case the weaver company who tam versus hayward June a action bring on the  callico act in which the plaintiff serve the defendant with a copy of a writ  instead of a special capias and afterward get the cursitor to alter the return  of the original the alteration be erroneous and the writ must be supersede SC  cite post this come on upon the motion of the attorney general who move to  stay proceed upon a original writ test the d of November returnable the octave  of saint Hilary the testae be within the six month limit by Geo c see the  callico act for the bring of the action on that statute instead of summons and  pone or special capias which pay no stamp duty they serve the defendant with a  copy of the writ and afterward apply to the cursitor to alter the return of  the original the first objection make by the defendant be that this alteration  be erroneous and that it be of consequence to the stamp duty Mr Noel for the  plaintiff in the original action cite the case of loan versus Coveney in to  show this court consider itself as a officina narrow places and that it will  not enter into the question whether this writ be execute or not Treblecocks  case march with Tr atk a a human being replegiando issue out of this court and  be returnable in the court of king bench and be returnable there the court  will not enter into the irregularity Philips versus Philips December there a  application be make to this court for a original writ to warrant a judgement  upon the statute of bribery and corruption after a verdict and where error be  bring for want of that original and though this case be say to be except out  of the statute of jeofails yet hold that though the statute of jeofails be  material in application to this court as a officina narrow places the  objection in point of revenue be not of weight in a mere matter of discretion  as this be where the party will be total deprive of his action Mr clark cite  finch upon judicial process that where a original be return tarde a alias or  pluries original will go but if no return then it must issue out of this court  and for this purpose mention dyer atkins Lord chancellor I be of opinion it  ought to be supersede I can quash it unless error appear on the face of the  writ vide woodcraft v kinaston ante atkins er p atk vol and then the proper  way will be by plea in the court where it be returnable I will take up the  second objection first in order to la it out of the case for this be not a  motion to censure the attorney or the party but to supersede the writ only if  it be nothing more than a offence against the stamp act it will be no  sufficient ground to supersede the writ the officer and party will be liable  to penalty as in the case of a deed which be not to be make use of till the  duty pay and yet it be the deed of the party however I be of opinion it be  such a original writ as the stamp duty be Payable on for I understand the  exception to be of such a original as the capias necessary issue on nay of one  on which it be at the party election to take out a capias and there the duty  ought to be pay it be in order to preserve the jurisdiction of this court and  the cursitor office that this exception be take for otherwise it will be pay  double duty both on the original and capias the stamp act do not intend to  exclude all amendment of writ for that will be grievous the first clause of  the stamp act relate to where another writ be write on the same piece of  vellum or parchment and I be of opinion that on a information or action it  must appear to be another writ and the other part relate to erasure refer to a  fraudulent one if the officer of the stamp duty think this practice contrary  to law they ought to apply for a general regulation as to the other question I  be of opinion this writ ought not to have be so alter if nothing have be do on  this writ it will have bring it to the question concern its be do by write it  over de to make new or by interlineation or erasure in which practice it be  admit that if a original writ have be execute it can be do now what be such a  execution as to prevent a alteration of it atkins if it have be lie in the  attorney hand and so in the party power that will be one thing and if the  service of this copy be void be to be look on as no service a party may always  avoid a irregular execution of his own writ and get it alter suppose it have  be carry to the sheriff and he have return it improper will that have be a  execution to be sure it will this have not be carry to the sheriff yet this  copy though a irregular service because not warrant by Geo be still a  execution of this writ nay it be actual specify in the copy what the return of  this writ be can he afterward alter the return suppose the plaintiff have  declare upon this process and have obtain judgement all the proceed be subject  to be set aside yet by this doctrine he may resort to the office for a  alteration as to the case of Philips versus Philips the process be not by  original but by capias and he afterward want a original to warrant his  judgement and hold there be no difference as to action who tam and other  action as to this point there he have begin his action in time here the  plaintiff will take out a original out of time his lordship direct the writ to  be supersede