MAXIMS OF THE LAW. 155 



be the person that payeth me the foresaid rent of ten 

 shillings, yet it is void ; and so it is of all other rules of 

 exposition of grants, when they meet in opposition with this 

 rule, they are preferred. 



Now to examine this rule in pleadings as we have done 

 in grants, you shall find that in all imperfections of plead 

 ings, whether it be in ambiguity of words and double in- 

 tendments, or want of certainty and averments, the plea 

 shall be strictly and strongly against him that pleads. 



For ambiguity of words, if in a writ of entry upon dis- 22 11. 6. 43. 

 seisin, the tenant pleads jointenancy with I. S. of the gift 

 and feoffment of I. D. judgment de brief e, the demandant 

 saith that long time before I. D. anything had, the deman 

 dant himself was seised in fee quousque predict I. D. super 

 possessionem ejus intravit, and made a joint feoffment, where 

 upon he the demandant reentered, and so was seised until 

 by the defendant alone he was disseised ; this is no plea, 

 because the word intravit may be understood either of a 

 lawful entry, or of a tortious; and the hardest against 

 him shall be taken, which is, that it was a lawful entry ; 

 therefore he should have alleged precisely that I. D. dis- 

 seisivit. 



So upon ambiguity that grows by reference, if an action 3 Ed. 6. 

 of debt be brought against I. N. and I. P. sheriffs of Lon- D y- 66 - 

 don, upon an escape, and the plaintiff doth declare upon 

 an execution by force of a recovery in the prison of Ludgate 

 sub custodia I. S. et I. D. then sheriffs in 1 K. H. VIII. 

 and that he so continued sub custodia I. B. et I. G. in 

 2 K. H. VIII. and so continued sub custodia I. N. et I. L. 

 in 3 K. H. VIII. and then was suffered to escape ; I. N. 

 and I. L. plead, that before the escape, supposed at such a 

 day anno superius in narratione specificato, the said I. D. 

 and I. S. ad tune vicecomites suffered him to escape; this 

 is no good plea, because there be three years specified in 

 the declaration, and it shall be hardest taken that it was 

 1 or 3 H.VIII. when they were out of office ; and yet it is 

 nearly induced by the ad tune vicecomites, which should 

 leave the intendment to be of that year in which the decla 

 ration supposeth that they were sheriffs; but that sufficeth 

 not, but the year must be alleged in fact, for it may be it 

 was mislaid by the plaintiff, and therefore the defendants 

 meaning to discharge themselves by a former escape, which 

 was not in their time, must allege it precisely. 



For incertainty of intendment, if a warranty collateral be 26 II. 8. 

 pleaded in bar, and the plaintiff by replication, to avoid 



