case peters against Benning Writ of error ad neighbor sitting parliament and  before that time it be dissolve and day fix for the meeting of a new one and  term intervene whether a supersedeas of execution per holt the record be not  remove a writ of error ad neighbor sitting in parliament and before that time  the parliament by proclamation be dissolve and day fix for the meeting of a  new one and upon motion the question be whether this writ be a supersedeas of  execution or even can be a warrant to send up the record to the new parliament  there be no term intervene between the return of the writ and the time fix for  the parliament meeting and first it be modern report agree on that the court  can take no notice of any extrajudicial determination or order of the lord and  per holt chief justice if a impeachment be in one parliament and some proceed  thereon and then the parliament be dissolve and a new one call there may be a  continuance upon the impeachment a and be quote the case of James v Bertly a  where a writ of error be test the four of may returnable the nineteenth of  November follow to which time the parliament be prorogue so a see the statute  will mary c king v woodfall stram king v Davis hawk p c that edit ch S accord  but be be not entitle to cost beyond the extent of the recognizance king v  filewood term Rep king v brook term Rep and to deprive the defendant of cost  the certificate must be enter on the postea Wilson v Crablington comb a the  question relative to the nature and continuance of parliamentary impeachment  be very elaborate discuss in the case of warren Hastings Esq in the house of  Commons on a motion make the that of December and afterward in the house of  lord and it be determine in both house that a dissolution of the parliament do  not discontinue a impeachment see a very full account of this case vol of Mr  sergeant Runningtons that edit of hale hist corn law note page to and the  history of the trial of warren Hastings part IV publish by Debrett vo a easter  term will mary James v Berkeley comb modern report er p that a whole term  intervene and he say it be his opinion they may sue out execution  notwithstanding that writ and he remember to have know it rule in Keeling and  hale time that a writ of error be no supersedeas after a prorogation if a term  intervene vide keb vent and the case in cro be say to be in point that a writ  of error and all the proceed thereon be determine by the dissolution of a  parliament vide lane Henry pl Br err pl that the plaintiff in error be not  bailable in parliament for two reason one that if the judgement shall be  affirm they can not award execution on the recognizance second if the  parliament shall be dissolve before anything do all matter depend before the  parliament will be thereby determine likewise a transcript of the record and  not the very record itself be before the lord upon a writ of error and in that  it differ from a writ of error from Ireland or from the common plea into this  court where in the one case the execution be to be award here but in the other  case it be not so for the necessity of the thing because the king writ run not  into Ireland the course be to send a mandate to the chief justice of Ireland  to grant execution vide Jo b that dissolution determine error actual depend  ray that a prorogation and a whole term intervene be a supersedeas of a writ  of error in parliament and so of a dissolution though the error have be assign  if before the transcript be leave above the parliament be dissolve the writ be  no supersedeas of execution but if it have be leave above the dissolution will  be a supersedeas of it but the writ of error will not be discontinue there be  a day certain for the meeting of a new parliament by the very act of  dissolution it may be a question if a writ of error ad neighbor parliament  when a parliament be to meet at a day certain be a supersedeas though a term  do not interpose between the testae of the writ and the titne fix for the  meeting modern report of the parliament by the dissolution of the former  parliament but the chief justice say that as the present case be the writ in  question can not be a authority to carry up the record neither can the lord be  legal possess of it by virtue of that writ and he say in case of prorogation  the writ of error be returnable ad prsens parliament but in case of  adjournment it be ad present session and after all here the court leave they  to do what they can by law