Bulstrode sir thomas mead plaintiff against sir george reenel defendant trial  for the forfeiture of a office note that in a trial at the bar prosecute by  sir Thomas mead against sir George ReyDel marshal de b r for the forfeiture of  his office by his negligent suffer of one sir James Creiton there in execution  for to escape the only question and issue between they be whether there be any  escape or not whether sir James Creiton do remain still in his custody in  execution or not the case appear to be this the number of prisoner increase  and be want room for they in the prison of the Marshalsea he cause a new  building to be erect and the same adjoin to the prison and within the compass  and precinct of the same and thither he remove sir James Creiton and keep he  there be in execution the question be whether this be a escape in law or not  in regard that this new erect building be no part of the ancient prison this  matter be prosecute against he by sir Thomas mead who have a grant of this  office and note that the matter of misdemeanour be Bulstrode er p examine in  the chancery and afterward the same direct to be try here in this court of  which manner of proceed the court do very much dislike he be their officer  dodderidge justice in h fol the manner there express of proceed against the  marshal upon a suppose forfeiture of his office by reason of a escape this  appear there at large and Jerry well debate in the duke of Norfolk case for  the remove of John Brandon his marshal and there by the opinion of all the  judge a negligent escape by a marshal be no cause of forfeiture of his office  there it be hold that this be but a matter fineable in manner as the court  shall think fit to impose the same but otherwise it be of a voluntary escape  and for such a escape he be to lose his office as there appear fol b I appe rs  also by a record in the time of king e and also by other record of Iatter time  that the misdemeanour in case of escape by the officer of this court ought  here to be examine by this court and notwithstanding all which have be say to  the jury we will our self examine this cause before any judgement shall be  herein give by we Fleming chief justice we have not be well deal withal by the  prosecutor of this cause for that the examination of all abuse of nonusers  misusers and other misdemeanour in our office rs belong most proper unto this  court to be here examine by we and we be to judge of the sufficiency or  nonsufficiency of our officer here and no other court be to intermeddle with  they in such a manner as in this case have be do and against this which I have  now say there be no precedent nor yet any book to be show but on the contrary  all the precedent and book of law do confirm this which I have now say that  such examination in such case as this belong only and most proper to the  jurisdiction of this court for to examine determine and to adjudge thereof and  to no other court whatsoever and we be all of we clear and unanimous agree in  this to maintain and always to preserve and uphold the power dignity and  jurisdiction of this court in we and only to we if good precedent can be show  to we that the contrary have be use dodderidge justice it appear plain and  full that by the book of h fol as before remember that it belong only unto  this court to examine the nonusers and abuse in our officer and accord unto  this I have see a express precedent in a record of it in the time of king e  and I have also see other express precedent of late time Bulstrode to this  purpose notam that in this case all the matter of misdemeanour be at large  examine in the chancery and upon the issue there agree on a trial appoint to  he have here at the bar upon the same issue the whole court agree in this that  all this which be so do there be only so there do ad our to shape and not in  any other manner to foreclose and to foreclude we of that jurisdiction and  prerogative which proper belong to we as judge of this court as to have the  examination of our peculiar officer in all matter and more principal in such  matter as do trench to make a forfeiture of their office the same be so penal  unto they notam that in this case the jury have receive their charge and  direction from the court by open and explain of the evidence unto they they  give in their verdict to the court and find sir George reenel not guilty of  any escape for to cause a forfeiture of his office which verdict be receive by  the court and so the same by the rule and direction of the court be enter  accord Bulstrode boundary pasch James b r