case Higginson vers SHEIF a officer be Chargeable for a escape of a person  where the action arise out of the jurisdiction of the court by who process he  be take I will Carth Com dig Com dig infra p this be a action on the case for  the escape of one wall take by the defendant bailiff of the liberty of the  temporal court of the archbishop of Canterbury by virtue of a precept issue  out of the say court upon a plaint there exhibit id debt for the plaintiff  against the say wall for debt which be allege to be within the jurisdiction of  the say court and the plaintiff declare that the say wall be indebt to the say  Roger Higginson in in the parish of saint Dunstan within the jurisdiction of  the court aforesaid and be so indebt the plaintiff exhibit his plaint in the  aforesaid court of record of the archbishop and that upon the plaint aforesaid  a certain precept issue direct to the bailiff of the liberty aforesaid  returnable the that of April annae and be deliver to the say defendant on the  that of April annae to be execute in due form of law by virtue of which  precept the defendant afterward videlicet on the say that day of April in the  parish of saint Dunstan aforesaid arrest and afterward to wit oh the that of  April suffer he to go at large per quod be lose his debt the defendant  protestand that the say John wall be not indebt to the plaintiff within the  jurisdiction aforesaid nor that he do arrest the say John wall for plea say  that the cause of action upon which the plaint be exhibit do arise in London  and not within the jurisdiction aforesaid of which the say defendant afterward  comens and before the return of the say precept videlicet on the that of April  in the parish of saint Dunstan aforesaid have notice to which the plaintiff  demurrer and the defendant join in demurrer and it be argue by sergeant hall  for the plaintiff and by I for the defendant and I do insist that the  plaintiff by his demurrer here confess that the cause of action arise out of  the jurisdiction of the court and that the defendant have notice of it before  the return of the writ and then though a action upon the case do not lie  against the judge officer or plaintiff in a inferior court when the cause of  action arise out of the jurisdiction of the inferior court as be resolve in  Lut in the case of gwynne for pool all yet there it be agree that if the judge  or officer have or may reasonable have cognizance that the cause of action  arise out of the jurisdiction and they afterward proceed action on the case  will lie against they by great Charta nullus to take in hand nullus  imprisonetur nisi per law terrae but by law none ought to be arrest on the  plaint of another for debt covenant or trespass in inferior court where the  cause of action arise out of the jurisdiction by the statute of W c great man  and their bailiff shall not on the plaint of another attach any one pass  through their jurisdiction for contract covenant or trespass which do not  arise in their power and jurisdiction and for so do shall pay double damage  which statute as to the thing prohibit be but a affirmance of the commonlaw  though as to the remedy it be introductive of a new law comens er p if then  the arrest be illegal the not detain he shall not be penal it be true that  upon this statute the remedy shall be by prohibition before the suit commence  or by prohibition after the suit commence and such prohibition after the suit  commence shall not be grant but after plea to the jurisdiction tender upon  oath before imparlance for if the defendant in his plea or by imparlance admit  the jurisdiction of the court there be no reason that he afterward upon a bare  suggestion shall oust the court of the jurisdiction which he have admit so if  he come before plea upon comens a bare surmise to oust the inferior court of  the jurisdiction there be no reason that a judge of a superior court shall  grant a prohibition upon the bare surmise of the defendant that the cause of  action arise out of the jurisdiction as this be deny by the suggestion of the  plaintiff in his declaration that it be within the jurisdiction of the court  and therefore the case which say that a prohibition will not lie upon such a  bare surmise of the defendant do not prove that the officer may not by such  bare information take notice of this without be subject to a action for a  escape if a action for false imprisonment be bring against a officer for a  arrest upon a precept out of a inferior court when the cause of action arise  out of its jurisdiction this perhaps will not lie and so it be resolve in the  case between olliet and Bessi Jon Skinn SC raym SC Lutw Mod Com dig a but it  do not follow that a action will lie for not arrest or for a escape after the  arrest and so seem Jones where it be say that it be agree by the court that if  a man be arrest tortiously and afterward deliver to the gaoler and be  afterward be inform of the tortuous take without any fraud in the case he  ought nevertheless to detain the prisoner deliver to he on the arrest though  the execution of it be illegal for if such information be false and he let we  the prisoner go he be liable to be sue for a escape but this strong import  that if the information have be true no action for a escape will lie and if a  man may justify the detainer it do not follow that he shall be subject to a  action for a escape if he do not detain the person if a new sheriff have  notice by parole of a prisoner be in execution he may detain he but if he do  not accept such notice without indenture of the old sheriff and permit the  prisoner to go at large he shall not be subject to a action for a escape   a  more S c cro Elizabeth S c Poph S c roll Abr Bac Abr a if a man be take in  execution after the writ of capias award and before it be deliver to the  sheriff the sheriff may detain he but if be do not be shall not be liable for  the escape roll but per cur judgement must be give for the plaintiff for  comens as the officer may justify the detainer if he do not detain he he shall  be liable for the escape for he ought not to take upon himself to judge or  examine this matter and per Tracy the notice here be not well plead for he  ought to have say that he have notice before the escape and it be not  sufficient to say that he have notice before the return of the writ and a case  be cite by sergeant Richardson to have be resolve in the king bench between  Lucking and Benning annae where in a action for a escape against a sergeant of  the counter upon not guilty plead it be give in evidence for the defendant  that the cause of action arise out of the jurisdiction of the court and that  the defendant have notice of it and this matter be find special judgement be  give for the plaintiff for the officer shall not take upon himself to examine  that matter salk holt S c b and in the present case judgement be give for the  plaintiff without further argument Freem S c c vide Mod Rep where the contrary  be resolve by three judge keb where the inferior jurisdiction be confine to  place videlicet to all contract arise within such a district though the  contract arise out of the district yet the court may award process and the  officer may execute it unless it appear to he that it arise extra jurisdiction  and that be the case roll but he be not bind to inquire either whether there  be a cause of action or where it arise and may proceedn his duty unless the  contrary appear to he salk the case of squibb v hold Mod above refer to fall  within this rule and the case in roll Abr be cite as a authority in point  comens er p