arnold against Bingham a writ of second deliverance be a supersedeas to a  return habendum sue out after though returnable before it in replevin bring by  Arnold against Bingham the plaintiff be nonsuit wherefore the defendant have a  writ de return habendum award in Michaelmas term h returnable on the octave of  saint Hilary and the writ be deliver of record to the under sheriff on the  that day of November and the entry of the record of the nonsuit dyer be that  afterward to wit on the that day of November in the same term come the  aforesaid plaintiff and pray the writ of our lord the king of second  deliverance and it be grant he returnable on the morrow of the purification  dyer b er p and on the octave of saint Hilary the sheriff return upon the  return habendum that the plaintiff have eloigned the cattle wherefore c and on  the morrow of the purification the writ of second deliverance be return that I  have cause to be deliver to the aforesaid plaintiff his cattle and then the  party appear and plead to issue and it be find for the plaintiff in lend last  pass and it be allege in arrest of judgement that the second deliverance do  not lie in this case because it appear by the return of the sheriff that the  plaintiff himself have eloigned the cattle which be a personal tort wherefore  the withernam lie against he and for this reason the second deliverance do not  lie when it appear that the plaintiff himself be in possession of the cattle  wherefore c and the judge doubt of this second deliverance may be sue after a  withernam award to the defendant of the first distress where it be return that  the beast be eloigned the second deliverance shall be of the beast take by  distress and not of beast take by withernam dyer b and Keilway of the Inner  temple say that he have a report in h Keilway b that such a case be well argue  and it be rule that the second deliverance lie not and for the same reason  give above And yet at last it be agree that Arnold shall recover his damage  for the second deliverance be for no purpose but to revive the first plaint  and be a supersedeas of the writ de return habendum and also it appear by the  entry that the return habendum be award to the sheriff after the second  deliverance pray in which case the sheriff have no power to serve the reborn  habendum but only the second deliverance and although he return this on the  octave of saint Hilary that the beast be eloigned this be without warrant and  his hand be close by the second deliverance although it be return afterward S  on the morrow of the purification and also all the prothonotaries except  Rokewood say that it be the common practice to award the second deliverance in  such case to avoid the mischief of a withernam and so say penny and all the  atorneys a return to a writ of proclamation upon a exigent under h c make by  the sheriff out of office be void east Elizabeth sir Robert Sailsburys case if  one who be not sheriff return the writ and then judgement be give this be  error but if it be return by two and one of they be not sheriff as be the case  of the sheriff of London that return may be amend and make good and so it be  adjudge James m Elizabeth b r palmer v porter and march cro Elizabeth more  action upon the case that whereas plaintiff have recover in debt against I c  and have a to know facias c and that the sheriff make his warrant to the  defendant bailiff of the will who have the return of writ c who return that  the defendant have nothing c when in truth he have good to the value of the  debt and that by reason of their false return he be damage c and the jury find  all in certain but that before the day of the return they be discharge of  their office and new bailiff elect and that after that one of the defendant  return the writ in the name of both and deliver it to the sheriff for a return  to the court c and judgement against the plaintiff for the return by they  though not true be no return but it be agree by Popham and the other judge  that if the plaintiff have not so direct conclude by reason of which false  return c he may well have maintain his action note that in Trin h rot a writ  of proclamation be award into the county of York upon a exigent which be  returnable on the octave of saint Martin and on that day the defendant be  return accord to the statute of the now king make in the that year of his  reign c by Francis Frobisher Knt sheriff of the county of York and because it  sufficient appear to the justice that before the say octave of saint Martin  the say Francis be entire discharge from the office of sheriff of the say  county it seem to the say justice that that return be not sufficient in law  wherefore by the say statute the say outlawry in dyer a er p form aforesaid  proclaim and have against the say defendant be whole void and of no strength  or effect in law therefore let no proceed he have upon the say outlawry c dyer  michaelmas term Henry