"And be it further enacted, That where an information of intrusion may fitly and aptly be brought on the King's behalf, that no scire facias shall be brought, whereunto the subject shall be forced to a special pleading, and be deprived of the grace intended by this Act."
It is, in general, sufficient for the defendant to shew a mere legal title to possession only ; and it will suffice if he shew a right to possession concurrently with the King, as where the defendant pleaded that she had a jointure of a third, without answering to the residue[1]. The defendant must, of course, plead a sufficient legal title[2]; otherwise, the Attorney-General may demur: though it is said, that if instead of so doing, he take issue on a fact stated in the plea, which is found against the King, the defect cannot afterwards be taken ad- vantage of[3].
The King may traverse all the different facts stated in the defendant's plea[4]; and if the plea allege a title, which avoids the possession in the King supposed by the information, the King need not, at least where he is entitled by matter of record, maintain the information, but may traverse the title alleged by the plea[5].
The Crown has the privilege of waiving his count, and de- claring de novo, even after plea or demurrer ; but only, it seems, during the Term in which the original declaration was made[6], though the King may amend at any time, paying costs[7].
The judgment for the King in an information for intrusion is, that the defendant be amoved from the possession; and for damages, in case damages be found, for any particular trespasses committed by the defendant, as cutting
trees, &c.[8].
After
- ↑ Mo. 370, 376. 5 Bac. Ab. 567, Prerogative, E. 7.
- ↑ Sav. 34, 48. Dyer, 238.
- ↑ Dyer, 238, b.
- ↑ Sav. 19.
- ↑ Ibid. 61. Vaugh. 64. 16 Vin. 538. 6 Com. Dig. 74. See post, ch. 13. s. 3. div. 3. Traverse of office; Pleadings on Extents.
- ↑ Bro. Ab. Prerog. pl. 13, 15; Variance, pl. 79. Vin. Ab. Prerog. 25. Vaugh. 62, &c.
- ↑ Ibid. Vin. Ab. 10 Mod. 200. 3 Anstr. 714.
- ↑ Sav. 35, 49. In Hardr. 460, 462, it is also said "that the judgment shall be quod capiatur pro fine, and thereupon there shall be an injunction for the
