case munes versus GOMECERA in court Lord chancellor eoden die see ant Cas post  Cas Mr lutwych for the plaintiff we be to show cause to your lordship why  these writ of error shall not be supersede this be the first motion ever be  make of this kind and I do not know that it have be ever determine that a writ  of error shall be supersede lest the defendant in the exchequer Chamber lose  the benefit of a release of error or that if a release shall de plead there  that court can not try it they say further that the plaintiff agree not to  bring writ of error but there be no cause in this court nor be this agreement  make a order of this court then indeed if the plaintiff have bring these writ  a attachment will have issue against he for his contempt but we swear we make  no such agreement and this court will not take notice of extrajudicial  agreement they may as well move to stop action on suppose agreement not to  bring they no the party must defend mosely report er p himself as well as be  can or bring his action on the promise beside the defendant proceed so far on  these writ that he insist on bail and make they justify in open Kurt which be  a submission to the writ of error Mr will the counsel for the defendant have  assign two reason why these writ of error shall be supersede first because  mosely report the plaintiff give release of error but this be of no weight  they allow it will not be of any if the writ be returnable into any other  court than the exchequer Chamber but since the statute give they a power to  examine the judgement if a release implead it be a necessary consequence that  they can try it or at least your lordship on this motion will not determine  whether they can or no second because the plaintiff agree not to bring writ of  error which indeed will have be a reasonable cause if the defendant have  immediate apply to your lordship and the agreement have be uncontroverted but  he insist on bail in b b which be a admittance of our have a right to bring  these writ and he be now safe and sure of his money at all event Mr strange  two for the defendant swear there be a agreement not to bring writ of error  and three on our side swear there be no such agreement and a writ of error may  be bring notwithstanding a agreement to the contrary unless it be make a rule  of court and a release of error be wide different from a agreement not to  bring error and be only to secure the party from any nicety and they allow  this will not be a sufficient foundation to move to supersede these writ if  they be returnable into b b but that it be because they be returnable into the  exchequer Chamber which can try a matter of fact but that be not true indeed  error in fact do not lie there by the statute because the party may bring a  writ of error in fact in person thou in b b in temple and ullocks case side  Cas a release of error be plead and they go to trial on it and there will  otherwise be a failure of justice but if we shall allow all they say the  defendant proceed on the bail have authenticate these writ Lord chancellor  there be no necessity to erect a new judicature for error in fact for the  reason give by Mr strange but if a matter of fact in the exchequer Chamber be  plead in bar to a writ of error and be put in issue they can try it as a  necessary incident and I remember one of the baron tell I that a fact be plead  in bar to a writ of error the exchequer Chamber resolve to have try it if the  party have not come to a agreement let it be speak to again on Friday next