case the king against Pritchard justice of our countypalatine of Lancaster and  justice at Lancaster shall be intend to mean the same person SC Cun a verdict  have be obtain against the defendant at the assize at Lancaster in a  information in the nature of a quo warranto to inquire by what right he hold  the office of bailiff of Liverpool among many other exception take in arrest  of judgement these three be much insist on the first be that the mittimus be  direct to the justice of our countypalatine of Lancaster and in the postea  they be only name justice at Lancaster so that the commission do not appear to  be execute by the person to who it be direct for justice at Lancaster may mean  justice of the peace there the second be that one William hill be return in  the panel annex to the venire and in the habeas corpora name William kell the  three be that this be a special jury their name ought to have be insert in the  body of the habeas corpora of special jury and trial at bar be except out of  that Act and therefore the ancient method of insert their name in the habeas  corpora shall have be observe at another day on show cause it be insist as to  the first objection that it be the establish practice and usage of those court  to describe the justice in this manner and many precedent to this purpose be  lie before the court that justice of peace can not be intend here the  description of their commission be very different as to the second objection a  affidavit be read that hill be the person strike by the master and his name  mistake only in the habeas corpora to the common case where twentythree juror  only be return which be not fatal especial here it appear that he be not one  of the person who try the information the defect if any be aid by the  Elizabeth c and the James c as it be make amendable modern as to the three  objection it be say that it do not appear upon record that there be special  jury for though the title of the panel annex to the habeas corpora modern er p  be the name of the special juror return yet that by no mean imply any such  thing it may be construe only such particular person and if it be not to be  take as a special jury then it be only a want of a sufficient number of juror  be within the resolution of gardener case   Lord Hardwicke chief justice we  must presume justice of our county palatine of Lancaster and justice at  Lancaster to be the same person these be superior court and we take notice of  their style this be the same as our justice at Westminster but lie that out of  the case we be bind by the precedent in the Bewdley case Peer wms ld raym a  there though the Act require the jury to be return de corpore comitatus and  the practice have be to return they de vicineto the court will not break into  such a establish rule and usage but hold it well in contradiction to the Act  to avoid the general ill consequence which will have attend a contrary  resolution as to the second objection if there be any occasion for a amendment  under the statute James c it must be in the court where the process issue not  here but this case be not within that Act the word there be the name of the  juryman who try the cause hill be not one of they here and this show the sense  of the legislature that there be no occasion for amendment of the name of any  juror who do not try the cause this come clear within gardener case the second  objection therefore be of no weight because hill be not one of the juryman who  try the cause the three objection may be consider two way first whether this  be to be take to be a special jury by virtue of the word the name of the  special juror return special jury before the late statute be no legal term  since the statute indeed it be a term of law take it therefore to be a special  jury this must be a habeas corpora of special jury be except out of the Act  the question then be whether this be good after verdict original writ be tie  up to certain form in the register in judicial writ it be otherwise there be  no material difference between insert the juror name in the body of the writ  and annex a panel of their name to the writ suppose it however a defect in  form it be aid by the Elizabeth c the statute whether c extend that Act to  information of this kind second take these word the name of the special juror  return not to be a sufficient foundation for we to construe this a special  jury then it come to the case of a less number return than ought to be and for  anything that appear to the contrary that may be by the direction of the judge  in pursuance of the power give he by the statute modern page justice the  reason why the mistake of a juror name in a habeas corpus bad be because one  be swear who ought not the trial be by eleven juror only and he incline to  think the omission in not insert the juror name in the habeas corpus form only  and aid by the Elizabeth c probin justice the justice of CountiesPalatine be  under two commission one under the great seal in the trial of cause which be  send down from the court of westminsterhall by mittimus and the other under  the seal of the countypalatine for cause arise within the countypalatine and  try there in bank the description of the justice act in either of those  capacity be the same and there be no room to presume there be any other the  habeas corpora the act of the court the return of the panel the act of the  sheriff if the panel be annex at the time of seal the writ the panel may be  take as part of the writ which I think can be as the annex it be the act of  the sheriff Lord Hardwicke chief justice the writ take notice of and refer to  the panel and seem to be part of the writ probin justice as this power of the  judge of order a few number of juror than fortyeight come in by way of  exception to the general provision of the Act the execution of that power  ought to appear on record lee justice I doubt whether this three exception be  proper on motion in arrest of judgement it be true it appear by the record  that less than fortyeight be modern er p return but that possible be by the  order of the judge and then there be no ground for the objection this  therefore be only proper to be inquire into on a motion for a new trial where  the fact will be lie before the court the word speciaI juror be no warrant at  all for raise a presumption of a special jury in this case if take as a  special jury the annex the panel of the juror name to the habeas corpora  instead of insert they in the body of the writ seem to be a defect in form  only Lord Hardwicke chief justice if the word special juror do not amount to a  special jury then indeed the objection be improper here but it shall be on  motion for a new trial the order of the judge c can appear on the record but  it be matter of regularity or irregularity only and to be inquire into that  way adjourn and on the last day of the term the rule be discharge