case Bingham against SMEATKWICK Hilary term Elizabeth roll special plead a  administration by a archbishop where there be not good notabilia to warrant it  be void ante     Lut Leon salk peer will error of a judgement in a ejection  firince where S declare of a lease of will Yerbury April Elizabeth of the land  in question for three year croak Elizabeth the defendant say that long thne  before will Yerbury the lessor have any thing one Thomas Chaffyn be thereof  seize in fee and march Elizabeth let they to John Yerbury for twentyone year  which John Yerbury April Elizabeth let they to will Yerbury for eight year if  one Arthur Yerbury shall so long live that the say W Yerbury be so possess the  reversion over to John Yerbury that John Yerbu ry the July Elizabeth die  intestate that administration of all the good of John Yerbury be commit by the  archbishop of Canterbury because he dlW possess of diverse good in diverse  diocese within the province of Canterbury to Henry black that Wihiam Yerbury  so be possess let as it be allege in the declaration that afterward videlicet  April Elizabeth Arthur Yerbury die where upon the defendant as servant to  Henry black and by his command eject he et hoe c the plaintiff reply confess  the lease to John Yerbury but further say that the say John Yerbury Jan  Elizabeth grant all his interest to Arthur Yerbury that the say Arthur Yerbury  July Elizabeth die intestate that the archbishop of Canterbury Aug Elizabeth  commit the administration of all the good of Arthur Yerbury to the say William  Yerbury who by force thereof enter and make a lease prout in the declaration c  and traverse that the say John Yerbury let it to will Yerbury for eight year  prout in bar upon this issue be join and find for the plaintiff and judgement  give for he the error assign be that he have traverse that estate which be a  estate determine and by he in his replication avoid before for he in his  replication affirm that the say John Yerbury Elizabeth c which be before the  lease allege to he make to will Yerbur that have grant all his estate to  Arthur Yerbury under who he make title then although afterward he make this  lease to will Yerbury it be not material so he have well avoid it then the  traverse be idle and issue join upon a vain matter and then the verdict  thereupon ill and the judgement erroneous and therefore it be like a issue  take upon a colour give in a action of trespass that if it he try yet it be a  jeofail and not remedy by the statute but all the justice and baron except  Walmsley hold that although it he a ill traverse and a ill issue join as it be  agree by they all that it be vet be try and verdict give it be aid by the  statute of Jeofails and the judgement there upon be well give a second error  assign be but that be over as far as that in the replication the plaintiff  have not make any good title for he convey to himself title as administrator  of the good of Arthur Yerbary commit unto he by the archbishop of Canterbury  and he do not show that the archbishop be ordinary nor that the intestate have  good in diverse diocese and if he have not the archbishop have no authority to  commit administration and then he have not any title and judgement ought to be  give against he but all the justice except Walmsley hold that in regard it be  in the replication croak Elizabeth er p and but the inducement of a traverse  wherein if he have not make any title at all but have say that will Yerbury  make the lease unto he prout in the declaration croak Elizabeth and traverse  without hoc that I Yerbury let unto he during the life of a Yerbary it have be  good enough wherefore the make of a ifisAficienttitle in his inducement to the  traverse be not material especial be after verdict find but they hold that S  such manner of plead have not be good unless he have aver that he have asset  in diverse diocese or that it be within the diocese of Canterbury or that he  be loci that of order but for the reason aforesaid the judgement be good  enough and not to he reverse but it be move by coke the queen attorney that  the committin of administration be by the archbishop although he have not oods  in diverse diocese because it be in his province wherein he have jurisdiction  be not void but only voidable by sentence and it be not like to a  administration commit b another bishop of the good of a mail who die in  another diocese or who have good in diverse diocese and this difference have  be take and agree in the queen bench and therefore the plea be well enough but  the justice say that it be all one and that the administration be void in both  case and not avoidable only but yet for the reason aforesaid they hold that it  be not error but the judgement be affirm vide Henry pl Plowd Henry pl   king  croak Elizabeth hilary term Elizabeth in the Kingg bench sir John Popham Knt  chief justice sir Francis gawdy Knt John Clench Esq Edwar Fenner Esq justice  sir Edward Coke Knt attorneygeneral sir Thomas Fleming Kn solicitor general