shewn at the time of the arrest, the plaintiff ought not to have said, that he was not taken by this warrant but that there was not any such warrant. But the replication is not good in point of substance; for the plaintiff seems to intend, that the warrant by which he was arrested was unlawful, yet the plaintiff shall not have advantage of it, if there was another warrant which was lawful to take him at the same time; for if there are two warrants, the one lawful and the other unlawful, and the party is taken upon the illegal warrant, yet he who apprehends him may justify himself by the authority of the legal warrant; and this appears by the case Mich 34 Ed. 1 Fitz. Avowry, 232 cited 3 Co. 26. a. If a man takes a distress for a thing for which he has not good cause of distress, but had good cause of distress for another thing; if a replevin is brought, and he comes into court, he may avow for which thing he pleases. Then it was considered whether the plea of the defendants was good; to which it had been objected that it was ill for the uncertainty; for the cause of the commitment being traversable ought to be alleged with certainty. Secondly, That by the plea it appears, that the plaintiff was fined and imprisoned also; the censors (of the college of Physicians the defendants) have authority to impose a fine, and to imprison for non-payment of that fine, or they may imprison for the offence; but they cannot both fine and imprison for the same offence, as in this case; for it does not appear that the imprisonment was for non-payment of the fine but the plaintiff was both fined and imprisoned, and so was twice punished for one offence. Thirdly, the plea does not shew that the plaintiff was one of the college. Fourthly, The plea makes no answer to the assault; it does not shew that there was any assault, or set forth any justification of it. But Holt C. J. said that the Court held the plea to be good, for it goes to the whole declaration; as to the battery and wounding the defendants plead not guilty, as to the residue of the trespass they justify; and the residue of the trespass comprehends the assault, and every other part of the declaration to which the plea (of not guilty) does not extend: and there is no need that the plaintiff should be of the college; for it appears that he exercised his faculty within London and the censors have jurisdiction within London and the suburbs, and seven miles in circumference; and it appears by the words of the Charter, that the censors have power to punish by fine and imprisonment; and how they exercise that authority we do not enquire, as it will be apparent afterwards in the answer to the first objection, and which is the most material one. In answer to the first objection, then, we say, First that the cause of the commitment is not traversable. Secondly if it were traversable, it is set forth with certainty enough. That the cause of commitment is not traversable appears by the authority which the censors