Bradburn versus KENNERDALE mich James ill rot Mod in avowry where the plea be  not good for want of a traverse error of a judgement in the county palatine of  Chester in replevin bring for the take a cow in a place call shippen the  defendant make conusance as bailiff to sir Peter Warburton for that be sir  Peter tempore quo c be seize of the manor of asley of which the place where c  be and time out of mind be parcel in his demesne as of fee c and that he the  defendant as bailiff c take the cow c damagefeasant the plaintiff reply in bar  to the conusance that bene yes be that sir Peter Warburton tempore quo c be  seize of the manor of asley aforesaid in of his ut de fee send day ante  predict time quo c sir George Warburton be seize in fee of the say manor who  heir the say sir Peter Warburton be and of a message adtune parcel the same  manor of which message the place where c tunc thus far be parcel and be so  seize the say sir George before the take the say cow videlicet on such a day  make a lease of the say message unde c to one t S for three life and that  afterward t S die and t b enter and be seize as occupant and make a lease for  one year unto the plaintiff c per quod c to this replication there be a  demurrer in this form sacred scripture quod placitum pillage superius to fold  back placitata minus sufficient c and conclude unde petit judgment financial  loss svan c but do not pray any return and judgement be there give for the  avowant and that he shall have a return c and that for a fault in the bar  which be the want of a traverse and now it be argue by the counsel for the  plaintiff in error Carthew that the bar be good without a traverse because by  the bar all the quaere for the common opinion be otherwise for that the wife  serve as a apprentice Carthew er p matter of conusance be sufficient confess  and avoid videlicet that sir Peter Warburton be seize of the manor c and that  the place where c be parcel thereof for the estate now claim be only for life  and the reversion thereof always continue parcel of the manor and therefore  the matter which be confess and avoid shall never be traverse and the seize in  of his of the place where c be not traversable because this not a positive  affirmation but only allege argumentative videlicet as this parcel of the  manor another error be that the commencement of this conusance be informal and  ill for he do not show that the place where to hold together so much for so be  all the precedent but this be hold to be only form another error be that the  defendant have judgement for a return habend without make any prayer for such  a return another error be that the commencement of the demurrer be informal  videlicet in this word to fold back placitata for this not a replication but a  bar and so there be no answer to the bar the cause be discontinue beside it be  allege that admit a traverse be necessary yet it be aid by this general  demurrer but in hilaryterm follow it be adjudge by the court that the bar be  ill for want of a traverse that the place where be parcel of the manor tempore  a deceiving for though it be grant that the reversion of the locus in quo  remain parcel of the manor after the demise for three life yet the place it  self and the freehold be sever by the demise and by consequence they be not  parcel of the manor tempore quo c therefore the plaintiff ought to have  traverse that which the defendant have affirm videlicet that the locus in quo  be parcel of the manor of a tempore quo c and as to this matter there be a  difference between replevin and trespass and the court hold that the seize in  of of the place where c be not traversable for this not express allege in the  conusance that sir Peter c be seize in of of the place where but only by  consequence as it be parcel of the manor of asly of which he sir p W be seize  in of therefore if he have traverse the seize it must have be of all the manor  Carthew beside it be hold that the default of a necessary traverse be  substance and not aid by a general demurrer likewise if a traverse be too  narrow and short of the matter traversable this be substance but where a  traverse be mere surplusage and not necessary as where one traverse a thing  which he have before confess and avoid that be mere form and aid upon a  general demurrer for the other party may traverse that traverse and also the  inducement to it as concern the occupancy per holt Ch justice the title under  the occupant be good for the statute do not take away all occupancy but  transfer it to executor and be hold that b the lessor of the plaintiff be  executor de son tort by his entry on the land because the aforesaid statute  make it asset the judgement be affirm