case NUTTON against crow a writ of error direct to Thomas Lord Trevor chief  justice of our bench c and return the answer of Thomas Trevor knight chief  justice withinnamed c be void S c ante S c pale yellow salk this be a writ of  error direct to Thom lord Trevor capital justice his de banc and the return be  response Thom Trevor Mil capital justice infranominat c placita enroll in  person Thoma Trevor Mil c Whitaker sergeant move to quash this writ of error  because Thom Trevor Mil the person that return the record can not possible be  the same person with Thom dom Trevor to who the writ be direct in the case of  Orde v Moreton a Yelv a where though a record before a bishop and seven be a  record before a bishop and six yet the writ of error be quash because wrong  describe in Ferrer case b cro car b it be hold that Henry Ferrer knight and  Henry Ferrer baronet can be intend to be one and the same person Lord de la  war be case c dyer b under the name of sir t west case c be also cite in the  case of Heydon v Godsalve d cro James d a writ of error direct to Thom Fleming  capital justice ad placita be quash because the word in person we tenant  assignat be omit modern report er p if it be object that there be but one  chief justice of the common plea the answer be that a writ of error can be  direct to the chief justice by name modern report of his office but it must be  by his natural name and the reason be because if no return be make to the writ  of error there go a alias then a pluries and then a attachment which must be  direct to he by his natural name and the case be strong here because there be  no attachment against the person but the good of a peer Salkeld contra in the  case of petty v Hobson e latch e a commission of nisi prius be direct to  Francis Harvey armigero one of the justice dom beg de banc and the return be  that the trial be before Francis Harvey soldier one of the justice c yet hold  well because he may be armiger at the time of the issue out that commission  and mile at the time of the trial and because otherwise all the trial of the  circuit will be overthrow as to the case of Lord de la war that be determine  whole upon the plead he agree from the authority of the yearbook Henry and W  Jones that knight and esquire and knight and baronet can not be one and the  same person but that such a one mile and such a one dominus may be one and the  same person he quote the register b where the same person in the same writ be  call in the beginning of the writ mile and in the latter end of the writ  blockhead he quote also Savill S case f cro car f Parker chief justice with  the consent of the rest the writ of error must be quash name be for the  distinguish of petsons such a one mile and such a one dominus be two different  name and therefore to be intend different person in record and legal proceed  the whole name be to be set forth and therefore Thom Trevor will here in the  placita must be intend of such a one will who be no lord modern report as to  the case cite and the difference take between they and this videlicet that the  same person may be both mile and dominus but can be esquire and knight or  knight and baronet the true distinction be I that where this alteration have  be make in the addition and hold good both the addition have become consistent  by reason of the difference of the time since he who be esquire at the time of  the writ direct may be a knight at the return and so all those case may remain  good authority as to the register it be nothing to the purpose for the writ be  only a direction that he who at the beginning of the action be mile be now  become a Peer and that the process shall hereafter be against he as a peer  that writ do not import that the same person be at the same time both lord and  knight though that be true but that he who before be only a knight be now a  lord as to the objection that the office ascertain the person there be but one  chief justice of the common plea I answer that we must not judge by our own  knowledge or the knowledge of anybody else but by the record beside flemming  case be a full answer to this objection the case also of rider v Broderick a  pale yellow a be the same with this and the court be of the same opinion but  no judgement be enter afterward in the same term two more writ of error in the  case of full v Davis and Alexander v Symonds be quash for the same reason