case wither against henley Hilary term James roll false imprisonment lie  against a sheriff if he detain a prisoner on mesne process after a discharge  by the plaintiff or a supersedeas by the court for every detainer be a new  imprisonment ante Inst roll Rep more roll ab Bulst f n b vent dalt Sh Bac ab  salk Bl Rep dougl to Rep to trespass of false imprisonment if the defendant  justify by virtue of a latitat the plaintiff may reply that the party sue out  that writ command the sheriff to discharge he trespass for that on the that  April James the defendant take and imprison he and detain he there for the  space of a month the defendant justify because a writ out of the exchequer  issue to take the plaintiff and his land until he satisfy the king c and that  such a sheriff of somersetshire take the plaintiff in execution and that by  virtue of a latitat at the suit of one Robert brown he take the plaintiff et  in exit ab duty leave he in prison to Robert Henley be sheriff his successor c  which be the same imprisonment the plaintiff reply as to the execution out of  the exchequer and there be a supersedeas out of the same court deliver to the  defendant quod the dawn to weigh well si she de causan et non alian to be  imprisonatus that as to his detainment upon the latitat he plead that the say  Robert brown the plaintiff in the say suit command the sheriff to discharge he  of his action before that his imprisonment and make to the sheriff a release  of that suit and yet notwithstanding the defendant detain he upon this  replication the defendant demurrer first because it now appear by the  plaintiff own show that he be once lawful imprison and although a supersedeas  come after admit it be to be allow by the sheriff yet it can make the caption  unlawful but the detention only and it be also move that the sheriff although  he have a supersedeas yet he be not bind under pain of false imprisonment to  allow thereof but he may return the writ and the prisoner with the supersedeas  and the court may discharge he and therefore there be difference where the  arrest be before the supersedeas deliver and where after for in the last case  the arrest be unlawful but not in the first vide Henry pl Henry pl Edward pl  but all the court hold that the supersedeas be as good cause to discharge he  as the first process be to arrest he and he ought to obey it at his peril and  in regard he have not do it he be Chargeable with false imprisonment and that  the detain he in prison be a new caption and he may well declare of caption  and imprisonment croak throw second it be object that the sheriff be not bind  to obey the plaintiff discharge upon the latitat for although a sheriff upon a  plaintiff command may let a prisoner out of execution as Henry pl and Edward  bar be yet he be not bind to do it for he peradventure do not know whether he  be the same party who make the discharge and bring the writ and it will be  mischievous unto he to enforce he to take knowledge thereof for if he be not  the same person who make the discharge he may be charge in debt or in a action  of the case upon a escape but all the court hold that the replication be well  enough for as well as the sheriff may take knowledge of the party to arrest he  at his suit so he be to take knowledge of the party to accept his discharge  and although in this case the arrest be before his time videlicet in the time  of the former sheriff yet in the law intention it be all one and he be bind to  take conusance of the plaintiff as well in the one case as in the other  Doderidge say if the case have be that he have not alley conusance of the  plaintiff and therefore refuse to discharge the prisoner he ought to have  plead it but now have demurrer upon the replication he do confess that the  plaintiff ill the first action do make the discharge wherefore upon the first  argument at the bar it be adjudge for the plaintiff croak James er p