castle Vid vers Bambridge et Corbet motion in chancery to supersede a writ of  appeal which run because n to make c instead of si n to make our c refuse hold  in b r to be a good ground for supersedeas but motion deny there as not be in  their power if a carry his prisoner b against his will to a house where he  know the small pox be and that b have not ad it or detain he there when he  desire to be remove and b catch it and die thereby it be murder fitzg barn b r  SC Mosl SC in canc upon the application to supersede the writ the defendant  Bambridge have be prosecute on the report of the committee of the house of  Commons for the murder of the plaintiff husband who be a prisoner in the fleet  under the custody of Bambridge the warden and have on the strange report er p  trial be honourable acquit upon the prosecutor own evidence be follow with a  appeal to which Corbet who on the cross examination appear to be a material  witness for Bambridge be now also make a appellee and the writ of appeal run  because maria castle an unmarried woman fecit to make see the other report and  Str page line from foot secur de warcry his to follow per Thom wagstaffe et  Poston stracy contrary to the usual form which be si the appellant to make our  I e the king secur application be make to the Lord chancellor king to  supersede this writ upon affidavit that the appellees be both in custody upon  it but that no security have be give and the writ recite it as a act do before  the emanation of it the sheriff have not take any as he will have do if it  have be put by way of condition si to make and it be argue by I that the  statute Westminster c give the appellee a remedy against the appellant her  pledge and abettor it be not a matter of form but security shall be enter into  by person of ability to which it be answer by Mr attorneygeneral that it be  sufficient if there be pledge at any time before judgement si t Jones   dr  Hussey case cro James to this it be reply that at that rate the appellee will  never have any remedy against the pledge for if he be convict he will be  entitle to none and if he be acquit the appellant will never pray judgement  and it will be a artifice to elude the law notwithstanding all which the  chancellor will do nothing in it but say if the because to make thou be wrong  we may have advantage of it and so refuse to make any order upon the first day  of Michaelmas term last the writ be return and the appellees both bring up by  habeas corpus and turn over to the king bench it be there move to have strange  the proceed set aside upon the same affidavit of there be no pledge and the  court here be of opinion it be a very good objection and a foundation to  supersede the writ but then they say it be not in their power who be to take  the writ as they find it and not hear affidavit to contradict the suggestion  of the writ and therefore the have security be recite as a act do they must  take it to be so and can not relieve upon this the appeal be arraign set forth  that the appellant husband be a prisoner in the fleet under the custody of  Bambridge the warden who make a assault upon he and contrary to his will carry  he to the house of Corbet a victuallinghouse within the fleet and there  imprison he where one white then lie in of the small pox which castle have  never have that the appellees have notice of this and be desire to suffer he  to remove to another place in the prison which they refuse and afterward  castle fall in of that distemper and die in corbet house whereby the count  conclude the appellees be guilty of his murder without stay for a copy of the  declaration the appellees instanter plead not guilty and their plea be  rehearse in French and issue join then it be move that the appellees may be  bail and upon debate the court be of opinion to bail Bambridge and not Corbet  and the reason they give be that Bambridge have be acquit which be a strong  presumption of innocence and the judge before who he be try have certify that  he be very well satisfy with the verdict and they say they will bail in all  case after a acquittal on the indictment unless the judge be dissatisfy with  the acquittal and that be the reason they deny to bail in Slaughterfords case  because holt chief justice have send out the jury again to consider whether  they will stand to their verdict of acquittal and when they insist upon it he  himself order the appeal but as to Corbet there be no foundation to bail for  they deny that it be of course to bail in a appeal so Bambridge be bail by two  person corpus pro corpore who justify in l each and it be agree that in a  appeal by writ on the civil side two bail only be require but ha it come on  the crown side by certiorari there must have be four then it be move to fix a  time for the trial the appellees offer to take short notice but it be by  original there strange be a necessity to have fifteen day between the testae  and the return of the distringa and they can not be try on the venire because  be in London there can be no trial at bar the citizen not be to be bring out  of the city and as it must be try at nisi prius there must be a distringa  strange report er p towards the latter end of the term it be move that the  appellees may be discharge there be a discontinuance for that no venire have  be take out and in appeal which be a recent prosecution every delay be a  discontinuance and cro James Yelv be cite but upon consideration the court  hold that it be not necessary to take out the writ and make it returnable the  soon it may be though it must hear testae the day that issue be join and then  the appellant take out a venire testae October and returnable November which  the court look upon as a affect delay and therefore admit the other appellee  Corbet to bail they say it appear be may have be try the sit after the term  and then upon his acquittal he must have be instanter discharge by the judge  of nisi prius accord to the statute h c post a both be thus out upon bail  appear on the several continuance day accord to their recognizance and the  appellant also appear and the beginning of this term the appellees move for a  rule on Mr tanner the officer who keep the record at the old Bailey to attend  the trial with the record of Bambridges acquittal he not be allow a copy of it  but the court refuse to make any rule and say if it be bring it can be no  evidence upon the that of January the trial come on at guildhall before the  chief justice and in the course of the evidence the appellant counsel call a  Quaker and insist that this be a civil suit in which he may be a witness but  the chief justice say it be to this purpose a criminal proceed and therefore  he can not be a witness vide Acheson v Everitt Cowp king v Wych post after a  long examination the chief justice direct the jury that if they believe castle  be carry to corbet against his consent and be there so detain that Bambridge  and Corbet know the small pox be there that castle have not have it but fear  it and desire to be remove or not be carry there at all that he catch the  small pox of white and die thereof then the appollees will be guilty of murder  king v Huggins post Fost Cr law but if any one of these fact be not prove to  the satisfaction of the jury they ought to be acquit and there be no pretence  to charge either of the appellees the jury bring they in not guilty strange  and the chief justice be move to proceed against the appellant who be in court  upon the statute west c say he be only to try the issue and that the  application be proper above or by writ of conspiracy and all he can do be to  record the verdict upon Feb follow the appellees appear in court and have give  a rule upon the postea which they then produce and no body appear to say any  thing against they they be discharge see a case circumstantial describe the  form of proceed in a appeal Bigby v Kennedy burr black Rep S c strange pro  appellee