Liniston and Maurice.
Mich. 1652. Banc. sup.
THe Case was this,* 1.1 An Action of Trespass was brought against a Par∣son for not carrying away his Tithes in due time. The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff gave him no notice to fetch away his Tithes; the Plaintif replies that he did give him notice, but doth not shew where he gave him notice, and upon this Exception judgement was stayed: Afterwards Baldwin of the Inner Temple moved for judgement, and alleged that the not alleging the place was no Error. Nicholas Iustice, what say you to Durdens Case? Roll chief Iustice, There are many cases where the place is not material, yet, it must be alleged for the Venue.* 1.2 If Debt be brought against an Executor, and he plead fully administred; if the Plaintiff reply that he hath assets, he ought to allege the place where he hath assets: And I conceive that there ought to be a place alleged here,* 1.3 that a Iury who are nearest the place, and so may have the best knowledge of the matter, may try it, although it may be tryed in another place; but if the tryal be ill the Verdict will not help it, but there must be a new tryal, Therefore it were good to replead as to the place.