case draw and other against Barksdale mich term will mary roll to a to know  facias on a judgement in debt the defendant plead payment at Exeter and on  issue on non to loosen at Exeter a trial be have in London this misprision of  the venue be aid after verdict for the plaintiff by the car c say queen if a  judgement give in the common plea be affirm upon a writ of error in the king  bench the court may award a certiorari to remove the recognizance of the bail  and then a to know facias lie against the bail out of the king bench SC comb  to know facias direct to the sheriff of Middlesex our accipient in record et  process c manifest error to have intervene and therefore the record we have  cause to come before we in person we jam resident and that John Barksdale may  year good luck come before sir Henry pollexfen chief justice of the common  plea at his chamber in the Inner temple London and there enter into a  recognizance for the due prosecution of the writ of error with effect and to  pay the condemnation if affirm prout per record recognize breed in curian our  men in person we jam resident similiter constat and that the judgement be  affirm and the damage not pay therefore scir fac c the defendant plead that  the defendant palmer pay the money at Exeter where the first action and trial  be have the plaintiff reply quod non to loosen modus et form et hoc petit quod  to seek after per native land c the plaintiff take out a venire facias to  saint clement Dane and a trial be have thereon and a verdict for the plaintiff  shower KB I move in arrest of judgement first because the trial be not in the  proper county but per totan curian preter holt chief justice that that be help  by the car c though the county be wrong and though in a to know facias then I  urge that first non constat how this record come hither or that it can be  remove hither for it be a recognizance before the c I pollexfen and usual and  original suable there nay can be sue no other where by to know facias for that  must be out of the court where the record be and that be in the common plea  debt and to know facias be entire different the one be a new original the  other only a judicial process this recognizance can be remove by virtue of the  writ of error though that be to remove the record cum omnibus she tangent for  this be a distinct record a writ of error may be bring and no such  recognizance at all for if I will not have a supersedeas or need not because  execution be execute there be no recognizance it be give by a particular law  for a particular reason and purpose and therefore collateral and distinct  suppose the writ of error be misdirect or a shower KB er p variance between  the speech of the writ and the record so that the record be not remove this  can be remove but suppose they have sue a certiorari on purpose to remove this  recognizance that must needs be useless for this court have nothing to do with  it then the remove it hither to sue it here be to alter the law for it prevent  the bail of that appeal which they will have by writ of error here if sue  below the authority of Fitzherbert n b be only general that a certiorari lie  and the instance there mention be only to oyer and terminer and session sure  it will not be pretend that a certiorari and to know facias here may be upon  any other recognizance in that court and by the same reason this be all other  be removable by the same mean now James c which enjoin this recognizance order  it to be take there and consequent suable there if bail be put in the common  plea in a original action and a writ of error bring it do not remove the  record of the bail be no part of the judgement roll there be not one precedent  in all the print book of any such certiorari grant or ever sue if a writ of  error be bring on a judgement in a inferior court and bail not certify nor  diminution allege and the judgement be remove you can remove the bail below by  certiorari for this court will not execute their judgement sand shower KB the  court after deliberation and search into precedent have account of seven or  eight in all the first thirty year since but none on debate however they rule  it good for this reason as I suppose because enlarge jurisdiction and it be no  prejudice to the suitor but rather a advantage because no writ of error lie  from hence upon such to know facias but in parliament