
    Shepherd against Boyce.
    
    la avowry, ia an action of replevin, where it is for partof a year’s rent, the avowant must show that the residue has been paid, or the plea is bad.
    The plaintiff brought his action of replevin, for eleven cows, one mare and colt, one cow, a steer, one piece of corn, and six tons of hay, in the court of common pleas, for Washington county, from which it was removed into this .court by certiorari. The defendant, in his plea, acknowledged the taking, &c., as bailiff of one George Wray, and justified the taking of nine cows and the hay, for rent due on a certain parcel of land, and alleged, that the rent reserved was the yearly sum of 61. 5s. commencing on the 1st day of January, 1794; and also justified the taking of the two cows and steer replevied for rent due on another parcel of land, leased for the yearly rent of 7/. 10.?. commencing the 1st day of January, 1794; and because the said sum of 17Í. 16s. Id. was and still is in arrear and unpaid to the said George Wray, on the 1st day of January, 1803, the defendant well avows, <fcc. the taking, &c. for the said sum of 17k 16s. Id. to wit, 6/. 5s. on the first piece of land, and the said sum of 117. 11s. Id. on the second piece of land. The defendant also acknowledged the taking of the mare and colt, and justified the taking, for rent due on another piece of ground, leased for the yearly rent of 5/., commencing on the 1st day of January, 1793, and because the said 10/. 10s. was and still is unpaid, he avows, &c. To this plea there was a special demurrer and joinder. The causes of demurrer assigned, were, 1. Because the defendant, in his cognizance, does not allege the taking, and the place where taken, to be within the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas ; 2. Because he does not allege the time of taking; 3. Because the commencement of the several terms are not shown; and, 4. Because the cognizances are contradictory, incongruous, and unintelligible.
    
      Z. R. Shepherd argued in support of the demurrer,
    1. The taking and placeare not alleged to be within the jurisdiction ofthe court of common pleas.
    
      [Court.
    
    It has been already decided,that it is not necessary that the defendant in his plea should allege the matter to be within the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas.]
    
    But the cause is local in its nature, and the plea in the present case, is in the nature of a declaration, and ought to contain all the certainty and precision as to time and place, which is required in a declaration. 2. No time is alleged in the plea. 3. The plea does not set forth for what years of the leases, the rent was due, so as to enable the plaintiff to reply. In an avowry for rent, it must be for an entire year, or years, or if for a part of a year, it ought to show that the residue is paid, that it may appear that the landlord is satisfied.
    
    
      Foot, contra.
    
    Avowries are entitled to favour, and ought not to be considered with so much strictness as other pleadings. The plea states the place of taking, and Uie time is to be inferred, for the avowant acknowledges the taking when,&c. asstated in the declaration. The plea . a , . . ' is well drawn, according to the precedents, which do not state the amount due, in the manner contended for by the plaintiff. All that is requisite, is to state the lease, and the sum due for rent.
    
      
      
        Brtc.Ab. replevin and avowry, IC.
      
    
    
      
      
         2Lilly’s Entries, 356. Bob. 16. Sid. 10. Oilb. on Replevin, 3d ed. 180.
    
    
      
      
         Replevin 3 d ’em 104 tftt" 4 Mod 402. 12 Mod. 84.
    
   Spencer, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The cognizance in this case justifies the taking for rent, the goods and chattels replevied, and alleges, that the yearly rent reserved on the first tract is Ql. 5s. commencing on the 1st day of January, 1794; that the rent for the second tract is 71.10s. commencing the 1st day of January, 1793; and because the said sum of 171.16s. Id. was unpaid the 1st day of January, 1803, viz. 6Z. 5s. for the first tract, and 111. 11s. Id. on the second tract, he avows, &c. How these sums are made put, it is difficult to perceive, and the defendant has not, in his cognizance, undertaken to show. The rent is annual for both pieces of land. One year’s rent for both pieces does not make the amount.— One year’s rent-of the first, with respect to which the defendant is definite, and two year’s rent of the second piece, make more than the sum of 171. 16s. Id. so that to make out that sum, there must be a part of a year’s rent included. It is settled, by the cases referred to by the plaintiff’s counsel, that there cannot be an avowry or cognizance for part of the rent, wi;hout showing that the residue is paid. On this principle, the plaintiff must have judgment, unless the defendant elects to amend, on payment of costs.

Judgment for the plaintiff.  