bartholomew against Ireland defendant plead not guilty and then by leave of  the court accord to the statute plead other matter which he conclude with a  averment after which he plead another plea without say by leave of the court c  the leave of the court be to be take to extend to both the justification that  leave be not grant to plead double be only a irregularity and to be take  advantage of by motion and not as error in trespass the plaintiff declare that  the defendant enter into his chamber and keep possession thereof and in a  second count he set out that at another time defendant break into his say  chamber take the lock off the door and expel a person then be therein and take  the furniture c the defendant plead first not guilty and afterward he plead by  leave of the court accord to the statute that as to the entry into the chamber  and keep possession thereof first mention the say chamber be the freehold of I  king at the time of the entry and that defendant as the servant of I king  enter c and conclude with a averment and then he go on and say and as to break  into the chamber mention in the second count and take the furniture c and  plead the same justification as before and that because the good be there fill  up the room be seize they by way of distress to this the plaintiff demurrer  and assign for cause that the defendant bath first plead not guilty which go  to the whole declaration and also that it do not appear as to the last  justification that defendant have the leave of the court and it be argue by  solicitor general strange for the plaintiff that though it be plead and be  admit by the demurrer that I king have the freehold yet the plaintiff may  notwithstanding have a right to the possession as a tenant at will or for year  and this alone will not justify the defendant in forcible break open the door  c as the defendant can not plead these Andrews several matter without leave of  the court it ought to appear on the record that this be grant as to all the  matter plead but it do not appear that defendant have such leave as to the  last justification for though it be set out before the first justification yet  as that be a complete plea by itself and proper conclude and then the  plaintiff begin de to make new it can extend to the last and consequent it  must be take as at commonlaw which will not warrant two distinct plead it be  not a sufficient answer to this that the court will take notice of their own  act for if the record shall be remove into another court it will be impossible  for that to know if leave be grant unless it be set out on the record sergeant  Bootle argue contra and the whole court be clear of opinion that this be in  substance a good plea and it be a constant rule that in trespass upon not  guilty plead a freehold may be give in evidence to the last objection it be  say by lee c j and chapel just that the word be by leave of the court accord  to the statute the leave of the court ought to be take to extend to both the  justification but of this probin just doubt the first justification be  conclude but he say that if leave be not grant to plead the last it be a  irregularity which ought to be take advantage of by motion and it can be  object by way of error and to this the c I agree who also say that ever since  the Act it have be the practice to show on plead double that leave be grant by  Andrews er p the court and this seem very reasonable because at commonlaw  duplicity be ill judgement for the plaintiff defendant it ought to be see  Ryley Parkhurst I will where this case be cite by sergeant Bootle