Andrews the king against bell motion for a attachment can be ground on a  quaker affirmation unless by consent a action on a bylaw have be bring by the  bailiff of Scarborough and other against redhead and other in which the  plaintiff be nonsuit a attachment be grant against the plaintiff one of who be  bell for payment of the cost whereupon one Stephenson on the part of the  plaintiff tender the cost to Minsbull one of the defendant who accept the same  accord and a attachment be now pray against he for abuse the process of the  court by take a unreasonable sum for cost and a affirmation of Stephenson a  Quaker be now offer in support of the motion but solicitor general strange  object hereto that this be a criminal case especial as the cause in which this  motion be make be entitle the king and bell and not the bailiff of S and  redhead and other and consequent this affirmation be no evidence by the  statute of W c S on the other side it be argue by sir Thomas Abney and  sergeant agar that the affirmation ought to be receive because the original  suit be a civil one and consequent the present case be not to be consider as  of a criminal nature and they cite Powell and ware east g where a attachment  be pray against one for nonperformance of a award and the affirmation of a  Quaker in support of the motion be allow and the court there say that until a  attachment be grant there be no criminal suit in court but that on a motion  for a information a affirmation be never allow and in that case the king and  Wych a stram a be cite which as Abney say who be counsel therein be a  information against a attorney for malepractice and a affirmation on the side  of the prosecutor be refuse the late case of the Andrews king and Shacklington  king and Shacklington hill g motion for a information against defendant a  Quaker for refuse to act as sheriff of York he have be elect into that office  against which his own affirmation be offer to be read but oppose and on this  side be cite beside the king and Wych and Laurence hill in g where a  affirmation of a Quaker in support of a motion for answer the matter of a  affidavit be refuse but in the principal case Lord Hardwicke incline to think  that the affirmation may be read this be only to induce the discretion of the  court and therefore be not strict give evidence nor be this proper a cause a  and of Jones and Hudson Hudson and Jones mich g upon motion for a attachment  against Owen and chamberlain the defendant bail below for put themselves in as  bail above without the knowledge of the defendant the affirmation of Owen one  of the bail who be a Quaker be offer to be read and oppose but Lord Hardwicke  strong incline to the read it especial as this be on the civil side and he say  there be as much reason for do this now as the examine he after a attachment  on interrogatory he also propose instead of a rule for a attachment a rule for  answer the matter of the affidavit in which case he say it be clear the  affirmation may be read but the party consent to waive his affirmation rest  the matter on the affidavit a be also mention where this point come in  question but be not determine the matter be comprise in both those case in the  principal case the court say that it make no difference whether the original  suit be a civil or a criminal one but it must be consider as it now stand on  the present motion for a attachment and this be a criminal prosecution but the  question be a very material one and the counsel on both side unprepared to  argue it the defendant counsel for expedition sake consent to the read of the  affirmation S p Hilton v Byron salk robin Sayward stram Elwood Elwood prac Reg  c b king bridge say and see say atk and especial Atcheson Everett Cowp v Kely  Andrews er p