castle and Corbet vide Mr Kettleby and Mr strange move now that the defendant  may be bail upon account of the appellant have be guilty of delay in carry on  the suit they say the appellant may have take out a venire immediate after  issue join which be on the second day of the term this writ ought to be  returnable within fifteen day she may immediate after the return of that writ  have take out a writ of nisi prius returnable within fifteen more and by that  mean the trial may have come on at the sit Barnardiston king b within the term  but they have a affidavit to produce that they have search the office and find  no entry of a writ of venire be so much as take out at all they say likewise  they have no copy of the declaration give they nor any copy of the issue so  that by this practice the defendant be to lie in custody all the vacation and  yet in the first instance he show his desire of have a speedy opportunity of  clear his innocence when he do not make use of the common right he have of  have a copy of the declaration and make what advantage he can of the mistake  that may be find in it they say too the appellant have very near make a  discontinuance the other day in her suit against Mr Bambridge for when he be  bring up to have his appearance enter in pursuance of his recognizance in  tomorrow air the appellant be not here but they see we shall take advantage of  it and so they send for her Mr reeves and Mr lee argue on the other side and  say that as this proceed be by original the process can be returnable only at  the general returndays after the fifteen day from the testae they say  therefore that the first return they can have have be tomorrow Martini the  twelve of this month so that they can not try the defendant till the first sit  in next term and then they shall certain do it they say they can not see what  be mean by no entris be make of the venire they say it be a know thing that  the venire be often take out after the trial be over they observe that the  declaration and issue be both upon record they say the defendant Barnardiston  king b er p himself ought to have take a copy of they and not have a copy of  they give he in a vindictive suit of this nature but beside they say if the  proceed be not carry on with that dispatch as by law they may have be the  present suit be a appeal a suit new and difficult and therefore it be but  prudence in the plaintiff to be cautious a little in the proceed but this be  by no mean a foundation for the defendant to be bail for there ought to be a  visible neglect in the proceed for the defendant to entitle he to this favour  upon such a account the court say it be certain true that the process can be  returnable only at the general returndays and that tomorrow Martini be the  first but they say the next returnday the nisi prius may have be returnable at  be quindena Martini and that be the twentysixth of this month so that this  cause may have be try the sit within term they say the venire must be take out  in a suit by appeal and test accord to the truth and must likewise actual be  return before the writ of nisi prius they say too it ought to be test the day  that issue be join that a appeal be fresh a following and they do not know but  the not have take out the venire then may be a discontinuance Mr strange upon  this urge it that it real be one but the court say as the present motion be  only to bail the defendant they will not give their opinion upon that point  they observe likewise that if the process be returnable beyond the time that  be necessary they will not say that that will be a discontinuance but thus far  be clear it will Barnardiston king b show a delay in the suit and will be a  good foundation to bail and accord in the present case they agree that the  defendant shall be bail but the bailpiece not be fill up and the master say  that the last be settle accord to precedent and that he can not upon his  memory say what be the form of it the court order the defendant to be bring up  again by rule to morrow Mr tailor the plaintiff attorney say that he believe  the appellant need not have appear today as it be no returnday but only the  defendant move to be bring up upon a particular occasion and therefore he hope  the court will not think it necessary for her to come up to morrow and the  court seem to think she need not vide post