case bishop against eagle a action of account bring by churchwarden against  their predecessor charge they with have receive several sum of money by the  hand of the parishioner without state they particular be have but if there be  other count in the declaration good the court may abate it as to the have  count and give judgement quod computent as to those which be good S c Mod on a  motion in arrest of judgement that in a writ of account bring by the  churchwarden of the parish of saint Bartholomew in the city of London against  the defendant judgement be give for the plaintiff that the first judgement  ought to be quod to sum up Salkeld say the declaration suppose that the  defendant receive several sum of money videlicet by the several person herein  after mention the several sum hereinafter mention that a action for a account  ought to be a precise charge a see yearbook Edward pl and pl b a that account  ought to be certain and that if part of the declaration be uncertain judgement  quod to sum up be certain shall not be as to that but only a to what second  they ought to be charge as receiver and not as bailiff and cite the case of  Burdet v Thurle b lev see also Robsert v Andrews cro Elizabeth b three it be  say they ought not to be charge per manus parochianor but by particular name  for the great certainty modern report er p e contra the plaintiff be the  present churchwarden and the defendant be the last churchwarden he be well  charge as receiver and if he shall have be charge as bailiff they ought to  have plead it a a merchant bring a action of account against his factor and  charge he as receiver of diverse good and merchandise the plaintiff have  judgement quod to sum up by default the defendant plead before the auditor and  the plaintiff demurrer to the plea and judgement for the plaintiff on a motion  in arrest of judgement hale chief justice say the defendant shall have be  charge as bailiff but he shall have demurrer to the declaration and can take  advantage of it after judgement quod to sum up Burdet v Thurle lev a Mr eyres  contra by the defendant plead that he be not churchwarden b see S c Mod b he  have admit the charge in the declaration Keble lev roll Abr   light modern  report do you common sergeant in a action of account against a receiver it  need not be charge by who hand he receive c c dyer b c and to avoid prolixity  in the plead d mint v Bethel cro Elizabeth d the defendant ought to have  demurrer e roll Rep e Cheshire sergeant for arrest the judgement urge that if  the nature of the action require that particular shall be show it be out of  the reason of the case about prolixity of plead Powell justice action of  account between merchant need not set out the particular quasi dedicate but  otherwise here a churchwarden must be charge as receiver and the receipt be  traversable and you must say by who hand and go to the country or else if you  do not say by who hand he may wage his law because it shall be presume to be  from the hand of the plaintiff himself and therefore in such a case he may  wage his law the allegation per manus parochianor be very general and he think  they ought to have set out the particular receipt of the particular person but  if the case of Burdet v Thurle be as it be cite then per manus parochianor  will be as if they have not set out by who hand at all f where a tenant in  common declare against another as receiver it ought to be show by who hand he  receive it otherwise he ought to be charge as bailiff walker v holiday comy  Rep f but the question be whether by their take issue upon a collateral plea  they do not come too late to except against the incertainty of the declaration  as it be determine in that case of Burdet v Thurle holt chief justice they  come now upon the posteas be return before judgement quod computer and as to  that part of the declaration which charge the receipt per manus parochianor we  may well abate it for it be imperfect charge and uncertain and give judgement  quod computer as to the rest and the court abate it as to the uncertain charge  for the hundred pound and say that if judgement quod computer have not be give  then he will lose the benefit of cost upon the plea of the collateral matter Q  holt chief justice also say lie gager be original introduce for the benefit of  the plaintiff and that it be suppose the defendant will upon the sacredness of  his oath discover more than the plaintiff can charge or prove and therefore  unless the defendant in such case will purge himself by oath the plaintiff  shall recover