case the king against Seymour RICHMOND a attachment lie against a townclerk  for attach and sell good bring improper into the market of the town instead of  take bail from the offender wonder answer the charge at attachment be grant  last term against the defendant Richmond unless cause be show c for that he be  townclerk of Wallingford have attach so much meal in the market there in sack  and have sell the same under colour of the say attachment when the owner will  have give a appearance to the suit for which his good be thus attach and upon  complaint make by the say owner to the mayor and burgess there he the say  defendant be order to deliver the meal to the owner upon give a appearance as  aforesaid but the defendant refuse to deliver the meal and say that the owner  shall never have his meal again and now be show this cause why a attachment  shall not go against he videlicet he make a affidavit that he be townclerk of  that borough and that when he make modern report er p out the order to attach  the meal be think it a good order and that if the mayor and burgess make any  order for the defendant to deliver the meal to the owner such order be only  verbal and not in write and that a verbal order can not supersede one in write  and that if he have offer any contempt to such verbal order he ought to be  modern report punish there where the suppose offence be do and not by  attachment to which it be answer that where a officer of a inferior court  abuse the process of that court to the oppression of any person he may be  punish by this court and that the defendant have issue out a attachment as the  very first process it be altogether irregular and then afterward to make use  of it as a execution be still worse and a apparent oppression and his have  sell the meal by virtue of that attachment contrary to the express order of  the mayor and his declare that the owner shall never have it again show he  have a design to oppress he it be true he swear that he have only a verbal  order to deliver the meal but yet that can be no excuse to he because he be  the very person be the townclerk who shall have enter that order in write the  court the rule be for a attachment nisi causan c and the ground of that rule  be for oppress a stranger and if this be not deny as it be not by the  affidavit then the defendant be guilty of this oppression so the rule be make  absolute