
    Everitt against De Groff.
    On inquest ksue^wiff ^olne‘d‘thou»h no similiter be of the Reneral issue, if (fee/1 be ad-words« and of this he puts tto country' In such a case, “&c.” shall be construed to mean a simile-^er"
    
    In assumpsit, the plea was the general issue, which con-eluded thus : “ And of this he puts himself upon the conntry, &c.” omitting to add, “ and the said plaintiff likewise.” And the plaintiff, without adding a similiter, proceeded and took an inquest by default ¡ which, for that cause, it was now moved to set aside,
    
      W. W. Bogardus, for the motion,
    
      Rugglcs Bulkley, contra,
   Curia.

The issue is sufficiently joined. &c.” at the close of the plea, shall he construed in this case to mean evcry necessary matter that ought to be expressed; and so are several authorities. (Co. Litt. 17 b. Per Ld. Mansfield & Aston, J. in Sayer v. Boyer, Cowp. 407.) We, accordingly, construe it to mean a similiter.

Motion denied. 
      
      
         Vid. Harris’ case, Cro. Jac. 502, and Berton v. Mandell, id. 67, 3 Burr. 1793, Statute of amendments and jeofails, 1 R. L. 118-19, that the J ustices shall proceed to give judgment upon a verdict, notwithstanding: a misjoining of the issue.
     