manor to which the advowson  be appendant and present b and then grant the next avoidance to the plaintiff  and that by the death of b he be entitle to present be good without state that  the presentation to b be temporepacis S C Mod quare hinder the plaintiff  allege that sir George Horner be seize in fee of the manor of Dowling to which  the advowson be appendant that be so seize be present one Harding and then  grant the next avoidance to the plaintiff that modern er p the church become  void by the death of the say Harding and that now it belong to he to present  the bishop plead that he claim nothing but as ordinary the incumbent plead  that at the time of the bring of this writ the church be full by the collation  of the bishop upon a lapse the plaintiff reply that sir George Horner be seize  in fee of the say manor of Dowling to which the advowson of the church be  appendant do tali die el year a put c present he as clerk without hoc that the  church be full by collation the defendant rejoin protestand that the church be  f will tali die and for plea say that it be full upon the collation of the  bishop without hoe that sir George Horner do tali die et year c present the  plaintiff as his clerk and so traverse the inducement which the plaintiff have  make to his traverse to this the plaintiff demurrer George stride sergeant  take three exception to this rejoinder first that when the defendant plead a  matter in bar and the plaintiff have take a traverse upon that the defendant  shall then take issue upon that traverse and so have modern maintain his bar  from which he have depart here by traverse another matter in a quare hinder  the plaintiff declare that sir Thomas Chichele grant a advowson to one Eas t  and another in fee to the use of the wife of the plaintiff for her jointure  and that she ought to present the defendant plead that he be parson imparson e  ex a placing before king for that sir Thomas Chichele die seize as aforesaid  of the manor and advowson hold in capite by knight service which descend to  his son a infant and by office find of the tenure and descent the king be  seize and present he without hoe that sir Thomas grant to east the plaintiff  reply non to have tale record de inquisition and upon demurrer it be hold that  this traverse of the inquisition be not good for there shall not be a traverse  upon a traverse but where the traverse in the bar be material to the title of  the plaintiff and in such case he be bind up to it cro car second in his  traverse be have make the time parcel of the issue videlicet without hoc that  tali die et year looks like whereas it shall have be modus el form only and so  be the case of lane v Alexander where the defendant in title himself by copy  of court of roll Eliz the plaintiff reply that a copy be grant to he June Eliz  the defendant maintain his bar and traverse the grant June modus et form and  upon a demurrer it be say that the rejoinder be not good because the day and  year of grant of the copy be not material if it be grant before the defendant  have his copy and so the traverse ought to have be without hoe that the queen  grant modus el jormd but it be adjudge that the day ought not to be make  parcel of the issue and the traverse of it when it ought not so to be make it  substance and not form so as to be aid by the statute of Elizabeth c three as  the defendant have join they can never come to a issue for he conclude his  traverse et hoc a preparation be verify unde petit judgment whereas he shall  have conclude to the country Barton sergeant admit the plead be not good yet  if the plaintiff count be so likewise he can have judgement and that it be so  be say appear in that the plaintiff have not set forth a sufficient title for  he have allege that sir George Horner be seize in fee and present the  plaintiff who be institute modern and induct but do not say that the  presentation be tempore peace and therefore it shall be presume most strong  against himself to be tempore pretty and a presentation must be lie tempore  peace and so be the writ of assize of darrein presentment f n b the court hold  that the plead be not good and that the count be good for it be true if a man  count that he and his ancestor be seize in fee of a advowson but declare of no  presentation make by he or they or if he declare of a presentation without a  estate in both case it be nought and good cause of demurrer but here the count  be both of a estate and a presentation and this difference be take if a man  get a fee by presentation which be his title he must allege it to be tempore  peace but if it be in pursuance of a right as if a advowson be appendant to a  manor and he who have right to the manor present such presentation be good in  time of war and so judgement be give for the plaintiff modern er p