The Law of ejectments, or, A treatise shewing the nature of ejectione firme the difference between it and trespass, and how to be brought or removed where the lands lie in franchises ... as also who are good witnesses or not in the trial of ejectment ... together with the learning of special verdicts at large ... very necessary for all lawyers, attornies, and other persons, especially at the assizes &c.

If the Defendant refuse to confess Lease, Entry, and Ouster, the Rules are thus:

Where the Defendant was by Rule of Court at the Tryal (which was to be at the Bar) to appear and confess Lease,* 1.1 Entry and Ouster, and to stand upon the Title only, yet at the Tryal he would not appear; up∣on which the Plaintiff was Non-suit, and yet Judgment was for the Plaintiff upon the Rule, and he was ordered to pay the Jury.

And in Davies's Case, 13 Car. 2. B. R. H. de∣sired to be made Defendant, confessing Lease, Entry and Ouster, and at the Tryal resolved so to do; but the Court denied that he should pay Costs, because thereby the Plaintiff hath recovered, and so hath the Fruit of his Suit.* 1.2 But in Williams and Hall's Case, on Tryal at Bar the Defendants refused to confess Lease, En∣try and Ouster, per quod the Plaintiff was Non-suited; and it was moved, that in regard the Default was the Defendant's, that the Plaintiff might have Attachment against the Defendant, according to the Course of the Common Bench, which the Court granted. So upon a Judgment a∣against his own Ejector in default of con∣fessing Lease, Entry and Ouster, without a special Rule, no Costs shall be paid by H. the Tenant in Possession that made this Default, because the Plaintiff hath Bene∣fit of his Suit (viz.) Judgment against the Ejector, whereby he may recover Possession. Stiles p. 425. 13 Car. 2 B. R. 15 Car. 2. B. R. 1 Keb. 242.

The Form of the Rule of Confessing Lease, Entry and Ouster in B. sR. & B. C. Vide infra.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Of the Defen∣dant's Refusal to confess Lease, Entry and Ouster.
• * 1.2

  To pay no Costs.