case the king against theed a writ of excom in a suit in in pain pro  reformation et correction morum be too general S c stram the court be move to  supersede a writ de excommunicate to take in hand the objection to the writ be  that it be too general and that it do not appear that the cause for which the  party be to be imprison by the writ de excommunicate to take in hand be of  spiritual conusance modern report for it be only in in pain concern the  correction and reformation of manner to this it be say that the same  strictness be not require in writ as in libel and further it be much insist  upon that he be say to be excommunicate accord to the canon and the case of  the king v Toseland and the king v foul b salk b be quote but the court be  clear of opinion that the writ be too general c see also king v cap easter  term Geo and Reg v hill salk c then it be insist upon that the motion for the  supersedeas be make too early because it be make before the sheriff have  return the writ and to this purpose siderfin be cite Parker chief justice this  be a writ which issue out of chancery returnable into this court and be  deliver to the sheriff in the presence of the justice and this whole matter be  enter upon record now when the court of chancery have issue out this writ and  it be deliver to the sheriff the chancery if apply to for a supersedeas will  probable say they have nothing to do with it and then if the court of king  bench can grant a supersedeas before the return the consequence will be that a  subject may for a long interval of time videlicet between the delivery of the  writ to the sheriff and his return be wrongful deprive of his liberty without  possibility of redress the command to the sheriff to execute the writ be the  command of the king and the question be whether this court shall let the  sheriff execute that writ when the execution of it be entrust to they and a  entry of record make of it where the writ appear to the court to have issue  out erroneous modern report certain this court may have quash it before it be  deliver to the sheriff a strong therefore now for it be no more than for we to  correct our own mistake by call back a writ that issue through our oversight  modern report er p Eyre justice the return of the habeas corpus have no  relation to the writ de excommunicate to take in hand which entire destroy the  authority of the case in siderfin I take this court to be possess of the cause  by the entry of the writ upon record and delivery over to the sheriff the writ  that go out of this court if they issue erroneous be frequent supersede before  the return though those be writ as much out of the hand of the court as this  writ Pratt justice I take the reason of the provision that this writ issue out  of chancery and returnable into this court must first be open in this court  and in the presence of the justice of this court be deliver to the sheriff  exeguend to be a provision in favour of the liberty of the subject that a  subject may not be deprive of his liberty by writ that issue of course out of  chancery until such time as the judge of this court see whether he have  deserve it or not to say this writ can be supersede before the return be as  much as to say that this court shall not correct their own mistake until the  mistake have occasion as much mischief as possible it can Parker chief justice  this writ be actual enter upon record for the entry be take a little to be in  the presence of the justice to the sheriff exequend the writ that issue out of  this court be never enter at large upon record before the return though in  strictness they ought but here the writ be always enter at large modern report  the supersede of our own writ before the return be a sufficient proof that  writ may be supersede though not in court the obligation of the sheriff to  execute this writ result from a act of this court and ought therefore to be  subject to the control of this court it be a general rule that whenever the  court be possess of a record they will proceed upon it and upon this ground it  be that if the plaintiff in a appeal become nonsuit the court will  nevertheless oblige the party to plead to it in fact these writ have not be  supersede before their return but I see no reason why they may not a  supersedeas be grant accord