case the king against the bishop OF meath and other proceed in quare hinder  this be a writ of error upon a judgement in a quare hinder out of Ireland  there be two exception take oh the writ of error by the counsel for the  defendant in error the first be that the return to the writ of error be by  Richard Cox Mil and not capital justice Salkeld sergeant in answer to this  quote several entry a he quote coke Ent Pla Pla Pla Pla a in some of which no  response at all but only record et process de who c to follow in hc word in  some the name of the judge infra nominate and no more and produce in court  several precedent of return to writ of error out of Ireland in the very same  manner as in the principal case he urge that whenever any record come into  court the time for debate whether the record be return by a proper officer be  the first term for if it remain a term undisputed it must be take for grant  that it be return by a proper officer No officer but a sheriff and that by the  statute of York be oblige to set his name to the return modern report the  return of a record by a judge of a inferior court to a superior court be not a  judicial act but a ministerial one the second be that the writ of error be  quid cum c per breve nostrum de quare hinder whereas the word of the writ be  quod to let pass Self prsentare c and there be no such writ as quare hinder  Salkeld sergeant answer to this that Bracton b bract b distinguish between the  writ of quod to let pass and quare hinder that quod to let pass be either a  antiquate writ or take away by some old statute now lose and he cite the  statute Edward c and Maynard a maynard Edward the second in mich Edward folio  a to prove there never be such a writ as quod to let pass in all judicial  record it be call a quare hinder so also in writ of inquiry so also in writ to  the bishop de allotment of land admittend b rastal Ent pl and raze Ent b the  book call officina narrow places c off Bre page c and thesau narrow places d  these Bre page d call it a quare hinder and so do many statute if now in  statute and in judicial record it be know by the name of quare hinder why may  it not in writ of error the sergeant then go on to take exception to the  original record first though in a quare hinder both the plaintiff and the  defendant may be actor that must be understand when both be out of possession  for when the defendant be in possession the plaintiff can recover unless he  make a title and the defendant be not oblige either to make a title or become  actor second in a quare hinder the plaintiff must set forth both seize and  vacancy but here he have fail in both modern report as to seize the  declaration stand thus seisitus to be et inadvocatione church here the et  couple nothing and seisitus refer to nothing as to the vacancy the record be  thus church prd vacavi per surrendering c now this be plead a consequence  without set forth the Act of which this be a consequence it ought to have be  plead thus that the parson be make a bishop or advance to a live incompatible  c as the fact be per quod church prd vacavi three the conclusion be et hoc a  preparation be verify instead of ind to lead forth sectan and so no suit  before the court this be not mere matter of form fourthly that the venire be  returnable upon a day certain whereas in a quare modern report er p hinder it  ought to have be returnable upon one of the common return day e Noy e this  therefore be a discontinuance and not help by the statute of Jeofails because  the king be party f tutchin case salk f Mr Denton contra first as to the  objection about seize the word et may be leave out or transpose thus et de fee  et de jure second as the objection concern the vacancy and the a preparation  verify admit of this answer that advantage may possible have be take of they  by demurrer which advantage be lose by take issue three as to the venire it be  answer that there be two venires and to the first there be a entry of sheriff  non to cause to go breve and the second be returnable upon a common return day  the court the objection of the seize be the strong for it be nonsense ab  present and every thing may be cure by leave out and put in possible in  transcribe the record de be omit and if the fact be so it modern report may be  set right by a certiorari de et inadvocatione will be well as to the omission  of the ind to lead forth sectan this will have excuse the defendant in not  answer but in fact he have answer it as to the call of the writ quare hinder  instead of quod to let pass the fact be that there be former a writ of quare  hinder now out of use and the writ quod to let pass be now erroneous call by  the name of quare hinder this error have prevail in judicial writ and act of  parliament but never yet in writ of error however it be become now a legal  name the writ of error ought not to be disallow for use of it as to the  objection to the return of the writ of error it seem to be wrong capital  justice without his name or Richard Cox infra nominal have be well however  since several writ of error from Ireland have be return in the very same  manner this ought to be allow as to the objection about plead the vacancy it  ought to have be plead as brother Salkeld will have have it but the vacancy be  admit by their plead a presentment under it Adjournatur