(1) The conclusion of the plea of the statute of limitations with a verification, though usual, is not necessary. The new matter in the plea being negative need not be proved, and an offer therefore to verify (that is, to prove) it cannot be requisite. The proper conclusion of the plea seems to be, “ wherefore the defendant prays judgment if the plaintiff ought to have his aforesaid action against him;” leaving out the words usually inserted, “and this ho is ready to verify.” Bodenham v. Hill, 7M. & W. 274. A conclusion to the country would be evidently wrong. Where a plea of the statute of limitations concludedto the country, *563and issue was joined thereon, the defendant, after verdict against him, moved for a new trial. Parke, B., said: “ The difficulty is, there is here a negative and no affirmative: there is nothing on the record equivalent to an averment that the cause of action was within the six years.” New trial granted, with leave to the parties to amend their pleadings. Wheatley v. Williams, 1 M. & W. 533. Again; to a plea of set-off, the plaintiff replied the statute of limitations, concluding to the country, and the defendant added the similiter. The defendant, after verdict against him, moved for a repleader on the ground that there was no proper issue. Alderson, B., said: “ The plea of set-off doep not contain any statement that the matter arose within six years. Then the replication states that the plaintiff was not indebted, for the causes of set-off did not accrue within six years. If you add to that by a rejoinder that they did accrue within six years, then there is a definite issue, but not before.” New trial granted, with leave to both parties to amend. Spong v. Wright, 9 M. & W. 629.