case HAREBOTTLE against PLACOCK ejectment lie for land and a coalpit post Mod  show salk stram burr dougl quere whether the lessor in ejectment be servant to  the sheriff be a principal cause of challenge post skin stram Cowp   light b  roll Rep Hutton more cro Elizabeth a by will c if one of the plaintiff die and  the cause of action survive the death shall be suggest on the roll and the  suit shall proceed see also car c a   a   light hawk c S to croak James er p  if juror before verdict eat at their own cost they shall be fine if at the  cost of the party the verdict be void   light b dyer Vaugh lev Bac ab bull n p  hale hawk p c ejectment of land and a coalpit in the same land the defendant  plead not guilty and it be find against he it be now move in arrest of  judgement that the declaration be not good for he can demand the land itself  and a coalpit in the same land for that be bis attack but the court hold it to  be good because it be a personal action and he demand nothing certain second  the venire facias be award to the coroner upon surmise that the lessor be  servant to the sheriff which be allege to be no principal challenge and then  the writ be not well award and it be not aid by the statute of Henry c for  this point they much doubt whether it be a principal challenge or not and if  it be not whether it be help by the statute?But coke the king attorney who be  of counsel with the defendant say that in Elizabeth in Packington case a it be  resolve that it be not a principal challenge and that the venire facias award  to the coroner be ill and not aid by the statute but the court doubt whether  there be any such precedent and I know that in spicers case b it be resolve  otherwise and judgement give for the plaintiff notwithstanding this exception  the court therefore not be resolve in this point advice the party to begin de  to make new and to have a new trial which be do accord vide dyer croak throw  three because the juror have take meat and drink before their verdict give  which be certify upon the postea but not examine at who charge the court say  that will make a great difference for if it be at the cost of the party for  who they give their verdict it will make the verdict void but if it be at  their own cost it be only fineable and the verdict good