Barnardiston king b balaam and matthews how far a person shall be allow to  conclude to the country in a action upon a promissory note for the defendant  plead that the money be lend upon a usurious contract whereby it be agree that  the defendant shall pay S for the use of this money for three month and that  he shall give a note for the same to this the plaintiff reply that the  contract be fair and just without hoc that he have agree that he shall receive  S for the say interest hoc petit quod to seek after per native land to which  there be a demurrer and the cause show that the traverse shall have conclude  with a averment to support this demurrer Mr tailor argue that it be a general  rule in plead that every traverse must conclude with a hoc a preparation and  he say there be no occasion to produce authority to support this he take  notice far that the replication be wrong in another respect that the plaintiff  have traverse the agreement be that he shall receive S without say modus form  so by this mean the defendant be tie up to prove the particular sum whereas  any sum above the statuable interest will have do as well for the defendant to  this purpose he apply the case of Coleman and Barnardiston king b er p  stockden hill Geo there a action be bring upon a bind for a very great sum of  money the defendant plead that part of the money be win at game the plaintiff  reply that that sum of be not and conclude to the country to this replication  there be a demurrer and the replication hold bad for this very exception on  the other side Mr Benny insist that this traverse put the whole matter in  issue and whenever it do so the party may conclude to the country for in fact  it be a complete negative to the defendant affirmative and so a good issue to  this purpose he cite a case out of salk in point and in Lutwyche this be carry  so far as to make it a good issue even where the traverse be special for there  a action of false imprisonment be bring against a bailiff who justify by a  warrant from the sheriff the plaintiff reply that the defendant imprison he de  in an unjust manner svan not common with others without tali warranto hoc  petit quod to seek after per native land to this there be a demurrer and the  issue hold good to the second point he say that the defendant have set forth a  special agreement which he will have be oblige strict to have prove upon  evidence and consequent the traverse be right in this respect which reason he  observe distinguish this case from that cite on the other side for there if  any part of that sum above have be prove to have be win at play upon evidence  that evidence will have maintain the issue as bring the case within the  statute there be no special agreement he then take a exception to the form of  the defendant plea that the statute of Ann which this action be find upon say  that whoever shall agree to give above per cent from Barnardiston king b such  a day the contract shall be void now the plead ought to have be that after  this day scilicet on the day mention in the plea this usurious contract be to  this purpose he cite several entry and particular out of brown whereas the  defendant have plead only that on that particular day it be so agree to this  last observation nothing be say to the second the court be of opinion the  traverse be good but to the first the court think this matter pretty doubtful  they say they can see no sensible distinction between its be a special  traverse and a general one and as there be two express authority that this  plead be good they do not see that though the note for S be not traverse the  conclusion to the country may be right however this matter stand over vide  post