\  ^\'^V       4-  In  Aftion  for  a  Duty  called  Shewage  [Scavage]  the  Plaintiffs  declared
Name  of  the"?"'''  ^^^  Grant  of  E.  4.  by  Letters  Patent  ;  the  Defendants  demanded  Ojer^
S^apor  of     ^f'd  the  Plaintiffs  in  their  Replication  demurred,  J^uia  placitum  predi^um
5tLonDoiil)»  tninusfufficiens&c.  and  per  Cur.  the  Replication  is  naught ;  For  he  fays,
<0orre)',       Placitum  prsediftum  ell  minus  &c.  and  there  was  no  Plea  pleaded ;  For
no^p/ea'^  ami  ^^^  demanding  of  Oyer  is  no  Plea,  and  therefore  a  Repleader  was  awarded.
therefore       Freem.  Rep.   400.  Trin.   1675.  Mayor  and   Commonalty  of  London  v,
does  not  war-  Bre.
rant  the  De-
murrer in  fuch  Form  ;  and  therefore  Judgment  was  fjiven  for  the  Defendant,  and  did  not  award  a  Re-
pleader as  was  defined. 5  Keb.  480.  pi.  19.  491.  pi.  53.  S  C.  by  Name  of  Loudon  (City)  v.  Go«

rec   fays,  a  Repleaderwas  awarded  giving  Oyer.
.  •  ,  S    In


Oyer  of  Records,  Deeds  &c.  167

■  '    ■-  — — — ^— -—- —  ■  -  -  -■»

5.  In  DeOt  on  Bond^  the  Defendant  demanded  Oyer  of  the  Obligation,
and  the  Condition  which  was/or  Performance  of  Articles^  and  then  pleaded
the  Articles,  and  that  he  had  performed  them  ;  Plaintiff  pray'd  that  the
Articles  be  inrolled  in  hsc  Verba,  which  being  done,  the  Piamtiff'dannr-
red  generally .f  and  peisfd^  that  Defendant  in  pleading  the  Articles  had  omit-
ted ■part  of  them-.  And  thereupon  the  Opinion  of  all  the  Court  was  againil
the  Defendant  ^  For  perhaps  the  Plaintiff  would  have  alligntd  Breach
upon  the  Things  omitted,  which  now  he  cannot  do  ^  Judgment  lor  the
Plaintiff^  And  North  Ch.  J.  remember 'd  a  Cafe  in  B.  R.  ac^(>rd.ingiy.
3  Lev.  50.  Pafch.  34.  Car.  2.  C.  B.   Hudfon  v.  Spier.
