“The King to the Sheriff, Health. Prohibit _R._ least he should follow the Plea in the Court Christian which is between _N._ and him of the lay Fee of the aforesaid _R._ in such a Vill, of which he complains that the aforesaid _N._ draws him into Plea in Court Christian before those Judges. And, if the aforesaid _R._ shall make you secure of prosecuting his claim, then, put by Gage and safe Pledges, the aforesaid _N._ that he be before me, or my Justices, such a day, to shew wherefore, he has drawn him into Plea in Court Christian, concerning his lay Fee, in such a Vill, as such Plea belongs to my Crown and Dignity. Witness &c.”[441] [Footnote 441: This Writ stands also in need of a Transposition of the Capitals to render it intelligible.] CHAP. XXIII. With respect to the manner or the right of commencing or terminating these Pleas, or others in different County Courts, I forbear to speak, as well on account of the different Customs which prevail in different Counties, each observing its own peculiar Customs, as of the brevity of my proposed object, no Pleas coming within the scope of it, but those which are usually discussed in the King’s Chief Court. CHAP. XXIV. It should also be observed, that in a Writ of Right sometimes less is comprised than is inserted in the Count in Court, as well respecting the Appurtenances as other things; but sometimes more is included. Sometimes there is an Error in the Writ, as to the name inserted in it, sometimes concerning the quantity of Services. When, indeed, less is contained in the Writ than in the Count, the party cannot demand more by force of the Writ, than is comprised in it. But when more is contained in the Writ, than in the Count, the Excess which is comprised in it may be remitted, and the residue may be claimed by virtue of the Writ. But, if there be an Error in the name, then, by strictness of Law, another Writ must be sued out. But when the Error concern the quantity of service, the Writ, in strictness of Law, is also lost. Yet, as it sometimes happens, that a Tenement is demanded by less service than is due in respect of it, or than has been accustomed to be rendered to the Lord, it may be asked, whether the Lord is bound by the Writ to do right to the detriment of his own service? He is, indeed, bound; but should the Demandant happen to prevail, the Lord after Eviction may recover against the party evicting him.[442] [Footnote 442: Namely, the services really due in respect of the Tenement.] CHAP. XXV. It should also be added, that, according to the Customs of the Realm, no one is bound to answer in his Lord’s Court, concerning his Freehold Tenement, without the King’s precept, or that of his Chief Justice; I mean, if the Fee in question be a lay one.