case rodney against stride the court will not grant a new trial on the ground  of excessive damage in a action on the case for false charge the plaintiff  with treasonI Mod notorious facts Bl Rep Bl Rep term Rep term Rep in a action  of trespass and false imprisonment against three joint if one of they confess  the action and the other two plead joint not guilty and the jury assess l  damage on the default and l each on those who plead not guilty the verdict be  bad but if the plaintiff enter a nolle attendance as to the two who plead he  shall have judgement for the damage in the default SC Carth SC comb SC show    cro James roll Rep hob Brownl cro car roll Abr Bac Abr Mod Mod stram ld ray a  action on the case be bring against three defendant one of they suffer  judgement to go by default and the other two plead not guilty the cause be try  the last assize at Exeter and it be for impose the crime of treason upon the  plaintiff and for assault and imprison of he there be a verdict for the  plaintiff and one thousand pound damage against Mr stride and fifty pound  against the other defendant who plead the plaintiff enter a nolle attendance  against he who let the judgement go by default and against the other defendant  for the fifty pound damage and take judgement only against Mr stride Pemberton  sergeant move for a new trial by reason of the excessive damage which be not  proportion to the quality of the plaintiff he be a man of mean fortune but it  be oppose by the plaintiff for that the defendant pursue he as a traitor and  when he be apprehend for that crime he cause he to be arrest for one thousand  pound at the suit of another person to who he be not indebt the court upon  consideration of the circumstance of the case refuse to grant a new trial then  Pemberton sergeant for the defendant move in arrest of judgement and for cause  show that the jury have find both guilty and assess several damage which they  can do because this be a joint action to which the defendant have plead joint  and be find guilty modus et form the jury can assess the damage several for  the damage be the same by the one as the other and therefore it have be  adjudge that where a action of battery be bring against three and one plead  not guilty and the other two son assault modern demesne and several damage  find against they it be hold ill for that very reason because it be a joint  offence Austin v Millard cro Elizabeth a it be true where there be diverse  defendant and damage assess several the plaintiff have his election to take  execution de melioribus financial loss but this be when the trial be at  several time so it be where they plead several plead as in a action of battery  one plead not guilty and the other justify and both issue be find for the  plaintiff in such case he may enter a non pro against one and take judgement  against the other because their plead be several but where they plead joint  the jury can sever the damage Welsh v bishop cro car b but Mr pollexfen for  the plaintiff insist that even in this case damage may be modern er p assess  several for where two defendant be sue for the same battery and they plead the  same plea yet damage may be assess several Samson v Cranfield I Bulst Rastals  Ent c so be the case of Trebarefoot v Greenway in this court which be a action  for a assault and battery and false imprisonment one of the defendant plead  not guilty and the other justify issue be join and there be a verdict for the  plaintiff and damage assess several the plaintiff enter a nolle attendance as  to one and take judgement against the other and upon this a writ of error be  bring in this court and the judgement be affirm so if a action of trespass be  bring against two for take of one hundred pound where the one take seventy  pound and the other thirty damage shall be assess several it be admit that  regular the damage ought to be entire especial where the action be joint but  where the fact be several damage may likewise be so assess but in this case  the jury have do what the court will do have it be in a criminal cause curian  this be all but one fact which the jury be to try it be true when several  person be find guilty criminal then the damage may be sever in proportion to  their gild but here all be equal guilty of the same offence and it seem to be  a contradiction to say that the plaintiff be injure by one to the value of  fifty pound and by the other to the value of one thousand pound when both be  equal guilty every defendant ought to answer full as much as the plaintiff be  damnified now how be it possible he shall be damnified so much by one and so  little by the other modern but notwithstanding this opinion judgement be  afterward give for the plaintiffBy Wythens Holloway and wright justice against  the opinion of Herbert chief justice SC comb but it seem that the chief  justice be afterward of the same opinion with the rest of the court SC show  and on writ of error be bring this judgement be affirm both in the exchequer  Chamber and in the house of lord SC Carth for the defect of the verdict be  cure by enter the nolle attendance see the case of hill v goodchild burr where  it be determine that where the trespass be joint charge on both defendant and  the verdict find they both joint guilty the jury can afterward assess several  damage and Noke v Ingram I will that where two defendant sever in plead and  the one plead a bankruptcy which on issue join be find for he the plaintiff  may enter a nolle attendance as to he and still proceed to final judgement and  execution against the other dougl notorious facts see also Parker v Laurance  hob Stowley v eveley I hob Welsh v bishop cro car weller v Goyton burr king v  clarke Cowp Powel v white dougl rise v bowler h b Rep Drummond v dorant term  Rep a