case freeman against bluet a immediate officer of a court can justify under a  returnable process without show a return aliter of those who act under he S c  ld ray S c salk S c salk S c holt trespass for enter into the plaintiff house  and take away such and such his good the defendant plead that London be a  ancient city c and that time out of mind there be a court of record there tent  in person one of the sheriff which have a jurisdiction of all trespass  replevins c arise within the city that before the time mention in the  declaration videlicet such a day c a come to the say court c and there before  the sheriff levy a plaint in a plea of take and detain good against the  plaintiff and find security to prosecute it and redeliver the good if  judgement shall go against he that superinde the sheriff ad tunc et ibidem do  issue a precept to the defendant one of the sergeant at mace to the say court  command he to repleuie the say good and make a return to the say precept that  he accord do repleuie they c and deliver they to a queen be eaden transgress c  to which plea the plaintiff demurrer it be argue for the demurrer the plea be  nought for want of a return accord to the command of the precept for whoever  justify by a writ or precept must show his compliance with all its command  without which he can take advantage of it a if a officer take the good of a  outlaw person and make no return the party upon reversal of the outlawry shall  have trespass against he for his good b for he be to have do two thing one for  the advantage of the plaintiff modern report and the other for that of the  defendant and he shall not justify the one without the other and here the  plaintiff ought to have the advantage of the return which the defendant  deprive he of by make none it be true in a escape the defendant shall not take  advantage of the want of a return because his own wrong and one that act under  the officer in this case shall justify without a return because it be not in  his power to make one but here it be the officer himself who can and ought to  make a return that will justify without it and a escape will lie against this  sergeant upon execution of a process of that court but if it be upon the  execution of a latitat or other process out of the court of Westminster it  will not lie against he but against the sheriff I roll Abr then there be no  such court as they have set forth for they say it be a court hold in person  one of the sheriff and the truth be they have two distinct court and one of  they can act in the court of the other but as to the court of Westminster they  both make but one officer Trinity term in the second year of William and mary  escape lie against they both for a escape out of the compter of which they  both make but one keeper and their be judge do not hinder their be keeper too  as the mayor of many corporation be both ray do you on the other side a  sergeant at mace be but a underofficer and such be not liable to a action for  what he do by warrant of a court debt be upon a judgement and plead that the  plaintiff sue out a become facias upon that judgement and the money be levy by  virtue thereof and pay to the plaintiff and there it be say a see crew who tam  v sander stram Slade v Walter vin Abr Geary v Hopkins ld ray Mod Richard v  Patterson comy Rep king v Hollister b r h warrener v Giles stram young v Lynch  black Rep Addington v clode black Rep Folkard v Heynet black Rep king v  Shelley term Rep but see further on this subject Mr Nolans note to the case of  king v the fraternity of Hostmen in Newcastle stram where all the case be  collect a see yearbook Henry pl b yearbook Henry pl modern report er p at the  bar that it be no plea without show a return because the judgement be matter  of record ought not to be avoid but by matter of as high a nature but the  court give no opinion a the sheriff be not excusable by virtue of a become  facias without a return b for that command he to have the money in court but  he may justify by virtue of a elegit without a return quod holt to say no the  party have no injury do he for want of a return for if the plaintiff in the  replevin discontinue he have his good again and for precedent of justification  in replevin without a return he cite the old Ent raze   Ent and he put this  diversity that where the command of the writ be to deliver to the party that  sue it there needs no return otherwise modern report where it be to have it in  court and the sheriff without a sale set forth may sell upon a become facias  holt chief justice till process return the escape of a prisoner in that court  will lie against the sergeant but after return it lie against the sheriff and  as to the objection that the court be lie to be hold in person one that may be  well and take several and I believe original they be one joint court but sever  by partition and the husting in truth be the county court of the city and  wherever the sheriff justify by virtue of a mesne process he ought to show a  return there be a diversity in the case in the yearbook of Henry the seven  before put when the sheriff be by the writ command to have the party in court  there he ought to make a return but he need not do it in judicial process for  then he be only to keep he until he make satisfaction and per totan curium in  Hilary term follow the plea be clear have for want of show a return a for the  precept be returnable and command a return and in all capias ad respondend or  other mesne process to the sheriff if trespass or false imprisonment be bring  against he for execute they he can justify without show a return the diversity  be between the immediate officer of a court to who the writ or mandate be  direct and one that act under he for if he be no officer of the court but act  under he he may justify without show a return b otherwise of sheriff or other  immediate officer for he that have not show to tile court that he have do his  duty in what the process of the court require he shall not be justify by the  process vide Henry and many other book and the case of replevin be much strong  for where a plaint be levy in replevin there be a precept make thereupon to  repleuie the good and if they be replevied what shall the defendant do if  there be not a return it be true he have a day on the roll to appear and  perhaps demand the plaintiff yet if he do not appear on the return of the  precept whether the replevin be good or not the court can know what judgement  or process to award whereas if return be make and a particular of the good  give and the defendant come and make title he shall demand the plaintiff and  have judgement de returno habend but if the replevin be adjudge good the  plaintiff shall have judgement and cost or if the return be a withdraw tile  court shall award a withernam or if the party be nonsuit there shall likewise  be a returno habend if the modern report replevin be execute and justifiable  judgement shall be for the plaintiff and in order to these thing there must be  a return the first replevin and alias indeed be not returnable but be warrant  to the sheriff to repleuie and in nature of a justice and therefore one may  justify by virtue of they without a return but the pluries be returnable and  therefore if the sheriff will justify by it he ought to return otherwise one  shall have no mean to have his good again and all the case that seem against  this be of inferior officer and in case of original replevin to sheriff which  be not returnable but a justice the sheriff precept to his bailiff to summon  in the defendant be returnable and give they day in court and so by the court  judgement be give for the plaintiff a yearbook Henry pl b vide Edward pl a  same point coat v Mitchel lev Britton v coal salk Middleton v price stram will  b see bull n p modern report er p