7. “[W]herefore he prays judgment if the said Thomas ought to be admitted, against his own acknowledgment, to say.” Plaintiff in his replication had traversed defendant’s claim of payment. Thus the replication already had created an issue, and defendant’s rejoinder could not be one of the three responses described in the Overview of Common Law Pleading; it is a plea of estoppel, and as stated in Saunders’ argument waives the issue created by the traverse in plaintiff’s replication. Why was this rejoinder “bad”? Did it allege that the award had been paid?