case andrews against the lord cromwell Trinity term Elizabeth roll if a assize  he summon before justice of assize and they be remove and the chief justice of  the Cominon plea and another be appoint justice of assize in the same county  and the assize take before they be adjourn for difficulty into c b where  judgement be give for the plaintiff and a writ of error be bring in b r direct  to the same chief justice of c b before who the assize pass recite the assize  summon before the justice of assize by name et after a while captan before the  chief justice of c b but do not recite how the assize come into the common  plea the writ of error be not good yely Noy cro James   b in a assize against  several and one only appear and judgement against he he can per see bring  error without summons and severance ante error to reverse a judgement give in  the common plea in a assize against Andrews and nineteen other the writ be  bring by all of they returnable Hilary term Elizabeth which record be then  return but nothing do therein in the say term quindena pasch Elizabeth Lord  Cromwell sue a to know facias quare performance hahere non dehet returnable  five pascha at which day Andrews appear and the other exact non to come in  that term nothing more be do against Andrews and the rest but a rule in court  be give to Andrews to assign his error the four day of the next term at which  day Andrews only assign diverse error in the record Lord Cromwell plead in  nullo be erralum and now upon read the record coke the queen attorney move  that they shall not proceed to the examination of error because the writ of  error be not good for it be direct to the chief justice of the common plea and  suppose that the assize be summon before such and take before such c et record  in person thou to sit back therefore thou prcecipintus qubd sijudicium To give  back sit quod tunc c and the writ mention not how this record come into the  common plea videlicet by adjournment pro diffieultale as a precedent be show  in Elizabeth where the writ make mention quod in person thou venire  fecimuspropter difficulty or how it be send thither for it be say that a  record may he there by adjournment before judgement or remove by a mittimus  before judgement or by a certiorari after judgement for for the safety of the  record it be remove oftentimes to remain in the Treasur that and the writ  ought to mention how it come in and so be the writ in the register de think  over mitlend and in Fitzherherts naturan narrow places and because this writ  do not make any such mention all the justice except Fenner resolve that the  writ be not gold and it shall abate and although in Edward dyer where a  judgement be in a quare hinder before the justice of nisi prius by the statute  of Westminster and error thereof be croak Elizabeth bring exception be take  because he do not show in the writ where the judgement be and yet hold to be  good for there the record hegan and remain in the common plea and where the  judgement be be not material but in this case the record be not at first in  the common plea and therefore he ought to show how it come thither but all the  cursitors of the chancery say that the writ in the register and Fitzherherts  naturan narrow places be where the record come into the common plea by writ  but when it come thither by delivery to the hand of the croak Elizabeth er p  chief justice of the common plea as here they have not any such Writ Popham  gawdy and Yelverton say that forasmuch as the express precedent in  Fitzherherts naturan narrow places be that this writ lie where the record be  bring in the common plea for difficulty and no precedent can he show that any  other writ have be ever allow in any other manner they hold that this be not  now Allowable gawdy say when the record hegins in one place and be finish in  another there of necessity in a writ of error the proceedingi in both place  ought to he mention and Andrews show precedent easter term ifen roll and  easter Henry roll that the writ there be in such case as they be here but the  precedent be view be direct to the contrary wherefore they hold in regard the  precedent be so and none to the contrary that this writ varving from they be  not good nor Allowable but Fenner conceive that forasniu h S this writ be but  a commission to examine the error although it be not he e so formal as it  ought to he yet have substance it be well enough and the defendant have admit  it by plead in nullo be erratum thereto he may not now take advantage thereof  but all the other justice hold that the writ not be good they ex duty ought to  abate it second they hold that this assignment of error by Andrews only per  see without sue a summons and severance of the other be as nul and void and  therefore although the writ be good yet they will award execution for the writ  of to know facias quare performance hahere non dehet be as a spur to cause the  plaintiff to assign their error and when it be return to know to make and  nothing do thereupon for this assignment of error by himself only be as if  nothing have be do execution shall therefore he award u and although there be  now a year pass after the return and at this time no judgement that there  shall he execution nor that any continuance be enter yet it be not material  for there never shall need any other to know facias to he award but execution  shall he take when there be a apparent default in the plaintiff that he will  not assign his error wherefore the writ be abate and execution award see Geo c