case peter pender plaintiff John herl defendant in error and march the court  of b r have allow the sufficiency of a return to a writ of mandamus and  therefore refuse to grant a peremptory writ the party apply bring his writ of  error in parliament but it be hold that no writ of error lie in this case it  be mere a award of the court and not a strict formal judgement after judgement  of ouster against the present plaintiff have be give I brown p c p Mr Pender  without any other election move for and obtain a writ of mandamus from the  court of king bench direct to the present defendant as be the last mayor of  the borough of Penryn before the election of Penhallow command brown he to  administer to the say Peter Pender the oath for the faithful execution of the  say office of mayor and the other oath in such case use and also to admit and  swear he into the say office or show cause to the contrary brown er p  whereupon the defendant in his return to this writ set forth the letter patent  information plead trial verdict and judgement already state and he further  certify and aver that the election of the say Peter Pender into the office of  mayor in this return mention and in his plead to the say information also  mention be one and the same election that the say Peter Pender at any time  before or after the say election have not be elect into the say place or  office of mayor of the say borough of Penryn in the say writ mention and that  therefore he the say defendant can not nor ought to administer to the say  Peter Pender the oath for the execution of the say office of mayor and the  other oath aforesaid or to admit and swear he into the say office the matter  of this return come to be argue in the say court of king bench in easter term  the court be unanimous of opinion that the return be good and sufficient in  law and therefore allow the same and refuse to grant a peremptory mandamus  whereupon Pender bring his writ of error in parliament insist that this  judgement be erroneous and ought to be reverse t Lutwyche t Hussey in regard  it appear both by the verdict of the jury and by the return itself that he be  rightful elect into the say office of mayor and that no other person have be  elect or swear into that office since nor can be unless he be swear and admit  in pursuance of such his election on the other side it be in the first place  submit p York c Wearg whether any writ of error lie in the present case which  be mere a award of the court and not a strict formal judgement but if such  writ of error do proper lie it be contend that the allowance of the return be  just and accord to the rule of law for that after the judgement of ouster be  regular give against Pender his whole right under that election be extinguish  in consequence of his own misbehaviour and usurpation in act without be swear  and he be total forejudged of all claim under such election can not have any  right to the say office of mayor or ever intermeddle therein unless upon a new  election subsequent to the say judgement it be therefore pray that this writ  of error may be quash or that the proceed in the court of king bench may be  affirm with cost after hear counsel on this writ of error and read a judgement  of the house date the saint of April in the follow word videlicet after hear  counsel to argue the error assign upon a writ of error between the dean and  chapter of Dublin plaintiff and the king defendant wherein the unanimous  opinion of all the judge then brown present be mention videlicet that no writ  of error will lie upon the award of a peremptory mandamus it be order and  adjudge that this writ of error be bring upon proceed at commonlaw only on a  writ of mandamus shall be quash jour vol p